---

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

            Wednesday, November 2, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 217

                             Headlines

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Settles Class Action Over AMAG Merger
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend Smoking & Health Class Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Unit Paid $70 Million Share in Scott Class Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend Two Medical Monitoring Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 19 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases

ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend "Smith" Suit in Kansas
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in "Brown" Suit Set for Sept. 14, 2012
ALTRIA GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Kraft Thrift Plan Cases
APPLE INC: Court Denies Motion to Stay Discovery in Antitrust Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Judge Allows Arbitration for Overbilling Suit

CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action in N.Y.
CMS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Gas Index Price Reporting Suits
COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Piechur" Suit in Illinois
COINSTAR INC: Securities Suit Trial Date Set for Sept. 9, 2013
COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Ill.

COINSTAR INC: Briefing on Class Certification for 2 Suits Ongoing
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit
DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Liberty Legal Foundation Files Class Action
DPL INC: Continues to Defend AES Merger-Related Class Suits
EQUIFAX INC: Appeal From Settlement of Consolidated Suits Pending

FACEBOOK INC: Judge Tosses "Friend Finder" Class Action
GOODRICH CORP: Faces Consolidated Class Suit Over UTC Merger
HARRIS CORPORATION: Obtains Dismissal of HSTX Securities Suit
HTC AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over AccuWeather Application
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Continues to Defend New York Shareholder Lawsuit

MAGNUM D'OR RESOURCES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
MEAD JOHNSON: Final OK of Enfamil Suit Settlement Expected Nov. 11
MERCK: Faces Class Action Over Gardasil Cancer Vaccine
MICHAEL V. LOMBARDI: Faces Human Trafficking Class Action
MILLER ENERGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action

MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Google Merger-Related Suits Get Consolidated
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: High Ct. Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Supreme Court Denies Petition for Certiorari
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: April 9 Trial Date Set in Securities Suit
NATIONAL MILK: Sued for Manipulating Supply of Raw Farm Milk

RESEARCH IN MOTION: Consumer Law Group Files Class Action
TRILEGIANT: Faces Class Action Over "Discount Membership" Scams
UNITED STATES MARITIME: Sued Over Vessels of Opportunity Program
UNITIL CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Massachusetts
U.S. BANK NAT'L: Washington County Files Class Action

VIEWPOINT FINANCIAL: Settles FLSA Class Suit for $350,000
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Gender Bias Class Action in Texas
YELP! INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Advertising Extortion

* Taiwanese Consumer Group to File Class Action Over Food Scare




                          *********

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Settles Class Action Over AMAG Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics, Inc. on Oct. 29 disclosed that the Company and
other named defendants have entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the
putative class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery in connection with its proposed merger with AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

As previously announced, on July 19, 2011, Allos entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization with AMAG and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Alamo Acquisition Sub, Inc.  Under the
terms of the MOU, Allos will file a Current Report on Form 8-K
amending and supplementing certain disclosure in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by Allos in connection with the merger.
The MOU reflects the parties' agreement to resolve the allegations
by the settling plaintiffs against Allos and other defendants in
connection with the Merger Agreement and provides a release and
settlement by the purported class of Allos' stockholders of all
claims against Allos and other defendants and their affiliates and
agents in connection with the Merger Agreement.  The MOU and
settlement are contingent upon, among other things, approval of
the Delaware Court of Chancery, the closing of the merger and
further definitive documentation.

Allos and the other named defendants continue to believe that each
of the lawsuits filed in connection with its proposed merger with
AMAG are without merit and that they have valid defenses to all
claims made by the applicable plaintiffs.

                     About Allos Therapeutics

Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALTH) -- http://www.allos.com--
is a biopharmaceutical company committed to the development and
commercialization of innovative anti-cancer therapeutics.  Allos
is currently focused on the development and commercialization of
FOLOTYN(R) (pralatrexate injection), a folate analogue metabolic
inhibitor.  FOLOTYN is approved in the U.S. for the treatment of
patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend Smoking & Health Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving Altria Group, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc., in Arkansas (1), California
(1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa
(1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1),
Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio
(1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South
Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

Altria Group, Inc., and Philip Morris USA Inc., are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in six
actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova
Scotia, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. In Saskatchewan and
British Columbia, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 27,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


ALTRIA GROUP: Unit Paid $70 Million Share in Scott Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc., paid on
August 1, 2011, its share of the judgment in an amount of
approximately $70 million in the Scott Class Action, according to
the Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the Scott
class action, in which plaintiffs sought creation of a fund to pay
for medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, a Louisiana
jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, including Altria
Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc., in connection
with plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, but also found that
plaintiffs could benefit from smoking cessation assistance. The
jury also found that cigarettes as designed are not defective but
that the defendants failed to disclose all they knew about smoking
and diseases and marketed their products to minors. In May 2004,
in the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs
approximately $590 million against all defendants jointly and
severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program. Defendants
appealed.

In April 2010, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued
a decision that affirmed in part prior decisions ordering the
defendants to fund a statewide 10-year smoking cessation program.
After conducting its own independent review of the record, the
Court of Appeal made its own factual findings with respect to
liability and the amount owed, lowering the amount of the judgment
to approximately $241 million, plus interest commencing July 21,
2008, the date of entry of the amended judgment. In addition, the
Court of Appeal declined plaintiffs' cross appeal requests for a
medical monitoring program and reinstatement of other components
of the smoking cessation program. The Court of Appeal specifically
reserved to the defendants the right to assert claims to any
unspent or unused surplus funds at the termination of the smoking
cessation program. In June 2010, defendants and plaintiffs filed
separate writ of certiorari applications with the Louisiana
Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied both sides'
applications. In September 2010, upon defendants' application, the
United States Supreme Court granted a stay of the judgment pending
the defendants' filing and the Court's disposition of the
defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari. In June 2011, the
United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition.
On August 1, 2011, PM USA paid its share of the judgment in an
amount of approximately $70 million. The defendants' payments have
been deposited into a court-supervised fund that is intended to
pay for smoking cessation programs. Plaintiffs' counsel has
advised that they will ask the court to award them attorneys' fees
and costs.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend Two Medical Monitoring Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two more purported medical monitoring class actions are pending
against Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc.,
according to the Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

These two cases were brought in New York (Caronia, filed in
January 2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York) and Massachusetts (Donovan, filed in
December 2006 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts) on behalf of each state's respective residents
who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20
pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung
cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected
lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability
under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a
court-supervised program providing members of the purported class
Low Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung
cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages. A
case brought in California (Xavier) was dismissed in July 2011,
and a case brought in Florida (Gargano) was voluntarily dismissed
with prejudice on August 10, 2011.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the district court granted in part
PM USA's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical
monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM
USA's summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs' implied warranty
claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical
monitoring claim. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and PM USA moved to dismiss the implied warranty and
medical monitoring claims. In January 2011, the district court
granted PM USA's motion, dismissed plaintiffs' claims and declared
plaintiffs' motion for class certification moot in light of the
dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs have appealed that decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate
review of the class certification decision. The petition was
denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a
28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of
$190 million. In April 2011, plaintiffs moved to amend their class
certification to extend the cut-off date for individuals to
satisfy the class membership criteria from December 14, 2006 to
August 1, 2011. The district court granted this motion in May
2011. Trial has been postponed. In June 2011, plaintiffs filed
various motions for summary judgment and to strike affirmative
defenses.

Evolving medical standards and practices could have an impact on
the defense of medical monitoring claims. For example, the first
publication of the findings of the National Cancer Institute's
National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in June 2011 reported a 20%
reduction in lung cancer deaths among certain long term smokers
receiving Low Dose CT Scanning for lung cancer. Since then,
various public health organizations have begun to develop new lung
cancer screening guidelines. Also, a number of hospitals have
advertised the availability of screening programs.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 19 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., and its subsidiaries continue to defend 19
cases, 18 in the United States and one in Israel, that allege that
the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, according to the Company's
October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or RICO
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class
actions have been brought against Philip Morris USA Inc., and, in
certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on
behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the
statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and implied
preemption by the policies and directives of the FTC, non-
liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that
complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First
Amendment. As of October 24, 2011, a total of eighteen such cases
were pending in the United States. Four of these cases were
pending in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in a single U.S.
federal court. The other cases were pending in various U.S. state
courts. In addition, a purported "Lights" class action is pending
against PM USA in Israel. Other entities have stated that they are
considering filing such actions against Altria Group, Inc. and PM
USA.

In the one "Lights" case pending in Israel, hearings on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification were held in November
and December 2008. An additional hearing on class certification is
scheduled for November 2011.

                         The Good Case

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the FCLAA and dismissed the case. In August 2007, the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district
court's grant of PM USA's motion for summary judgment on federal
preemption grounds and remanded the case to district court. The
district court stayed the case pending the United States Supreme
Court's ruling on defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court, which was granted in January
2008. The case was stayed pending the United States Supreme
Court's decision. In December 2008, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred by federal
preemption. Although the Court rejected the argument that the
FTC's actions were so extensive with respect to the descriptors
that the state law claims were barred as a matter of federal law,
the Court's decision was limited: it did not address the ultimate
merits of plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the action as a
class action, or other state law issues. The case was returned to
the federal court in Maine and consolidated with other federal
cases in the multidistrict litigation proceeding. In June 2011,
the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice
after the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

                Federal Multidistrict Proceeding

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through October 24, 2011, twenty-four purported "Lights"
class actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases,
Altria Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 14 states, the U.S.
Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases
either were filed in federal court or were removed to federal
court by PM USA.

A number of purported "Lights" class actions were transferred and
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPMDL") before the United States District Court for the District
of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL proceeding"). These cases,
and the states in which each originated, included: Biundo
(Illinois), Calistro (U.S. Virgin Islands), Corse (Tennessee),
Domaingue (New York), Good (Maine), Haubrich (Pennsylvania),
McClure (Tennessee), Mirick (Mississippi), Mulford (New Mexico),
Parsons (District of Columbia), Phillips (Ohio), Slater (District
of Columbia), Tang (New York), Tyrer (California), Williams
(Arkansas) and Wyatt (Wisconsin).

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this
decision but, in February 2011, the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to
appeal. In June 2011, plaintiffs in twelve cases voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice their cases, and on August 8, 2011,
plaintiff in McClure voluntarily dismissed the case without
prejudice. Plaintiffs in the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang,
Wyatt and Cabbat) have requested the transfer of their cases back
to the courts in which the suits originated.

                    "Lights" Cases Dismissed,
             Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified

To date, in addition to the district court in the MDL proceeding,
15 courts in 16 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class
actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM
USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Oregon, Tennessee and Washington have refused to grant class
certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action
allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan
after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under
the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois
has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified
class in the Price case.  In Louisiana, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class
action brought in Louisiana federal court (Sullivan) on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In
New York, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court in Schwab
that denied defendants' summary judgment motions and granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all
United States residents that purchased cigarettes in the United
States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010,
plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with
prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009.
The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory
review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought
review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a
class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies
case with prejudice.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class. In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory
exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's
motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the
Oregon Court of Appeals. Argument was held in April 2010.

In Cleary, which was pending in an Illinois federal court, the
district court dismissed plaintiffs' "Lights" claims against one
defendant and denied plaintiffs' request to remand the case to
state court. In September 2009, the court issued its ruling on PM
USA's and the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment as
to all "Lights" claims. The court granted the motion as to all
defendants except PM USA. As to PM USA, the court granted the
motion as to all "Lights" and other low tar brands other than
Marlboro Lights. As to Marlboro Lights, the court ordered briefing
on why the 2002 state court order dismissing the Marlboro Lights
claims should not be vacated based upon Good. In January 2010, the
court vacated the previous dismissal. In February 2010, the court
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all claims
except for the Marlboro Lights claims, based on the statute of
limitations and deficiencies relating to the named plaintiffs. In
June 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of all
defendants on all remaining claims, dismissing the case. In July
2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the
district court, which was denied. In August 2010, plaintiffs filed
an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. On August 25, 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
trial court's dismissal of the case. Plaintiffs have filed a
petition for rehearing with the Seventh Circuit.

                      Other Developments

In December 2009, the state trial court in the Carroll (formerly
known as Holmes) case (pending in Delaware), denied PM USA's
motion for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court
allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting
class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as
additional defendants. In July 2011, the parties stipulated to the
dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI. The
stipulation is signed by the parties but not yet approved by the
trial court.  In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court
reversed the lower court rulings in the Watson case that denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed
to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendant's
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the
"federal officer" statute. The case was removed to federal court
in Arkansas and the case was transferred to the MDL proceeding. In
November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding remanded
the Watson case to Arkansas state court.

              State Trial Court Class Certifications

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
Massachusetts (Aspinall), Minnesota (Curtis), Missouri (Larsen)
and New Hampshire (Lawrence). Significant developments in these
cases include:

   * Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the
trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and
granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review. In December 2008,
subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good,
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order
requesting that the parties advise the court within 30 days
whether the Good decision is dispositive of federal preemption
issues pending on appeal. In January 2009, PM USA notified the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that Good is dispositive of
the federal preemption issues on appeal, but requested further
briefing on the state law statutory exemption issue. In March
2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order
denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs'
cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial
summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from
the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice.
Argument on plaintiffs' motion was held in July 2011.

   * Curtis: In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied PM
USA's petition for interlocutory review of the trial court's class
certification order. In October 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, filed in February
2009, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice. In October 2009, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment as to
all consumer protection counts and, in December 2009, dismissed
the case in its entirety. In December 2010, the Minnesota Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case and
affirmed the trial court's prior certification of the class under
Minnesota's consumer protection statutes. The Court of Appeals
also affirmed the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment claiming collateral estoppel from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. PM
USA's petition for review with the Minnesota Supreme Court was
granted in March 2011. Argument on the petition was heard on
September 12, 2011.

   * Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed
the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during
which potential class members can qualify to become part of the
class. The class period remains 1995 - 2003. In June 2010, PM
USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs'
request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs
moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability
in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the
case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion
was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various
summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. On
August 31, 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for
partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present
a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more
dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's
remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began on
September 6, 2011 and, on October 25, 2011, the court declared a
mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict.

   * Lawrence: In November 2010, the trial court certified a class
consisting of all persons who purchased Marlboro Lights cigarettes
in the state of New Hampshire at any time from the date the brand
was introduced into commerce until the date trial in the case
begins. PM USA's motion for reconsideration of this decision was
denied in January 2011. On September 15, 2011, the New Hampshire
Supreme Court accepted review of the class certification decision.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend "Smith" Suit in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------
As of October 24, 2011, one case remains pending in Kansas (Smith)
in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including Philip
Morris USA and Altria Group, Inc., conspired to fix cigarette
prices in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification has been granted. No trial date has been set,
according to the Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in "Brown" Suit Set for Sept. 14, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial has been set in a class action lawsuit against Altria Group,
Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA, alleging violations under
the California Business and Professions Code, for September 14,
2012, according to the Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

In June 1997, a lawsuit (Brown) was filed in California state
court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including
Philip Morris USA and others, have violated California Business
and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair,
unlawful and fraudulent business practices. Class certification
was granted as to plaintiffs' claims that class members are
entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased
during the class periods and injunctive relief. In September 2004,
the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as
to plaintiffs' claims attacking defendants' cigarette advertising
and promotion and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment
on plaintiffs' claims based on allegedly false affirmative
statements. In March 2005, the court granted defendants' motion to
decertify the class based on a California law, which inter alia
limits the ability to bring a lawsuit to only those plaintiffs who
have "suffered injury in fact" and "lost money or property" as a
result of defendants' alleged statutory violations ("Proposition
64").

In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the
trial court's order decertifying the class. In May 2009, the
California Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision that
was affirmed by the appellate court and remanded the case to the
trial court. In March 2010, the trial court granted
reconsideration of its September 2004 order granting partial
summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs'
"Lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions issued since
its order was issued, including the United States Supreme Court's
ruling in Good, thereby reinstating plaintiffs' "Lights" claims.
Since the trial court's prior ruling decertifying the class was
reversed on appeal by the California Supreme Court, the parties
and the court are treating all claims currently being asserted by
the plaintiffs as certified, subject, however, to defendants'
challenge to the class representatives' standing to assert their
claims. The class is defined as people who, at the time they were
residents of California, smoked in California one or more
cigarettes between June 10, 1993 and April 23, 2001, and who were
exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California.

In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking collateral
estoppel effect from the findings in the case brought by the
Department of Justice. In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary resolution of legal issues regarding
restitutionary relief. The trial court denied both of plaintiffs'
motions in November 2010. In November 2010, defendants filed a
motion seeking a determination that Brown class members who were
also part of the class in Daniels (a previously disclosed consumer
fraud case in which the California Supreme Court affirmed summary
judgment in PM USA's favor based on preemption and First Amendment
grounds) are precluded by the Daniels judgment from recovering in
Brown. This motion was denied in December 2010. Defendants sought
review of this decision before the Fourth District Court of Appeal
but were denied review in March 2011. In December 2010, defendants
filed a motion for a determination that the class representatives
lack standing and are not typical or adequate to represent the
class. In February 2011, the trial court ruled on this motion in
the defendants' favor and vacated the previously scheduled trial
date. In July 2011, plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint
adding new putative class representatives. The trial court has now
scheduled trial for September 14, 2012.


ALTRIA GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Kraft Thrift Plan Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits related to the Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
Thrift Plan, according to the Company's October 27, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

Four participants in the Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Thrift Plan
("Kraft Thrift Plan"), a defined contribution plan, filed a class
action complaint (George II) on behalf of all participants and
beneficiaries of the Kraft Thrift Plan in July 2008 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Named defendants in this action
include Altria Corporate Services, Inc. (now Altria Client
Services Inc.) and certain company committees that allegedly had a
relationship to the Kraft Thrift Plan. Plaintiffs request, among
other remedies, that defendants restore to the Kraft Thrift Plan
all losses improperly incurred.

In December 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. In addition
to dismissing certain claims made by plaintiffs for equitable
relief under ERISA as to all defendants, the court dismissed
claims alleging excessive administrative fees and mismanagement of
company stock funds as to one of the Altria Group, Inc.
defendants. In February 2010, the court granted a joint
stipulation dismissing the fee and stock fund claims without
prejudice as to the remaining defendants, including Altria
Corporate Services, Inc. Accordingly, the only claim remaining at
this time in George II relates to the alleged negligence of plan
fiduciaries for including the Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund
as Kraft Thrift Plan investment options. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification in March 2010, which the court granted in
August 2010. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in
January 2011, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. In March 2011, defendants filed a motion to vacate the
class certification in light of recent federal judicial precedent.
In July 2011, the court granted defendants' summary judgment
motion in part, finding that claims for periods prior to July 2,
2002 were time barred, and that the defendants properly monitored
the funds. The court also denied plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment. Remaining in the case are claims after July 2,
2002 relating to whether it was prudent to retain actively managed
investments (Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund) in the Kraft
Thrift Plan after 1999. In July 2011, the court also granted
defendants' motion to vacate the class certification, and allowed
plaintiffs leave to file a new motion for class certification in
light of recent precedent and the court's summary judgment
findings. Plaintiffs have since filed a new motion to certify the
class.

On August 19, 2011, Altria Client Services, Inc. and a company
committee that allegedly had a relationship to the Kraft Thrift
Plan were added as defendants in another class action previously
brought by the same plaintiffs in 2006 (George I), in which
plaintiffs allege defendants breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA by offering company stock funds in a unitized format and by
allegedly overpaying for recordkeeping services.

The Altria Group, Inc. defendants deny any violation of ERISA or
other unlawful conduct and are defending these cases vigorously.
Trial in both cases is expected to be scheduled to occur in the
first half of 2012. Under the terms of a Distribution Agreement
between Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft, the Altria Group, Inc.
defendants may be entitled to indemnity against any liabilities
incurred in connection with these cases.


APPLE INC: Court Denies Motion to Stay Discovery in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh issued a case management
order on October 28, 2011, in the class action litigation charging
that Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel
Corporation, Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to suppress compensation for their
employees.

In the order, Judge Koh denied defendants' motion to stay
discovery in part.  Importantly, Judge Koh ordered defendants to
produce by November 30, 2011, certain documents relating to the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation of these practices,
including documents the defendants turned over to the DOJ.

Judge Koh also set a litigation schedule, culminating in a jury
trial date set for June 10, 2013.

"The Court's order represents an important step in ultimately
holding Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar
accountable for conspiring to fix the pay of their software
engineers and other high-tech employees," stated Joseph R. Saveri,
counsel for plaintiffs.  "As confirmed by the  DOJ's
investigation, defendants entered into secret "no-solicitation"
agreements that violated antitrust laws.  These companies owe
their tremendous successes to the sacrifices and hard work of
their employees.  We look forward to the opportunity to prove our
clients' claims at trial and to recover the money that they would
have been paid had the defendants not conspired to eliminate
competition for our clients' services."

Litigation Background

The complaints alleges the conspiracy among defendants consisted
of (1) agreements not to actively recruit each other's employees;
(2) agreements to provide notification when making an offer to
another's employee (without the knowledge or consent of that
employee); and (3) agreements to cap pay packages offered to
prospective employees at the initial offer.

Starting in 2005 with Lucasfilm and Pixar, and continuing until at
least 2009 with all defendants, the companies entered into
agreements not to recruit each other's employees with knowledge of
the overall conspiracy and with the intent to reduce employee
compensation. As additional companies joined the conspiracy,
competition among participating companies for skilled labor
decreased. Compensation of defendants' employees was less than
what would have prevailed in a properly functioning labor market
where employers compete for workers.

This litigation follows an investigation by the DOJ.  Defendants
agreed to end their anticompetitive agreements, and agreed to
permit inspections to ensure compliance.  However, no compensation
was provided to employees of defendants.

Plaintiffs estimate that because of reduced competition for their
services, compensation for skilled employees at Adobe, Apple,
Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar was reduced by 10 to
15 percent.  The complaints seek restitution for lost compensation
and treble damages for defendants' anti-competitive employment
practices.

Further information, please contact Joseph R. Saveri at 415-956-
1000 or mail to: jsaveri@lchb.com

Learn more about the litigation at

http://www.lieffcabraser.com/antitrust/case/344/high-tech-workers-
class-action-lawsuit


AT&T MOBILITY: Judge Allows Arbitration for Overbilling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action that claims AT&T Mobility systematically overbills iPhone
or iPad users for data use must proceed to arbitration, a
San Francisco federal judge ruled.

In a two-month study of AT&T's billing practices, lead plaintiff
Patrick Hendricks claimed to have discovered that the company
systematically overstates web server traffic by 7% to 14%.  In
some cases, AT&T overbilled by 300%, the study allegedly found.
Mr. Hendricks also claimed that AT&T bills for "phantom data
traffic" when there is no actual data usage initiated by the
consumer.

But iPhone-use contracts bar lawsuits at this stage, U.S. District
Judge Charles Breyer found.  The contract "requires the use of
arbitration on an individual basis to resolve disputes, rather
than jury trials or class actions, and also limits the remedies
available . . . in the event of a suit."

In so ruling, the court rejected Mr. Hendricks' claims that AT&T
"routinely" passes on the costs of arbitration to consumers by
alleging that the customer has breached contract and that pursuing
the case on an individual basis would be prohibitive.

Judge Breyer issued a stay in the case while arbitration is
underway.

The class action sought restitution and class damages for breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and fraudulent business
practices, unfair competition, and violations of the federal
Communications Act.


CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on Oct. 29 disclosed that it has
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of China Automotive Systems, Inc. between
March 25, 2010 through and including March 17, 2011.

The Complaint charges that China Automotive and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following: (1) the Company improperly accounted for
its convertible notes issued on February 15, 2008; (2) that, as a
result, the Company's financial results were incorrectly stated
during the Class Period; (3) that the Company's financial results
were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shares of China Automotive dropped from a close of $10.23 per
share on March 16, 2011 to a closing price of $8.81 per share on
March 17, 2011 on news it expected to restate its financials.  On
March 17, 2011, the Company's audit committee of the board of
directors stated it would delay its annual financial statement and
would need to restate all previously issued financial statements
for the fiscal year 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010 and
that these financial statements should no longer be relied upon.
On March 18, 2011 the company announced that it received a letter
from the NASDAQ stating that the company is no longer in
compliance with NASDAQ Marketplace rules.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action.  If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Telephone: 212-697-6484
          E-mail: eitan@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  December 23, 2011 is the
deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff appointment.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of both
class and individual litigation claims on behalf of our clients.
In addition to representing institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate work, litigation and
securities arbitration.


CMS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Gas Index Price Reporting Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation continues to defend itself in the Gas Index
Price Reporting Litigation, according to the Company's October 27,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading
Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various lawsuits
arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price
reporting to publications that report trade information.
Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and
options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and
artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

   * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas
state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al. The
complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to
violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiffs are
seeking statutory full consideration damages consisting of the
full consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas allegedly
purchased from defendants.

   * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical
Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in Missouri state
court alleging violations of Missouri antitrust laws. Defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged
to have violated the Missouri antitrust laws.

   * Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co.
v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought on behalf
of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, was filed
in Colorado state court in 2006. Defendants, including CMS Energy,
CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992. Plaintiffs are seeking full refund
damages.

   * A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state court on
behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities. The defendants, including
CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have
violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute. The plaintiffs are seeking
full consideration damages, plus exemplary damages and attorneys'
fees. After dismissal on jurisdictional grounds in 2009,
plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2010, the MDL judge issued an
opinion and order granting the CMS Energy defendants' motion to
dismiss the Michigan complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds
and all CMS Energy defendants have been dismissed from the
Arandell (Michigan) action.

   * Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v.
CMS ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood
County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas
Company, and others. The plaintiff is seeking full consideration
damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

   * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as
Trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas
state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and
others. The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiff is seeking statutory full
consideration damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and
2001.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to the MDL. CMS Energy was dismissed from the Learjet, Heartland,
and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other CMS Energy defendants
remained parties. All CMS Energy defendants were dismissed from
the Breckenridge case in 2009. In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera Gas
Company were dismissed from the Newpage case and the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM. In July 2011, all
claims against remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL cases
were dismissed based on FERC preemption. Plaintiffs have filed
appeals in all of the cases.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.


COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Piechur" Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CoinStar, Inc.'s redbox subsidiary continues to defend itself in a
putative class action filed by Laurie Piechur before a state court
in Illinois, according to the Company's October 27, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Ms. Piechur, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's redbox subsidiary in
the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things,
redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and other state statutes and is seeking monetary
damages and other relief as appropriate. In November 2009, redbox
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois. In February 2010, the court remanded the
case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St.
Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the state court denied
redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and also denied
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Company
believe that the claims against it are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual
has been established as it was not possible to estimate the
possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Securities Suit Trial Date Set for Sept. 9, 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Washington court has set a trial date for September 9, 2013, in
the consolidated lawsuit captioned In re Coinstar, Inc. Securities
Litigation, according to the Company's October 27, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On January 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against Coinstar and certain of its officers. The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Five substantially similar complaints were later filed
in the same court. Pursuant to an order of the court dated
March 14, 2011, these six putative class actions were consolidated
as a single action entitled In re Coinstar, Inc. Securities
Litigation. On April 19, 2011, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff and approved
its selection of lead counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed
on June 17, 2011. The Company moved to dismiss this complaint on
July 15, 2011. On October 6, 2011, the court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to
dismiss. The order dismissed numerous allegations, including
allegations that the Company's October 28, 2010 revenue and
earnings guidance was false and misleading. The order also
dismissed all claims against three of the Company's officers. The
court has set a trial date for September 9, 2013. This case
purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
period from October 28, 2010 to February 3, 2011. Plaintiffs
allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
during this period of time by, among other things, issuing false
and misleading statements about the Company's current and
prospective business and financial results. Plaintiffs claim that,
as a result of these alleged wrongs, the Company's stock price was
artificially inflated during the purported class period.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. The
Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and
it intends to defend itself s vigorously in this matter. Failure
by the Company to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set
forth in the complaints could have a material adverse effect on
its business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate.

                 Shareholder Derivative Actions

On March 2 and 10, 2011, shareholder derivative actions were filed
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington (King County),
allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Coinstar, against
certain of its current and former directors and officers. Coinstar
was named as a nominal defendant. On April 12, 2011, the court
consolidated these actions as a single action entitled In re
Coinstar, Inc. Derivative Litigation. A third substantially
similar complaint was later filed in the same court. On April 18,
2011, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On
May 26, 2011, the court consolidated the federal derivative
actions and joined them with the securities class actions,
captioned In re Coinstar Securities Litigation, for pre-trial
proceedings. The derivative plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was
filed on July 15, 2011. On August 12, 2011, defendants moved to
dismiss the federal action on the ground that the plaintiffs had
not made a pre-litigation demand on the Company's Board of
Directors and had not demonstrated that such a demand would have
been futile. A hearing on this motion is scheduled for November 8,
2011. The court has set a trial date for September 9, 2013. The
state and federal derivative complaints arise out of many of the
factual allegations at issue in the class action, and generally
allege that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties
owed to Coinstar by selling Coinstar stock while in possession of
material non-public information, and participating in or failing
to prevent misrepresentations regarding redbox expectations,
performance, and internal controls. The complaints seek
unspecified damages and equitable relief, disgorgement of
compensation, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. Because the
complaints are derivative in nature, they do not seek monetary
damages from Coinstar. However, Coinstar may be required to
advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual
defendants. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is
not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
because this matter had not advanced to a stage where the Company
could make any such estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CoinStar, Inc.'s redbox subsidiary continues to defend itself from
a consolidated class action in Illinois, arising from alleged
retention of personally identifiable information beyond the period
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, according to the
Company's October 27, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's redbox subsidiary in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
plaintiff alleges that redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the
same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk.
Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced
by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended
complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally
identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of
retention of such information.  Plaintiffs are seeking statutory
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and
interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court has
denied redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims involving
retention of information, and is still considering redbox's motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' claims involving disclosure of information.
The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently,
no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where it could make any such estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Briefing on Class Certification for 2 Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the proposed class certification in the lawsuits filed
by Nicolle DiSimone and John Sinibaldi is ongoing, according to
CoinStar, Inc.'s October 27, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's redbox
subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that, among other
things, redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the collection and
recording of consumer personal identification information, and
violated the California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly. A similar
complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to
privacy generally, was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California
resident, John Sinibaldi. A third similar complaint alleging only
a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by
a California resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest. Redbox has
removed the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, and the
Schiff case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California. The Sinibaldi case subsequently was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been
consolidated. At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle
DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case, redbox has
moved to dismiss each of the three cases, and the parties are
briefing the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
DiSimone and Sinibaldi cases. The Company believes that the claims
against it are without merit and intend to defend itself
vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been
established as it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or
range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage
where the Company could make any such estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
redbox and Coin segments.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit asserting violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. Specifically, Proesel, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et
al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age
discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to
Plan participants. Two other putative class actions filed earlier
in 2007, Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees'
Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-
Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both
alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in
the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-
Palmolive ERISA Litigation. The complaint in the consolidated
action alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not
include a claim for age discrimination. The relief sought includes
recalculation of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-
judgment interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. This
action has not been certified as a class action as yet. The
parties are in discussions via non-binding mediation to determine
whether the action can be settled. The Company and the Plan intend
to contest this action vigorously should the parties be unable to
reach a settlement.


DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Liberty Legal Foundation Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a Tennessee
group filed a federal class action against the Democratic National
Committee, demanding an injunction restraining it from claiming
that President Barack Obama is qualified to hold his office.

The lawsuit was filed by its lead plaintiff, the Liberty Legal
Foundation, of Knoxville, Tenn.

"A Letter From Founder Van Irion" on the group's home page states:
"Liberty Legal Foundation is dedicated to restoring Constitutional
limits on government by overturning flawed legal precedent.  We
work towards this goal by filing lawsuits that challenge key legal
precedent that is unconstitutional."

The letter says the group has filed class actions challenging the
constitutionality of the "completely onerous" Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act, and another one in support of Arizona's
immigration law.

In its "Immigration Class Action," the group says that the Obama
administration cannot claim that Arizona law is pre-empted by
federal law, because "pre-emption begins with the presumption that
federal law is being enforced," which the foundation claims is not
the case, in Arizona.

In its birther lawsuit, the group claims that President Obama "has
admitted that his father was not a U.S. Citizen, and because this
fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any
reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt
Mr. Obama's Constitutional qualifications."

The complaint states: "This Complaint does not request or require
this Court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold
the office of President of the United States.  Instead, this
complaint is directed toward defining the term 'natural-born
citizen' under the Constitution of the United States, and toward
negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic
Party.  This Complaint requests this Court to affirm the Supreme
Court's definition of 'natural-born citizen' as 'all children born
in a country of parents who were its citizens.' See Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)."

They seek a permanent injunction to stop defendants from "issuing
any letters, certificates, or other document to any Secretary of
State of any state, any agent thereof, or any other official of
any state, indicating that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the
office of President or that the Democratic Party has selected
Mr. Obama as its Presidential candidate, or requesting that any
state place the name of Mr. Obama on any ballot for the office of
President of the United States for the 2012 general election."

A copy of the Complaint in Liberty Legal Foundation, et al. v.
National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-
cv-02089 (D. Ariz.) (Bolton, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/28/Birthers.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Van Irion, Esq.
          LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION
          9040 Executive Park Dr., Ste. 200
          Knoxville, TN 37923
          Telephone: (423) 208-9953
          E-mail: van@libertylegalfoundation.com


DPL INC: Continues to Defend AES Merger-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
DPL Inc. continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits
related to its proposed merger with The AES Corporation, according
to the Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On April 19, 2011, DPL and The AES Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("AES"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") whereby AES will acquire DPL for $30.00
per share in a cash transaction valued at approximately $3.5
billion plus the assumption of $1.2 billion of debt.  Upon
closing, DPL will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of AES.

The transaction has been unanimously approved by each of DPL's and
AES's board of directors and was approved by DPL's shareholders on
September 23, 2011.  Consummation of the transaction is subject to
certain conditions, including receipt of all required regulatory
approvals from, among others, the FERC and the PUCO.  On May 18,
2011, DPL and AES filed merger applications with the FERC and the
PUCO.  The FERC application will be deemed approved after 180
days, unless the FERC tolls for good cause the completed
application for further consideration, which may or may not occur
as part of the FERC's review.  On October 26, 2011, DP&L reached a
Stipulation and Recommendation with the PUCO staff and other
parties in the AES/DP&L joint application for approval of the
Proposed Merger. The Stipulation and Recommendation was filed with
the PUCO on October 26, 2011 and is pending PUCO approval.

Also on May 18, 2011, DPL and AES each filed their respective
Premerger Notification and Report Forms with the Federal Trade
Commission and the Department of Justice under the Hart-Scott-
Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended.  Those
filings initiated a statutory 30-day waiting period, which expired
on June 14, 2011, when early termination of the waiting period was
granted.  The Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities
and Health Care Administration also issued a formal approval with
respect to the Proposed Merger on May 18, 2011.  The parties
anticipate receiving additional approvals and then closing the
transaction during the fourth quarter of 2011 or first quarter of
2012.

The Merger Agreement includes customary representations,
warranties and restrictions, limitations and prohibitions as to
actions the Company may or may not take in the period prior to
consummation of the Proposed Merger or termination of the Merger
Agreement.  Among other restrictions, without the consent of AES,
the Merger Agreement limits the Company's total capital
expenditures, limits the extent to which the Company can obtain
financing through long-term debt and equity, and it may not,
without the prior consent of AES, increase the Company's quarterly
common stock dividend of $0.3325 per share.

DPL expects to continue its policy of paying regular quarterly
cash dividends until closing.  Dividends are expected to be paid
on a prorated basis during the quarter in which the transaction
closes.

Dolphin Subsidiary II, Inc., a subsidiary of AES, issued $1.25
billion in long-term Senior Notes on October 3, 2011, to partially
finance the Proposed Merger.  Upon the consummation of the
Proposed Merger, these notes are expected to become long-term debt
obligations of DPL.  DPL will not have any obligation associated
with these notes if the Proposed Merger is not consummated.

The Merger Agreement restricts DPL from soliciting or initiating
discussions with third parties regarding other proposals to
acquire DPL, subject to certain exceptions for responding to
unsolicited third party acquisition proposals and engaging in
discussions and negotiations regarding unsolicited third party
acquisition proposals.  The Merger Agreement also contains certain
termination rights for both DPL and AES.  Upon termination under
specified circumstances, DPL will be required to pay AES a
termination fee of $106 million.

Lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Proposed Merger.
Each of these lawsuits seeks, among other things, one or more of
the following: to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
Proposed Merger until certain conditions are met, or to rescind
the Proposed Merger or for rescissory damages, or to recover
damages if the Proposed Merger is consummated or to commence a
sale process and/or obtain an alternative transaction or to
promptly notice an annual shareholder meeting or to recover an
unspecified amount of other damages and costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses, or a constructive trust or an
accounting from the individual defendants for benefits they
allegedly obtained as a result of their alleged breach of duty or
an injunction specifically preventing DPL from paying a
termination fee.

On April 21, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL and each member of
DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants.
The lawsuit is a purported class action filed by Patricia A.
Heinmullter on behalf of herself and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
Proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc.
aided and abetted such breach.

On April 25, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a
nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by the Austren Trust is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES aided and abetted such breach.  On
September 29, 2011 the Court entered an order dismissing the
Austren Trust action without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation
of dismissal filed by the parties.

On April 26, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division
(the "District Court"), naming each member of DPL's board of
directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants and naming DPL
as a nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Stephen Kubiak is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On April 26, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants and
naming DPL as a nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Sandra
Meyr is a purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an
alleged class of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative
action on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted such breach.  On May 31, 2011, the Court
granted the plaintiff's voluntary motion to dismiss the lawsuit
without prejudice.

On April 27, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a
nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Thomas Strobhar is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES aided and abetted such breach.  On
September 28, 2011, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Strobhar action without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation of
dismissal filed by the parties.

On April 27, 2011, another lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL, each member
of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as
defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Laurence D. Paskowitz is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
Proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted such breach.

On April 28, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL and each member of
DPL's board of directors as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by
Payne Family Trust is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiff and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES.

On May 4, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the District Court naming
DPL, each member of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Patrick Nichting is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On May 6, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL, each member of DPL's board
of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants.  The
lawsuit filed by Robin Mahaffey, Jerome R. Baxter, and Donald and
Patricia Aydelott is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES
and that DPL and AES aided and abetted such breach.  On June 24,
2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this
action without prejudice.

On May 10, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's board of
directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a nominal
defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Glenda E. Hime, Donald D.
Foreman, Donald Moberly, James Sciarrotta, Barbara H. Sciarrotta,
Robert Krebs and Frances Krebs is a purported class action on
behalf of plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders and
a purported derivative action on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES
and that AES aided and abetted such breach.  On September 28,
2011, the Court entered an order dismissing the Hime actions
without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal filed by
the parties.

On May 20, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, naming
DPL, each member of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Ralph B. Holtmann and
Catherine P. Holtmann is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger of DPL and AES
and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and abetted such
breach.

On May 24, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's board of
directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a nominal
defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Maxine Levy is a purported class
action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of DPL.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On June 13, 2011, the three actions pending in the District Court
were consolidated.  On June 14, 2011, the District Court granted
Plaintiff Nichting's motion to appoint lead and liaison counsel.
On June 30, 2011, Plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action
filed an amended complaint that adds claims based on alleged
omissions in the preliminary proxy statement that DPL filed on
June 22, 2011 (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement").  Plaintiffs ,
in their individual capacity only, assert a claim against DPL and
its directors under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") for purported omissions in the
Preliminary Proxy Statement and a claim against DPL's directors
for control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  In addition, plaintiffs purport to assert state law claims
directly on behalf of plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders and derivatively on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement for the
Proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted such breach.

On July 29, 2011, DPL, DPL's directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc.
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the
plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action reflecting their
agreement in principle to settle the claims asserted in the
consolidated federal action, subject to, among other things, the
execution of a stipulation of settlement, completion of
confirmatory discovery, provision of notice of the settlement to
DPL's shareholders, approval of the settlement by the District
Court, and consummation of the Proposed Merger.  If approved by
the District Court, the settlement will resolve all pending
federal court litigation related to the Proposed Merger, including
the Kubiak, Holtmann and Nichting actions, and would result in the
release by the plaintiffs and the proposed settlement class, which
consists of all record and beneficial holders of DPL's common
stock during the period beginning April 19, 2011 through and
including the consummation of the Merger (other than the
defendants), of all claims that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the Merger Agreement, the Proposed
Merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith (including
the claims asserted in the lawsuits filed in Ohio state court,
among other claims, but excluding any properly perfected claims
for statutory appraisal in connection with the Proposed Merger).
The MOU provides, among other things, for DPL to make certain
supplemental disclosures concerning the Proposed Merger, which are
contained in the definitive proxy statement DPL filed on August 5,
2011.

In addition, the MOU provides that the plaintiffs intend to apply
to the District Court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses.  DPL reserves all rights to object to any such
application for a fee or expense award, but agreed to pay any fee
or expense award in an amount ordered by the District Court.
Notice of the proposed settlement will be sent to members of the
proposed class and to DPL shareholders as of the date of the
District Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement.
The District Court will schedule a hearing regarding, among other
things, approval of the proposed settlement and any application by
plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

There can be no assurance that the Proposed Merger will be
consummated, that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the District Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties enter into such stipulation.
In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU
may be terminated.  The settlement will not affect the amount of
the merger consideration that DPL's shareholders are entitled to
receive in the Proposed Merger.  DPL and its board of directors
believe that these lawsuits are without merit and are seeking to
settle them to eliminate the burden and expense of litigation and
to provide additional information to DPL's shareholders at a time
and in a manner that would not have caused any further delay in
DPL's 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or cause any delay in
the consummation of the Proposed Merger.

Absent such settlement, DPL intends to vigorously defend against
all of the claims.

DPL expects to record transaction fees relating to the Proposed
Merger consisting primarily of bankers' fees, legal fees, and
change of control costs of approximately $45 million pre-tax
during 2011.


EQUIFAX INC: Appeal From Settlement of Consolidated Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al., plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and
state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable
procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in
bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an
account following a bankruptcy discharge. On August 20, 2008, the
District Court approved a Settlement Agreement and Release
providing for certain changes in the procedures used by defendants
to record discharges in bankruptcy on consumer credit files. That
settlement resolved claims for injunctive relief, but not
plaintiffs' claims for damages. On May 7, 2009, the District Court
issued an order preliminarily approving an agreement to settle
remaining class claims. The District Court subsequently deferred
final approval of the settlement and required the settling parties
to send a supplemental notice to those class members who filed a
claim and objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost
for the re-notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee
award.  Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on
February 15, 2011.  The deadline for this group of settling
plaintiffs to provide additional documentation to support their
damage claims or to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.
On July 15, 2011, following another approval hearing, the District
Court approved the settlement.  Several objecting plaintiffs
subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in Equifax, Inc.'s October 27,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Tosses "Friend Finder" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Roberts, writing for paidContent.org, reports that in an
order issued on Oct. 27 in San Francisco, a federal judge tossed
out a suit by Facebook users that said the company owed them money
for using their pictures to promote its "Friend Finder" service.
Facebook typically promotes the service by displaying a photo of a
user's friend along with a message like "George and three others
found their friends using Friend Finder!"

The plaintiffs had argued that the use of their name and photos to
promote Friend Finder amounted to an unauthorized endorsement.
The judge disagreed and said that the Friend Finder ads did not
cause any economic loss to the Facebook users, noting that their
pictures were only displayed to their existing friends.  This
ruling follows a similar one from earlier this year but this time
comes with "prejudice" -- meaning the plaintiffs do not get to try
again.

The decision also comes after Facebook has notched two other
recent class-action victories in California, a state where
individuals enjoy very strong publicity rights thanks to
Hollywood's celebrity-based economy.  In September, a court in
L.A. dismissed a lawsuit that claimed Facebook violated a state
law by displaying pictures of teenagers next to advertisers
without their parents' consent.  And in May, a federal court threw
out a privacy class action that accused the company of wrongfully
sharing user information with third parties.

Facebook's litigation ordeal is far from over, however.  In recent
months, a series of new complaints have poured in related to the
company's alleged unauthorized use of cookies to track users after
they logged out of the site.  And Facebook is still locked into a
nasty trademark squabble with a Chicago company over whether it
has the right use the word "timeline" to describe its new
chronological scrapbook feature.


GOODRICH CORP: Faces Consolidated Class Suit Over UTC Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation is facing a consolidated class action lawsuit
in New York over its proposed merger with United Technologies
Corporation, according to the Company's October 27, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On September 21, 2011, Goodrich Corporation (the Company) entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) with
United Technologies Corporation (UTC). The Merger Agreement
provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement, the Company will be acquired by UTC
in a cash-for-stock transaction (Merger). The Company has agreed
to various covenants in the Merger Agreement, including, among
other things, to conduct its business in the ordinary course
consistent with past practice during the period between the
execution of the Merger Agreement and the time of the Merger.

In connection with the Merger Agreement with UTC, eleven putative
class-action complaints have been filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York relating to the UTC merger. Nine of these
complaints were filed in the County of New York: Rice v. Goodrich
Corp., et al., Index No. 652619/2011, New Jersey Carpenters
Annuity Fund v. Goodrich Corp., at al., Index No. 652637/2011,
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement Sys. v. Goodrich
Corp., et al., Index No. 652649/2011, Pill v. Goodrich Corp., et
al., Index No. 652655/2011, IUE-CWA Local 475 Pension Plan v.
Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No. 652661/2011, Mass. Laborers'
Pension Fund v. Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No. 652664/2011,
Pifko v. Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No. 11111146, Ruschel v.
Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No. 652695/2011, and Astor BK Realty
Trust v. Larsen, et al., Index No. 652706/2011. On October 11, the
Supreme Court for the County of New York consolidated these nine
actions before it into Rice. Two additional putative class-action
complaints were filed in Nassau County: Casey v. Larsen, et al.,
Index No. 13699/2011, and Minneapolis Retail Meat Cutters and Food
Handlers Pension Fund v. Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No.
14366/2011. On October 11, the Supreme Court for Nassau County
consolidated these two actions before it into Casey. The plaintiff
in Rice has moved to transfer Casey to the County of New York and
consolidate it with Rice. That motion is currently pending.
Each of the complaints has been brought on behalf of a putative
class of Goodrich shareholders and each names Goodrich, its
directors, UTC and a merger subsidiary as defendants. Each
complaint generally alleges that, in approving the proposed
transaction, the Goodrich directors breached their fiduciary
duties of care, good faith and fair dealing and loyalty owed to
the putative class. The complaints further allege that UTC, the
merger subsidiary and Goodrich aided and abetted the Goodrich
directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. In addition to
damages, the complaints seek, among other things, injunctive
relief barring the named defendants from consummating the merger,
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Goodrich and its directors believe that these lawsuits and the
underlying claims are without merit.


HARRIS CORPORATION: Obtains Dismissal of HSTX Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corporation obtained final court approval of its settlement
of the HSTX Securities Litigation, which was then dismissed,
according to the Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. (now known as Aviat Networks, Inc.)
("HSTX") and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, including certain current Harris officers, were named
as defendants in a federal securities class action complaint filed
on September 15, 2008 in the United States District Court (the
"Court") for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County
Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of
HSTX securities from January 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including
shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. ("Stratex") who exchanged
shares of Stratex for shares of HSTX as part of the combination
between Stratex and the Company's former Microwave Communications
Division to form HSTX. Similar complaints were filed in the Court
on October 6, 2008 and October 30, 2008. The complaints were
consolidated in a slightly expanded complaint filed on July 29,
2009 that, among other things, added Harris Corporation as a
defendant. This action relates to public disclosures made by HSTX
on January 30, 2007 and July 30, 2008, which included the
restatement of HSTX's financial statements for the first three
fiscal quarters of its fiscal 2008 (the quarters ended March 28,
2008, December 28, 2007 and September 28, 2007) and for its fiscal
years ended June 29, 2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005 due to
accounting errors. The consolidated complaint alleged violations
of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11
and Section 15 of the Securities Act, and sought, among other
relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs. On June 21, 2011, the Court issued an order
preliminarily approving a settlement between the parties. A
settlement fairness hearing was held on September 16, 2011, and
after the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2012, on October 11,
2011, the Court issued an order approving the settlement and
dismissing in its entirety with prejudice the consolidated
complaint and all claims contained therein. The settlement did not
have a material impact on the Company's results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.


HTC AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over AccuWeather Application
------------------------------------------------------------
June William at Courthouse News Service reports that unhappy
customers say in a federal class action that an AccuWeather
application that comes installed on EVO smartphones tracks users'
location "to within a few feet," and transmits the unencrypted
data over the Internet so it can be used to "display behaviorally
targeted advertising to those users" -- and there's no way to
disable the app.

Lead plaintiffs Chad Goodman and Jon Olson sued HTC America, which
makes the Android-based EVO 3D and 4G smartphones, and
AccuWeather.

They say the app, which was installed "ostensibly to make weather
information conveniently available," tracks "unnecessarily
precise" data for a weather forecast.

"In actuality, defendants have used and continue to use the
application to track plaintiffs' exact geographic location for
defendants' own purposes unrelated to weather information,"
according to the complaint.

"The location data defendants cause plaintiffs' smartphones to
transmit to AccuWeather is based on GPS coordinates and is
accurate to within a few feet of where plaintiffs are holding
their smartphones.  This location data is unnecessarily precise
for displaying local weather information on plaintiffs'
smartphones; HTC smartphones are equipped to transmit 'coarse'
location data accurate to within a few blocks and which takes less
of a toll on plaintiffs' Internet data usage and battery life,"
according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs also object that unencrypted data about their
location is transmitted over the Internet.

"This is a substandard practice for transmitting individuals'
precise location data and is unnecessary, since HTC smartphones
are capable of transmitting data over the Internet using SSL
encryption," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs say that "at a minimum," coarse information about
their location is transmitted to AccuWeather throughout the day,
and fine, GPS-based location data, is transmitted every time they
tap the weather application on their phones.

"In addition, AccuWeather automatically received plaintiffs' and
class members' 'user agent' information -- information about their
device and browser characteristics -- that enables AccuWeather to
perform 'device fingerprinting' to assign unique identifiers to
each of plaintiffs' and class members' smartphones," according to
the complaint.

It continues: "In addition, the AccuWeather has the capability to
read the smartphone's unique device identifier, send text
messages, modify events on the calendar, and transmit e-mail
messages.

"Further, AccuWeather derives a substantial portion of its revenue
by collecting information from AccuWeather users, including
plaintiffs and class members, and analyzing that information to
display behaviorally targeted advertising to those users.

"Upon information and belief, AccuWeather uses the location
information it unnecessarily receives from plaintiffs and class
members to identify individuals, analyze their behavior based on
their smartphone uses and locations, build profiles about them,
and profit from sharing the profile information and/or using the
profile information in providing services to yet other third
parties, such as by serving behaviorally targeted advertising to
plaintiffs and class members on their smartphones or the Web."

The class claims that another "unreasonable security defect"
called "HtcLoggers" lets providers of third-party apps access all
the data on the user's phone.

"The HtcLoggers feature allows any Internet-connected app,
regardless of its purpose, to access plaintiffs' and class
members' e-mail addresses; phone numbers for calls dialed and
received; fine and coarse location and location history; text
messages; and activity logs for all apps running on the smartphone
-- essentially, all information regarding all activity on the
smartphone.

"HTC Corporation reportedly has acknowledged the HtcLogger defect
but has failed to alert purchasers, rectify the defect,
investigate AccuWeather's use and/or onward transfer of
purchasers' detailed geographic location data, or remediate
AccuWeather's retention of such data," according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs say they would not have paid a premium price for
the phones if they knew about these "defects."

"Defendants' competitors manufacture, market, and distribute
comparable smartphones that do not send fine location data to
third parties without a users' express permission and without
encryption or other reasonable security protocols. In comparison
to similar products that display adequate disclosures, defendants
charged a premium for the EVO 3D and the EVO 4G," the complaint
states.

The plaintiffs seek refunds, a replacement smartphone or the
premium they paid for the phones "above the amount charged for
similar, adequately labeled products," and they want the
defendants ordered to fix the defects in the phones and purge all
personal location data they collected.

A copy of the Complaint in Goodman, et al. v. HTC America, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-01793 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/28/AccuWeather.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cliff Cantor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
          627 208th Ave. SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          Telephone: (425) 868-7813
          E-mail: cliff.cantor@comcast.net

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3071
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3071
          E-mail: dstampley@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3071
          E-mail: gparasmo@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          George Pressly, Esq.
          KYROS & PRESSLY LLP
          60 State Street, Suite 700
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (603) 320-7030
          E-mail: gpressly@presslylaw.com


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Continues to Defend New York Shareholder Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corporation continues to defend itself in a class
action lawsuit filed by the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System on behalf of purchasers of Lockheed's common
stock, according to the Company's October 27, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter
ended September 25, 2011.

On July 20, 2011, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a class action lawsuit against the Company
and two of its executive officers (Robert J. Stevens, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, and Bruce L. Tanner, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer) in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. On October 6, 2011, the
complaint was amended, adding Linda R. Gooden, Executive Vice
President, IS&GS, as a defendant. The complaint, filed on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 21, 2009,
through July 21, 2009, alleges that the Company violated certain
sections of the federal securities laws (including Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by allegedly
making statements, primarily about the then-expected performance
of its IS&GS business segment, that contained either false
statements of material facts or omitted material facts necessary
to make the statements made not misleading, or engaged in other
acts that operated as an alleged fraud upon class members who
purchased the Company's common stock during that period. The
complaint further alleges that the statutory safe harbor provided
for forward-looking statements does not apply to any of the
allegedly false statements. The complaint does not allege a
specific amount of monetary damages. The Company believes that the
allegations are without merit and will defend against them.

Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global security company and
engages in the research, design, development, manufacture,
integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems and
products.


MAGNUM D'OR RESOURCES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Oct. 29 disclosed that
it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock
of Magnum D'Or Resources, Inc. between July 2, 2008 and April 13,
2010, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The case is styled as Jeffrey Swanson v. Magnum D'Or
Resources, Inc., C.A. No. 11-CV-62200 (S.D. Fla.).

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

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director
          Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 888-969-4242
                     302-295-5310
          E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com
          Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com

The Complaint names Magnum and one of the Company's directors as
defendants.  According to its Web site, the Company was
established to deal with the problem of waste tires in a manner
that is environmentally friendly and profitable.  It aims to
create a closed loop with rubber compounds enabling it to be used
as a raw material repeatedly without compromising the quantity or
properties of the compounds.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Magnum made
false statements to the marketplace about its growth and
operations.  Specifically, the Company falsely told investors,
among other things, that it had $130 million in contracts for its
products, and had secured $15 million in financing.  The Company
also failed to disclose the existence of an SEC Formal Order of
Investigation into the Company -- a fact Magnum appears to have
hidden not only from investors but its own outside auditors, as
well.

Moreover, Magnum issued millions of shares of its stock as
compensation to several so-called "consultants," who then sold the
shares in foreign brokerage accounts, kept some of the cash
proceeds for themselves, and funneled the rest -- some US$7
million -- back to Magnum, under sham "loan" agreements.  In April
2010, when Magnum finally told its auditor, Weinberg & Company,
P.A., about the SEC's formal investigation, the auditor withdrew
its prior audit opinions for 2008 and 2009.  Magnum's stock price
plummeted on the news.  The SEC formally charged Magnum and its
former CEO Joseph Glusic.  Mr. Glusic has since resigned from
Magnum and has settled with the SEC.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Oct. 29.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

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


MEAD JOHNSON: Final OK of Enfamil Suit Settlement Expected Nov. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company's subsidiary expects to receive
final court approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit
involving Enfamil LIPIL infant formula advertising by November 11,
2011, according to the Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On March 18, 2011, the Company's subsidiary Mead Johnson &
Company, LLC (MJC) obtained preliminary court approval of a
nationwide class settlement with plaintiffs in eight putative
consumer class actions that had been consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The suits all involved allegations of false and misleading
advertising with respect to certain Enfamil LIPIL infant formula
advertising, and the settlement will resolve all claims in all of
the pending suits. At a September 26, 2011 hearing, the court
found the settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate and
stated its intention to issue a final approval, which is expected
on or about November 11, 2011. The settlement allows consumers who
purchased Enfamil LIPIL infant formula between October 13, 2005,
and March 31, 2010, to receive infant formula or cash. The amount
each consumer can receive depends on how long the consumer
purchased the formula; consumers who received their formula
through the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program are not
eligible to participate. If the total amount claimed falls below
$8.0 million (valuing the product at retail value), MJC will
donate the difference in the form of product to appropriate
charities. If the amount of claims otherwise would exceed $12.0
million, benefits will be prorated. MJC also has agreed not to
oppose, and the court approved, attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs' counsel (not to exceed $3.6 million) and to pay costs
of notice and settlement administration. The period within which
class members may make claims expires on November 25, 2011, and
the Company expects distribution of benefits to begin shortly
thereafter. The Company does not expect the settlement to have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial
condition.


MERCK: Faces Class Action Over Gardasil Cancer Vaccine
------------------------------------------------------
Brigid O'Connell, writing for Herald Sun, reports that a Melbourne
woman who suffered an auto-immune and neurological attack after
being injected with the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil is
leading a class action against its manufacturer.

Seven other Victorian women who are considering joining the court
case against Merck say they have suffered anaphylaxis and physical
breakdowns as a result of the vaccine.  One has attributed a
miscarriage to the injections.

Naomi Snell, 28, said her life was put on hold for more than two
years after she lost the ability to walk, battled crippling back
and neck pain, and suffered convulsions that started soon after
her first injection in July 2008.

"I never attributed it to my vaccine so I went back for my second
and third dose," she said.  "My doctors were baffled.  They did
diagnose me with multiple sclerosis, but have since retracted that
and said it was a neurological reaction to the vaccine."

The world's first cancer vaccine, created by former Australian of
the year Prof Ian Frazer, has been hailed as a wonder drug for
protecting against 70% of cervical cancers.

A Federal Government campaign to have every Australian woman aged
12 to 26 vaccinated included free inoculations.

Ms. Snell is seeking compensation for loss of income and medical
expenses.


MICHAEL V. LOMBARDI: Faces Human Trafficking Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Louis H. Watson Jr., P.A. confirmed that forty-eight (48) legal
immigrant workers from the Philippines, Jamaica, Belarus, Turkey,
and Indonesia have filed a class action complaint in Mississippi
alleging human trafficking violations under the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act as well as minimum wage and overtime
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court documents
show the immigrant workers are contending that they were
improperly required to pay visas fees of $5,000 to $8,000 for
their H2B visas, which were supposed to be paid by the employer in
the United States.  The immigrant workers could not afford to pay
these fees, so they were sent to specific loan companies in their
country of origin where they were required to sign blank checks to
pay back the money loaned once it was earned in the United States
as well as requiring family members to co-sign the loan agreements
so the loan companies would have someone to lean on in their
country of origin if they could pay the loans backs.

Court documents show these immigrant workers signed the loan
agreements because they had been given employment offers for work
in the United States with specific employers at pay rates above
minimum wage that would have allowed them to easily repay the
loans.  However, when the immigrant workers arrived in the United
States they discovered the jobs offered to them were not
available, and they were instead sent to other employers that had
no involvement with their visa applications.  The immigrant
workers were sent employers that placed them in jobs making less
than minimum wage and did not properly pay overtime wages.  These
positions paid so low the immigrant workers could not afford to
pay the loans back.  Additionally, in some circumstances the
immigrant workers were placed in substandard living conditions,
such as, placing several immigrant workers in a filthy, unsecured,
and totally bare trailer trucks that had no running water, food,
proper beds, or even mattresses.

Plaintiff's Counsel Nick Norris stated, "From the evidence we have
seen so far we believe this is a case of modern day slavery where
immigrant workers are being tricked into working in substandard
conditions they did not agree to when they left their home
countries, and are stuck working these jobs because they have to
pay back these loans for visa expenses for their families and
can't go work for other employers in the United States under H2B
visa program."

In the past month, the United States has issued a criminal
indictment against Michael V. Lombardi, who is one of the
individual defendants, alleging that he illegally trafficked
humans.  This criminal indictment also alleges that at least one
other defendant conspired with Mr. Lombardi to defraud the federal
government as to the number of immigrant workers they needed so
they can be sent to other employers.  Around the same time this
indictment was issued, the federal government also declared all
the plaintiffs to be human trafficking victims so they could
remain in the United States legally while they pursue their legal
claims against the defendants.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi.  The case name is Ferdinand
Antigo, et al. v. Michael V. Lombardi, et al, Civil Action
No.1:11-CV-408-HSO-RHW.


MILLER ENERGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action
lawsuit on Oct. 29 against Miller Energy Resources, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on
behalf of purchasers of common stock from December 16, 2009
through and including August 1, 2011.

Berman DeValerio brought the complaint against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The case is
filed as 3:11-cv-00397.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff are required to
file a motion for appointment with the court no later than October
11, 2011.

The claims arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission for class period purchasers.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Miller, an
oil and gas exploration, production and drilling firm, and the
other Defendants made material false statements about Miller's
financial results and about the valuation of certain oil-and-gas-
producing assets it acquired in Alaska.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Defendants: (1) issued false and misleading
consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and cash
flows; (2) failed to properly classify royalty expenses; (3)
failed to properly record sufficient compensation expense on
equity awards; (4) did not properly calculate the liability for
derivative instruments; (5) did not properly consolidate entities
under its control; and (6) improperly reported the value of
certain oil and gas assets that it acquired in Alaska.  As a
result of these problems, the Company was required to restate its
financial results.  Over a series of almost daily disclosures
occurring on July 28, 2011, July 29, 2011 and August 1, 2011,
Miller's stock price dropped from $7.04 per share on July 27, 2011
to a close of $3.37 per share on August 2, 2011, a total drop of
$3.67 or 52%.

To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio
at (800) 516-9926.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
October 11, 2011, request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff for the class.  In addition, you may contact the
attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interests
in the case.  Please note: you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermandevalerio.com-- is a
national law firm representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against
corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of securities and
antitrust laws.  The firm has 49 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco
and South Florida.

Contact: Nathaniel Orenstein, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio
         Telephone: 800-516-9926
         E-mail: norenstein@bermandevalerio.com


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Google Merger-Related Suits Get Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated class action lawsuits against Motorola Mobility
Holdings, Inc., will be coordinated in Cook County, Illinois,
according to the Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended October 1, 2011.

Sixteen putative class-action complaints challenging the proposed
Google Merger have been filed against Motorola Mobility and its
directors. Four of these complaints were filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois: Keating v. Motorola Mobility
Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 11CH28854, Cinotto v. Motorola
Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 11CH29297, Grossman v.
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 11CH29738, and
Colaco v. Barfield et al., Case No. 11CH30541. Eight additional
putative class-action complaints were filed in the Circuit Court
of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Lake County, Illinois:
Groveman and Schnider v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 11CH3719, Johnson v. Jha et al., Case No. 11CH3751,
Midler v. Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. et al., Case No.
11CH3783, Mulholland and Ryan v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc.
et al., Case No. 11CH3816, Iron Workers District Council of
Tennessee Valley & Vicinity Pension Plan v. Motorola Mobility
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 11CH3820, Lassoff v. Motorola
Mobility Holdings, Inc., Case No. 11CH3831, Lang v. Motorola
Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 11CH3832 and Blumstein v.
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc., No. 11CH4336. Three additional
putative class-action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery: Goldfein v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 6787, Driscoll v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et
al., Case No. 6794, and Beren v. Jha et al., Case No. 6799. One
additional putative class-action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division: Stein v. Jha et al., Case No. 11-cv-06100.
Each of the complaints has been brought on behalf of a putative
class of Motorola Mobility's stockholders and each alleges that,
in approving the proposed transaction, the directors of Motorola
Mobility breached the fiduciary duties they owe to the members of
the putative class. Each complaint alleges further that Motorola
Mobility itself aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty, and all complaints other than Johnson name Google
a defendant and allege that Google aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. Finally, the complaints in Midler,
Lang, Driscoll, Beren and Stein allege that RB98 Inc. also aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of duty.

All sixteen putative class-action complaints seek, among other
things, injunctive relief barring the named defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs. Motions were filed in Cook County, Lake County, and
Delaware to consolidate the putative class-actions there pending.
No judicial action has been taken on the consolidation motion
filed in Delaware. On September 27, the Circuit Court for Lake
County consolidated the eight actions before it into Mulholland.
On October 3, the Circuit Court for Cook County consolidated the
four actions before it into Keating. Also on October 3, defendants
moved the Cook County and Lake County courts for an order
designating the single venue for disposition of the Mulholland and
Keating actions. After that motion was filed, but before the
courts could act upon it, plaintiffs agreed to coordinate the
various lawsuits on a consolidated basis in the Keating action,
pending in Cook County. As a result, on October 12, the Lake
County court entered a stay in the Mulholland action.


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: High Ct. Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of
certiorari in the case of Farina v. Nokia, Inc., et al., according
to Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc.'s October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2011.

On April 19, 2001, Farina v. Nokia, Inc., et al., was filed in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. Farina,
filed on behalf of a Pennsylvania class, claimed that the failure
to incorporate a remote headset into cellular phones or warning
against using a phone without a headset rendered the phones
defective by exposing users to alleged biological injury and
health risks and sought compensatory damages and injunctive
relief. After removal to federal court, transfer and consolidation
with now-dismissed similar cases, an appeal, remand to state court
and a second removal, the case proceeded in the federal district
court in Philadelphia. The original complaint was amended to add
allegations that cellular telephones sold without headsets are
defective because they present a safety risk when used while
driving. In the current complaint, Plaintiff seeks actual damages
in the form of the greater of $100 million or the difference in
value of a Motorola phone as delivered and with a headset, the
amount necessary to modify the phones to permit safe use, out of
pocket expenses, including the purchase of headsets, treble
damages and attorney's fees and costs. On September 2, 2008, the
federal district court in Philadelphia dismissed the Farina case,
finding that the complaint is preempted by federal law. On
October 22, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. On February 22, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court. On October 3, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied
plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari. The decision of the
Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint is final.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Supreme Court Denies Petition for Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action, Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed
against Motorola and various of its directors, officers and
employees in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Illinois District Court") on July 21, 2003,
alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The complaint alleged
that the defendants had improperly permitted participants in the
Motorola 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") to purchase or hold shares of
common stock of Motorola because the price of Motorola's stock was
artificially inflated by a failure to disclose vendor financing to
Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. ("Telsim") in
connection with the sale of telecommunications equipment by
Motorola. Telsim had subsequently defaulted on the payment of
approximately $2 billion of such vendor financing, approximately
half of which the Company has recovered to date. The plaintiff
sought to represent a class of participants in the Plan and sought
an unspecified amount of damages. On September 30, 2005, the
Illinois District Court dismissed the second amended complaint
filed on October 15, 2004 (the "Howell Complaint"). Three new
purported lead plaintiffs subsequently intervened in the case, and
filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent a
class of Plan participants. The class as certified includes all
Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000
through May 14, 2001, with certain exclusions. The court granted
leave to defendants to appeal the class certification and granted
leave to lead plaintiff Howell to appeal an earlier dismissal of
his individual claim. Each party filed those appeals. On June 17,
2009, the Illinois District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of all defendants on all counts. On June 25, 2009, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Seventh Circuit") dismissed
as moot defendants' class certification appeal and stayed Howell's
appeal. On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment
decision. By order of the Seventh Circuit on August 17, 2009,
Howell's individual appeal and plaintiffs' appeal of the summary
judgment decision (now cited as Howell v. Motorola, Inc. et al.
and Lingis et al. v. Rick Dorazil et al.) were consolidated with
Spano et al. v. Boeing Company et al. and Beesley et al. v.
International Paper Company for argument and decision. On
January 21, 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois
District Court's summary judgment decision in favor of Motorola
and denied Howell's individual appeal in all respects. On
April 21, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court in Lingis et al. v. Rick Dorazil et
al., seeking the Supreme Court's review of a single question
regarding the standard for liability of ERISA plan fiduciaries for
failure to disclose information. The petition for certiorari did
not challenge any of the Seventh Circuit's other holdings in
Lingis, nor its decision in Howell v. Motorola, Inc. et al. On
October 3, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petition for
certiorari, thus ending the litigation.

No further updates were reported in Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s
October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 1,
2011.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: April 9 Trial Date Set in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date of April 9, 2012, has been set for the securities
class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to Motorola
Solutions, Inc.'s October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 1, 2011.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006 and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act. The factual assertions in the complaint consist
primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made
incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for
the third and fourth quarter of 2006. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported
inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period.
An amended complaint was filed December 20, 2007, and Motorola
moved to dismiss that complaint in February 2008. On September 24,
2008, the district court granted this motion in part to dismiss
Section 10(b) claims as to two individuals and certain claims
related to forward looking statements, among other things, and
denied the motion in part. On August 25, 2009, the district court
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 10,
2010, the district court granted plaintiffs motion to file a
second amended complaint which adds allegations concerning
Motorola's accounting and disclosures for certain transactions
entered into in the third quarter of 2006. On February 16, 2011,
the district court granted summary judgment to dismiss the
remaining claims as to two individual defendants and the Section
10(b) claim as to a third individual, and denied the motion in
part. On March 21, 2011, Motorola filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss the remaining claims against the Company and
other individual defendants. On July 25, 2011, the district court
denied the motion for summary judgment. The district court has set
a trial date of April 9, 2012.


NATIONAL MILK: Sued for Manipulating Supply of Raw Farm Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Boys and Girls Club of the East Valley, Jonathan Rizzo, Alex
Weinstein, Justin Paczesny, Robert Deloss, Teresa Tobin, Tiffany
Marie Havener, Scott Cook, Danell Tomasella, Kory Pentland, Chloe
Britzius, Joseph Burwell, Mary Anderson, Julie Ewald, Ian Groves,
Cody Barrett, Robert George, Scott Weber, Harmonie Skipper,
Jennifer Clites, Corlea Burnett, Amy Her, and John Murray
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working
Together; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.; Land O'Lakes, Inc.;
Dairylea Cooperative Inc.; and Agri-Mark, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-
05253 (N.D. Calif., October 28, 2011) alleges that CWT and its
members have taken coordinated efforts over the past eight years
to limit the production of raw farm milk through premature "herd
retirements" in order to increase the price of raw farm milk,
which is used to supply milk and other fresh milk products.

By manipulating the supply of raw farm milk through herd
retirement, price competition has been suppressed and prices have
been supported at artificially high levels throughout the United
States of America, the Plaintiffs argue.  As a result, they
assert, indirect purchasers of milk and other fresh milk products
have paid supracompetitive prices.

Boys and Girls Club, a nonprofit organization located in Tempe,
Arizona, owns and operates the Mesa Arts Academy, which is a
charter school that operates as a division of the Club.  The Club
purchased milk that it provided to its students during the Class
Period and was injured as a result of Defendants' illegal conduct.
The Individual Plaintiffs are residents of various states.  They
purchased milk and other fresh milk products during the Class
Period and was injured as a result of the Defendants' conduct.

NMPF was established in 1916 and is based in Arlington, Virginia.
The members of NMPF's cooperatives, which are over 40,000 dairy
producers, make the majority of the nation's milk supply.  CWT "is
a voluntary, producer-funded national program developed by NMPF,
to strengthen and stabilize milk prices."  DFA has its
headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, and is the largest dairy
farmer cooperative in the country.  Land O'Lakes is the second
largest cooperative in the nation.  Dairylea is headquartered in
Syracuse, New York, and is the fifth largest U.S. dairy
cooperative.  Agri-Mark is located in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and
markets more than 300 million gallons of milk each year for more
than 1,300 producer members.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          George W. Sampson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  george@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          820 North Boulevard, Suite B
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 776-5604
          Facsimile: (708) 776-5601
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          650 Northstar East
          608 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          David J. Syrios, Esq.
          Corey M. Mather, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com
                  sademi@ademilaw.com
                  dsyrios@ademilaw.com
                  cmather@ademilaw.com


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Consumer Law Group Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
According to domain-b.com, Research In Motion could face a class
action lawsuit in Canada for the outage that struck BlackBerry
customers world-wide, last month.

A Montreal-based law firm, Consumer Law Group, seeking class
action status, said in a statement said it was filing the suit,
"on behalf of individuals who have BlackBerry smartphones and who
pay for a monthly data plan but were unable to access their
e-mail, BlackBerry Messenger service ("BBM"), and/or Internet for
the period of October 11 to 14, 2011."  The suit was filed in
Quebec Superior Court on October 27.

According to the firm, the class action involved RIM's failure to
take action to either directly compensate BlackBerry users or to
indirectly compensate them by arranging for wireless service
providers to refund their customers and to take full
responsibility for these damages.

Declining comment as it had not received a copy of the lawsuit,
RIM said it would formally respond to the matter in due course.

The outage struck October 10 when the company's e-mail, messaging,
and web service collapsed across the world, starting in Europe,
the Mideast, and Africa.  It later spread to the US and Canada.
According to the company the outages resulted from a "core switch
failure within RIM's infrastructure" and the failover to a "back-
up switch" also malfunctioned.

RIM was able to finally restore service on October 13, and co-CEO
Mike Lazaridis offered a video apology to customers.  The company
further offered its customers $100 worth of premium apps for free,
with enterprise users being offered a month of free technical
support.

The outage, which is the worst in the company's 12-year history
could not have come at a worse time.  RIM is facing stiff
competition with rivals like Apple and Google eating into its
market share.


TRILEGIANT: Faces Class Action Over "Discount Membership" Scams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Trilegiant works with
Internet merchants and banks to have consumers join "discount
membership" scams that deduct automatic monthly payments and make
it nearly impossible to cancel, a federal class action filed with
the Central District of California claims.


UNITED STATES MARITIME: Sued Over Vessels of Opportunity Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lester Ansardi, a commercial fisherman from coastal Louisiana, has
filed a class action lawsuit in the Civil District Court in the
State of Louisiana, Parish of Orleans, Civil Action No. 2011-
11436, on behalf of himself and other boat owners who participated
in BP's so-called "Vessels of Opportunity" program.  While other
class actions have been filed against BP making similar claims,
this is the first class action filed against United States
Maritime Services, Inc.

Mr. Ansardi claims that United States Maritime Services, Inc.,
contracted with boat owners to help BP clean up the Gulf Coast
following the BP oil spill, but it failed to fully pay him.
Mr. Ansardi's agreement with United States Maritime Services,
Inc., like all of its agreements with boat owners, committed him
to make his boat available twenty-four hours a day until the end
of the contract.  He could not use his boat for any other purpose
during the term of the contract.

United States Maritime Services, Inc., however, only paid
Mr. Ansardi for use of the boat for days during the contract
period when the boat was actually used.  Mr. Ansardi claims that
United States Maritime Services, Inc. owes him payment for all
days the boat was under contract, even those days when the boat
was not put to physical use.

According to Dan A. Robin, an attorney for Mr. Ansardi, more than
500 boat owners contracted with United States Maritime Services,
Inc. to put their boats into the VOO program and they all have
been short-changed on their contracts.  "It's time for these boat
owners to be paid the money they are owed," he said.

The suit is captioned Lester Ansardi, et al. v. United States
Maritime Services, Inc., et al., Civil District Court, Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana, Civil Action No. 2011-11436.  A copy
of the complaint is available at http://www.pbclawfirm.com

Mr. Ansardi is represented by Christopher L. Coffin, Dan A. Robin,
Jr., Kevin I. Goldberg and Gary E. Mason.

Contact: Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
         Finckbeiner & Robin and Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP.
         Telephone: 225-687-6396
         E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com


UNITIL CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation's wholly owned distribution utility, Fitchburg
Gas and Electric Light Company, continues to defend itself against
a class action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts, according to the
Company's October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
January 7, 2009 in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts, captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric
Light Company. On April 1, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed in
Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg. The Amended
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the
cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional
and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008. The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 ice storm. On September 4, 2009, the Superior
Court issued its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. The Company
anticipates that the court will decide whether the lawsuit is
appropriate for class action treatment in late 2012. The Company
continues to believe the suit is without merit and will defend
itself vigorously.


U.S. BANK NAT'L: Washington County Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The County of Washington, Pennsylvania has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of Pennsylvania's 67 counties, seeking to
recover unpaid fees from U.S. Bank National Association.  Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, Court of Commons Pleas, Washington County,
No. 2011-7095.

The Complaint alleges that U.S. Bank created mortgage-backed
securities trusts, and earned millions of dollars, by telling the
public that it held mortgages secured by real property in
Pennsylvania as allowed by Pennsylvania law.  However, the
Complaint alleges that the mortgages were recorded in the name of
the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and assignments
to U.S. Bank had not been recorded.  Washington County's Complaint
demands that U.S. Bank either pay for the privilege of
representing to investors that the loans in its trust had priority
over subsequent liens or lose that right.

According to Gary E. Mason, an attorney representing Washington
County, Pennsylvania counties are owed more than $100 million in
recording fees that were not paid by U.S. Bank National
Association and other financial institutions that relied on their
membership in MERS to avoid paying these fees.

Washington County is represented by Gary E. Mason, Mason LLP,
Jonathon W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, and Aaron Rihn, Robert
Pierce & Associates, P.C.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.masonlawdc.com/Current-Events/Recent-News.aspx

CONTACT: Gary E. Mason, Esq.
         Mason LLP
         1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Ste. 605
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: 202-429-2290
         E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com


VIEWPOINT FINANCIAL: Settles FLSA Class Suit for $350,000
---------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, Viewpoint Financial Group, Inc., was named in a
class action lawsuit alleging that the Company, ViewPoint Bank and
its wholly owned subsidiary, ViewPoint Bankers Mortgage, Inc.,
doing business as ViewPoint Mortgage, improperly classified VPM's
mortgage loan officers as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and thereby failed to properly compensate
them for overtime. In September 2011, and without admitting
liability, the parties agreed to a mediated settlement of the
matter for $350,000.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 27,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Gender Bias Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Moira Herbst, writing for Reuters, reports that Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. discriminated against female employees in Texas stores in pay
and promotion decisions, according to a lawsuit filed on Oct. 28
in Federal Court in Dallas.

The complaint is the second to be filed since a nationwide class
action against the company was thrown by the Supreme Court in
June.  On Oct. 27, a similar set of claims was filed in federal
court in California.  In both Texas and California, plaintiffs are
seeking class action status for female Wal-Mart workers in that
state.

Attorneys for female Wal-Mart employees are now pursuing a state-
by-state strategy, said Joseph Sellers, an attorney for Cohen
Milstein, at a news briefing on Oct. 27 announcing the California
lawsuit.  Mr. Sellers represented plaintiffs in the nationwide
lawsuit.

Mr. Sellers said that more lawsuits will be filed in different
regions in the next three to six months.

Walmart dismissed the lawsuit as groundless.

"As we have said all along, these claims are unsuitable for class
treatment because the situations of each individual are so
different," said Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossitier.  "The
statewide class that the plaintiffs' lawyers now propose is no
more appropriate than the nationwide class that the Supreme Court
has already rejected."

The Texas lawsuit alleges the company paid women at lower rates
than men for similar work and kept them from being promoted to
management-track jobs.  The complaint names Stephanie Odle, who
has worked at Wal-Mart owned Sam's Club stores in three states and
claims she was unfairly denied a promotion.

"Managers in Texas Regions do not require or use valid, job
related factors in making the promotion selections," the lawsuit
said.  "Wal-Mart's managers rely on discriminatory stereotypes and
biased views about women in making pay and promotion decisions."

The proposed class of plaintiffs would include at least 45,000
women employed at Texas Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores from
December 1998 through at least June 2004.

The plaintiffs are seeking changes in Wal-Mart's promotion
policies in Texas, compensatory relief and punitive damages.

The original class action lawsuit was filed in 2001 on behalf of
up to 1.5 million female Wal-Mart workers across the country.  A
federal court in California granted the group class action status
in 2004, and Wal-Mart appealed the decision.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling
and dismantled the class action.  In a 5-4 decision, the court
found that female employees in different jobs, with different
supervisors, at 3,400 stores nationwide did not have enough in
common to be considered together in a single class-action lawsuit.

"Wal-Mart is not the company the plaintiffs' lawyers say it is,"
said Wal-Mart's Mr. Rossitier.  "Wal-Mart is a great place for
women to work."

The case is Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas, case no. 3:11-cv-02954.


YELP! INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Advertising Extortion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed a class action that accused Yelp of bestowing
positive reviews on businesses that advertise with it, while
punishing those that decline with negative reviews.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen found that a class of business
including Wheel Techniques failed to support allegations that Yelp
employees or people working on behalf of the company wrote
business reviews or that Yelp paid users to write reviews.

Even if Yelp employees had written reviews, and even if they were
paid for it, those acts raise only the "mere possibility that Yelp
has authored or manipulated content" to "extort" advertising
revenues, the 15-page decision states.

Wheel Techniques claimed to have noticed negative reviews that did
not match its customer records, but that "does not support the
logical leap that Yelp created those reviews," Judge Chen wrote.

The judge was also unmoved by claims that an unnamed source
allegedly told the company's owner that a former Yelp employee
said that Yelp had fired sales employees for "scamming relating to
advertising."  The alleged scamming could refer to a host of
practices not involving manufacturing false reviews, according to
the court.

Unless companies like Yelp create or develop part of the content,
the Communications Decency Act immunizes these companies from
liability for reviews created by third parties.  Wheel Techniques
failed to prove that Yelp had a hand in content development, and
thus cannot claim it manipulated third-party reviews.

Judge Chen also rejected arguments that the motivation to drum up
advertising revenue should eliminate its legal immunity.  While
Judge Chen said he is "sympathetic to the ethical underpinnings"
of the argument, he found that statute indicates that immunity
applies regardless of whether the publisher acts in good faith.

Finding a bad-faith exception to immunity could force Yelp to
defend its editorial decisions on a case-by-case basis and reveal
how it decides what to publish and what not to publish, according
to the court.  Judge Chen added that this finding could lead Yelp
to resist filtering out false or unreliable reviews or to
immediately remove all negative reviews that incite business
complaints.

A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in
Levitt, et al. v. Yelp!, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01321 (N.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/28/yelp.pdf


* Taiwanese Consumer Group to File Class Action Over Food Scare
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yang Chin-ying, writing for Taipei Times, reports that a movement
led by the Consumers' Foundation to file a class-action suit on
behalf of consumers against companies responsible for the food
scare in May will commence this week, the foundation said on
Oct. 28.

The food scare was sparked by the discovery of the illegal use of
plasticizers in additives supplied to food and beverage
manufacturers.

Consumers' Foundation chairperson Joann Su said the foundation,
together with the Cabinet's Consumer Protection Commission (CPC),
has processed and settled about 2,000 complaints.

However, most dealers and consumers have yet to reach a consensus,
and more than half of the cases, numbering in the thousands,
remain unsettled, she said.

The foundation said it was preparing to gather volunteer lawyers
to help consumers take the group complaint to court, adding that
details on how to apply to join the group lawsuit would be
announced this week.

The cost of the entire legal proceeding is estimated at about NT$6
million (US$201,000), and funding for the trial will come in part
from fund-raising, Ms. Su said.

She added that the foundation would try to solicit support from
the Cabinet's secondary reserve funds.

Ms. Su also called on the government to amend third-party
insurance regulations and approve the legislation for the
Consumers' Protection Foundation Fund as soon as possible to
better protect consumers' rights.

She said that under current regulations for third-party insurance,
consumers can only collect payment if they have suffered actual
losses or provide evidence of actual loss.

Neither do these regulations provide guarantees for returning or
exchanging merchandise, she said.

As such, third-party insurance has not helped consumers affected
by the plasticizer incident, Ms. Su said, urging the government to
amend the law to safeguard consumers' rights.

Following the plasticizer scare in May, the foundation began a
two-month survey in July to gauge consumers' views on the whole
incident.

The survey, which collected 2,142 samples, showed that although
consumers are now more aware of what to look out for during
purchases, 55% of respondents have lost confidence in the nation's
food security, despite the government's emergency measures to deal
with the issue.

Only 5% of respondents expressed confidence in local food security
measures, the survey showed.

More than half of respondents also said that consumers' rights
were not upheld and compensation was lacking during the incident,
the poll showed.

As to the foodstuff dealers' attitude, 66% of respondents said
they could not accept the dealers' comment that they were also
victims in the case.

A total of 61% said they had lost faith in the dealers, with only
3% saying that the incident had not affected their confidence in
dealers, the poll said.

Asked whether it would be reasonable for dealers to provide a
considerable sum to establish a compensation fund for consumers,
69% of respondent agreed it was reasonable, the poll showed.

The survey also showed that 69% of respondents had become more
suspicious about food safety after the incident; 65% said they
thought the "brand name" and "type" of products being sold have a
great impact on their choices of which to buy, the survey said.


                           *********

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  * * *