CAR_Public/111103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, November 3, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 218

                             Headlines

AETNA INC: Continues to Defend Out-of-Network Benefit MDL
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Dec. 1 Status Conference Set in CO2 Suit
ASPEN TECHNICAL: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
AVON PRODUCTS: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs in Securities Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Appeals Denial of Bid to Vacate $28-Mil. Verdict

CABLE TV COS: 9th Cir. Withdraws Antirust Class Action Ruling
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
CADENCE DESIGN: Court Defers Ruling on $38-Million Suit Deal
CHRISTIE'S: May Challenge California Retail Royalties Act
CHUNGHWA PICTURE: Settles Class Action Over CRT Products

CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend Ingenix-Related Suits
CIGNA CORP: Oral Argument in "Amara" Suit Set for Dec. 9
CIGNA CORP: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Karp" Suit Still Pending
COCOA BEACH, FL: Red-Light Cameras Unconstitutional, Suit Claims
COSTAR GROUP: Has Yet to File Deal in Acquisition-Related Suit

ELI LILLY: Supreme Ct. Remands Zyprexa Class Suit to District Ct.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit vs. Units
GOLFSMITH INT'L: Still Awaits Approval of "O'Flynn" Suit Deal
GOV'T OF CANADA: Oct. 28 Hearing Set for Sixties Scoop Suit
HEALTHSPRING INC: Being Sold to Cigna for Too Little, Suit Says

IMAX CORPORATION: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
IMAX CORPORATION: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Canada
INTERNAP NETWORK: Obtains Court Okay of Suit Dismissal Bid
KINDER MORGAN: Final Hearing on "Lugliani" Suit Deal Set Next Year
LINN ENERGY: Discovery in Royalty Payment Suit Still Ongoing

LORILLARD INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Reconsider in "Cleary" Suit
LORILLARD INC: Trial Set for Sept. 2012 in "Brown" Suit vs. Unit
LORILLARD INC: Unit Paid $69.7-MM Judgment Share in "Scott" Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Ex-Employees' Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
MASCO CORP: Continues to Defend Columbus Drywall Case

MCKESSON: Settles Drug Pricing Class Action
NETFLIX INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits Over DVDs
NETLOGIC MICROSYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Del. Suit.
NEUROMETRIX INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Concluded
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend MDL on Fuel Surcharges

NVR INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Overtime Wages
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal from "Lane" Suit Deal Remains Pending
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hines" Suit
PERRIGO COMPANY: Defends 2nd Amended Shareholder Class Suit
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Accrued $2.8MM on Potential Settlement of Suits

REPUBLIC BANCORP: Subsidiary Defends "Webb" Suit in Kentucky
REVLON INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Delaware & New York
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Suit Dismissal
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses All Claims in "Robin" Lawsuit
SOAPSTONE NETWORKS: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending

SONUS NETWORKS: Objector Appeals Lack of Standing Decision
TIME WARNER: Appeal in Set-Top Cable MDL Remains Pending
TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Brantley" Antitrust Suit
TIME WARNER: Amended Complaints Pending in Two Class Suits
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Swinegar" Suit

U.S. DAIRY COS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Gender Bias Class Action in Texas
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Suit
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Court Enters Final Okay on Calif. Labor Suits
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Alabama Court Junks Improper Charge Class Suit

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Improper Charge Class Suit in Florida




                          *********

AETNA INC: Continues to Defend Out-of-Network Benefit MDL
---------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. is named as a defendant in several purported class
actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices
related to the payment of claims for services rendered to its
members by health care providers with whom the Company does not
have a contract ("out-of-network providers").   Among other
things, these lawsuits allege that the Company paid too little to
its health plan members and/or providers for these services, among
other reasons, because of the Company's use of data provided by
Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors
("Ingenix").  Other major health insurers are the subject of
similar litigation or have settled similar litigation.

Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the Company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs
who are members in the Company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of the Company's members who received services
from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the
present.  Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the Company
violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone
or in concert with the Company's competitors.  The purported
classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation
and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified
damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and
declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and
seek to disqualify the Company from acting as a fiduciary of any
benefit plan that is subject to ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that
generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have
been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").  In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The physician
plaintiffs have attempted to appeal the Florida District Court's
ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

Discovery is substantially complete in MDL 2020, several motions
are pending, and briefing on class certification has been
completed.  The court has not set a trial date or a timetable for
deciding class certification.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend itself against the claims brought in these
cases.

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 quarter ended September 30, 2011.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Dec. 1 Status Conference Set in CO2 Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Mississippi court has set a Dec. 1, 2011, status conference for
refiled complaints alleging carbon dioxide emission-related
nuisance claims, according to American Electric Power Company,
Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  AEP's
power plants have CO2 emissions.  The Fifth Circuit held that
there was no exclusive commitment of the common law issues raised
in plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate branch of government and
that no initial policy determination was required to adjudicate
those claims.  The court granted petitions for rehearing.  An
additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit without a quorum to
reconsider the decision and the appeal was dismissed, leaving the
district court's decision in place.  Plaintiffs filed a petition
with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to remand the case to
the Fifth Circuit and reinstate the panel decision.  The petition
was denied in January 2011.  Plaintiffs refiled their complaint in
federal district court.  The court ordered all defendants to
respond to the refiled complaints in October 2011 and set a status
conference for December 1, 2011.

The Company believes the claims are without merit, and in addition
to other defenses, are barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel and the applicable statute of limitations.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend against the claims.  It is unable to
determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible
of occurring.

Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, American Electric Power Company,
Inc., generates, transmits, and distributes electric power in
Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.


ASPEN TECHNICAL: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Arthur Urdiales, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Aspen Technical Staffing,
Inc., an Illinois domestic corporation, and Beth Knicker,
individually, Case No. 2011-CH-37701 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
October 31, 2011) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons.

The Plaintiff contends that he and other similarly situated
employees were scheduled to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but the Defendants did not pay him overtime wages at a rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay.

Mr. Urdiales is a resident of Will County, Illinois.

Aspen Technical is an Illinois corporation, and conducts business
in Cook County, Illinois.  Ms. Knicker is the president of Aspen
Technical, and is involved in the day-to-day operation of the
Company.  Mr. Urdiales asserts that Ms. Knicker has the authority
to hire and fire employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Robins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBINS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          33 N. Dearborn, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-641-9500


AVON PRODUCTS: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two entities have been appointed as lead plaintiffs in a
securities class action lawsuit in New York against Avon Products,
Inc., and certain of its former officers and directors for
allegedly providing false and misleading information to
shareholders, according to the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 27, 2011.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholders class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain
present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. The
complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who either (1) were Avon shareholders
as of the close of business on March 17, 2011, March 17, 2010,
March 18, 2009, March 14, 2008, or March 15, 2007 and therefore
were eligible to vote proxies or (2) purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through
and including May 24, 2011. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements and
omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's
internal controls. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW
Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the
matter and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Appeals Denial of Bid to Vacate $28-Mil. Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company appealed the order denying its motion
to vacate a $28 million verdict against it in the litigation over
average wholesale prices, 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.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.  The Company is a defendant in four state attorneys general
lawsuits pending in state courts around the country.  Beginning in
August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  In September 2010, the jury
issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the Company was not
liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the
Commonwealth Court Judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania
consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the
Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the Company from
contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs.  The Company has
moved to vacate the decision and the Commonwealth has moved for a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

In August 2011, the Commonwealth Court issued its decision denying
the parties' motions.  The Company and the Commonwealth have
appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

As previously reported, one set of class actions were consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (AWP
MDL).  In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary
approval of a proposed settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs'
claims against the Company for $19 million and in July 2011, the
District Court issued a formal, final order and judgment approving
the settlement of the AWP MDL.


CABLE TV COS: 9th Cir. Withdraws Antirust Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Night Circuit on Oct. 31 withdrew a
ruling that had doomed a class action alleging antitrust
violations in the refusal of NBC, Viacom, Time Warner and other
leading television programmers to offer cable channels
individually instead of in bundles.

A three-judge panel of 9th Circuit judges sided with a lower court
when it upheld dismissal of the case in June for failure to state
a claim.  That decision called the lawsuit a "consumer protection
class action masquerading as an antitrust suit."

The original three-judge panel included the late Judge Pamela
Rymer, who died on Sept. 21 from cancer.

In a brief order published on Oct. 31, the federal appeals court
in San Francisco withdrew the June opinion and told the court
clerk to "reconstitute the panel by drawing a third judge."  The
order also renders any petitions for rehearing moot.

A copy of the Order in Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al., No. 09-56785 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/Ymrn8s


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation is still awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by
customers seeking recovery for lack of Fox programming.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.  On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks and
carriage was restored.  Several class action lawsuits were
subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking
recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those lawsuits were
consolidated in an action before the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York and a consolidated complaint
was filed in that court on February 22, 2011.  The plaintiffs have
asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
consumer fraud.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
action.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits with certainty or reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss.

No updates were reported in the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.


CADENCE DESIGN: Court Defers Ruling on $38-Million Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court has deferred ruling on preliminary
approval of a $38 million settlement entered into by Cadence
Design Systems, Inc., and parties of a securities lawsuit,
according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2011.

During fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, or
District Court, all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence's common
stock. The first such complaint was filed on October 29, 2008,
captioned Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik; the second such complaint
was filed on November 4, 2008, captioned Vyas v. Cadence Design
Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister and Kevin S. Palatnik; and the
third such complaint was filed on November 21, 2008, captioned
Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, John
B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William Porter. On March 4, 2009,
the District Court entered an order consolidating these three
complaints and captioning the consolidated case "In re Cadence
Design Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation." The District Court
also named a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated
litigation. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
complaint on April 24, 2009, naming Cadence, Michael J. Fister,
Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin Bushby as defendants,
and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of Cadence's common stock who
traded Cadence's common stock between April 23, 2008 and December
10, 2008, or the Alleged Class Period. The amended complaint
alleged that Cadence and the individual defendants made statements
during the Alleged Class Period regarding Cadence's financial
results that were false and misleading because Cadence had
recognized revenue that should have been recognized in subsequent
periods. The amended complaint requested certification of the
action as a class action, unspecified damages, interest and costs,
and unspecified equitable relief. On June 8, 2009, Cadence and the
other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On September 11, 2009, the District Court held that the plaintiffs
had failed to allege a valid claim under the relevant legal
standards and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The District Court gave the plaintiffs leave to
file another amended complaint, and the plaintiffs did so on
October 13, 2009. The amended complaint filed on October 13, 2009
names the same defendants, asserts the same causes of action, and
seeks the same relief as the earlier amended complaint. Cadence
moved to dismiss the October 13, 2009 amended complaint. The
District Court denied the motion to dismiss on March 2, 2010. On
July 7, 2010, the parties agreed, and the District Court ordered,
that the litigation be stayed in order to facilitate mediation. On
February 11, 2011, the parties to the securities litigation agreed
to settle the securities litigation for consideration of $38.0
million, of which approximately $22.2 million will be paid by
Cadence's insurance carriers, with the balance to be paid by
Cadence. Cadence agreed to this settlement without admitting any
wrongdoing on the part of the company or any of its current or
former directors or executive officers, and the settlement is
subject to approval by the District Court. In August 2011, the
District Court deferred ruling on preliminary approval of the
settlement, and requested further information regarding the
settlement and how class members would be notified of the
settlement. The parties submitted further information in response
to the District Court's request in September and October of 2011.


CHRISTIE'S: May Challenge California Retail Royalties Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Times reports that faced with a class-action suit over
artists' royalties that potentially would expose them to a huge
cash verdict, Christie's and Sotheby's likely will challenge the
constitutionality of the California law on which the claim is
based.

The suit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles contends that the
two big auction houses have ignored their obligation to ensure
that 5% of what a seller receives should go to the artist or the
artist's heirs.  The law applies to all profitable sales of more
than $1,000 -- if the works are by American or California-based
artists and the seller is a California resident or the sale takes
place in California.  The royalty siphons $250 from the proceeds
of a $5,000 sale and $250,000 from a $5-million sale.

"We have meaningful defenses," Sotheby's said in a statement on
Oct. 19, while Christie's said, "it views the California Resale
Royalties Act as subject to serious legal challenges" and "looks
forward" to making its case in court.

The courts have been down this path once before.

Eric George, attorney for plaintiffs who include artists Chuck
Close and Laddie John Dill and the estate of Robert Graham, said
it's unlikely Sotheby's and Christie's can argue successfully that
the law is unconstitutional, since there's a legal precedent to
the contrary.

Soon after the California royalty rule went into effect in 1977, a
Los Angeles art dealer, Howard Morseburg, filed a test case with
the support of other art dealers, contending that "the state has
no business interfering" in art sales.  A trial judge and the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found otherwise, and in 1980 the
U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up Mr. Morseburg's appeal.

But some legal minds aren't so sure that the Morseburg precedent
matters anymore.  Because he sued in 1977, his contention that the
California law was an unconstitutional intrusion on the federal
government's prerogative of making copyright law had to be weighed
against provisions of the federal Copyright Act of 1909.  The
courts found no conflict.  But the ground rules may have changed
in 1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect.  Writing in
1980 in the Boston College International & Comparative Law Review,
Carole M. Vickers noted that the new federal copyright law
specifically says that it stands "exclusively" as the law of the
land on all copyright-related matters, and that "the statutes of
any state" are not valid.

Ms. Vickers wrote that the California law "arguably . . .
conflicts" with the federal copyright law, and a 1995 article by
Michael B. Reddy in Loyola Marymount University's Loyola of Los
Angeles Entertainment Law Review says that "because of the
unambiguous language found in both the legislative history and the
text of the Copyright Act of 1976, there are serious doubts" about
whether a constitutional challenge to the California resale
royalty law would fail again.

"The question for the courts would be whether the California law
is equivalent to a copyright law, and I don't have an answer to
what that would be," Bruce Lehman, a Washington copyright expert
who's helping to draft a new federal bill that would create a
national resale royalty provision for artists, said on Oct. 19.

If Christie's and Sotheby's were to lose the class action, they'd
be on the hook not only for 5% plus interest on each disputed
sale, but for attorneys fees and -- the real potential haymaker to
their bottom lines -- punitive damages.

An artists' royalty provision, known as droit de suite, has long
prevailed in some European countries -- and in 2006 it took effect
throughout the European Union, including Ireland and Great
Britain, which previously didn't allow visual artists' resale
royalties.  In the United States, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly
Hills) tried and failed in 1978 to pass a national bill modeled on
the California statute; according to Reddy in the LMU legal
journal, several bills introduced in Congress during the late
1980s also failed.

But Congress asked the U.S. Copyright Office to report on the
issue, and in 1992 it delivered a 400-page assessment, which
advised against giving visual artists a resale royalty right.  One
concern was that major sellers and auctioneers might simply take
their business to Great Britain.  But, according to Mr. Reddy, the
report said that "Congress may want to take another look," should
the European Union extend droit de suite to all its member states.

Well, it has.  And the U.S. Congress may soon get to grapple with
the issue again.  Robert Panzer, executive director of the New
York-based Visual Artists and Galleries Assn. (VAGA), said on
Oct. 19 that his group and the Artists Rights Society, also based
in New York, are drafting a bill that would require all art
sellers in the United States to pay royalties.

"We've tried to simplify the bill so it wouldn't be too
complicated to enforce, the way it is in California now,"
Mr. Panzer said.  Among the arguments in favor of a royalty, he
said, is that because of the U.S. government's reciprocity
agreements with the European Union, when America passes a royalty
law, a substantial group of American citizens -- namely visual
artists -- would become entitled to royalty payments on sales in
Europe as well.

Mr. Panzer notes that despite his group's name, it has been years
since VAGA represented galleries as well as artists; too often, he
said, their economic interests conflict.  The group mainly tries
to safeguard the rights of its members, about 500 well-established
artists in the United States and more than 6,000 overseas, when it
comes to reproductions of their work.  But VAGA also has taken an
interest in enforcing the California resale royalty law.  After a
Christie's auction grossed more than $93 million last year for a
California-based seller -- the estate of author Michael Crichton
-- Mr. Panzer said VAGA asked the auction house and the estate to
make sure a 5% royalty was paid.

"Christie's has said it's not their problem," Mr. Panzer said,
while "the attorney for the Crichton estate has said they don't
believe the money is owed, based on their interpretation of the
law."


CHUNGHWA PICTURE: Settles Class Action Over CRT Products
--------------------------------------------------------
The Notice Company Inc. on Oct. 31 issued a notice for indirect
purchasers of CRT Products.

LEGAL NOTICE:  If You Bought A Cathode Ray Tube Product, A Class
Action Settlement May Affect You.  Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Products
include CRTs, Televisions, Computer Monitors, and other products
containing CRTs.

You may be affected by a class action lawsuit involving CRT
Products purchased indirectly from the Defendant companies.
"Indirect" means that you did not buy the CRT Product directly
from any Defendant.  The lawsuit seeks: (a) nationwide injunctive
relief to prohibit the Defendants' behavior that is the subject of
the lawsuit and (b) money for indirect purchasers in 24 states.
A Settlement has been reached with Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.
The litigation is continuing against the remaining Defendants.  A
complete list of defendants is set out in the Detailed Notice
available at http://www.CRTsettlement.com

What is this case about?

The lawsuit claims that numerous Defendants, including Chunghwa,
conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of CRT
Products resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought CRT
Products such as Televisions and Computer Monitors.  The
Defendants deny that they did anything wrong.  The Court has not
decided who is right.

Who is Included?

The "Settlors" include any person or business that indirectly
bought in the U.S. (excluding claims under the Washington Unfair
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act) from March 1, 1995
through November 25, 2007, any CRT Product made by the Defendants.
Both consumers and resellers are included in the Settlement.

What does the Settlement Provide?

The Settlement provides for the payment by Chunghwa of $10,000,000
in cash, plus interest, to the Settlors.  It also provides that
Chunghwa will furnish information about the case, including other
Defendants' involvement in the alleged conspiracy, to Class
Counsel.  Money will not be distributed to Settlors yet.  The
lawyers will pursue the lawsuit against the other Defendants to
see if any future settlements or judgments can be obtained in the
case and then distribute the funds together to reduce expenses.
It is possible that money will be distributed to organizations who
are, as nearly as practicable, representative of the interests of
indirect purchasers of CRT Products instead of Settlors themselves
if the cost to process claims would result in small payments to
Settlors.

Who Represents You?

The Court has appointed Mario N. Alioto of Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott LLP as "Interim Lead Class Counsel" to represent members
of the Settlement Class.  The Settlement Class is defined in
Paragraph 1 of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement with Defendant Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.,
which is available at http://www.CRTsettlement.com
If you are a resident of Illinois or Oregon, you are a member of
the Settlement Class but are represented by the Attorney General
of your State with respect to your claims under those states'
antitrust laws.  You do not have to pay these lawyers to represent
you.  You may hire your own attorney, if you wish, but if you do
so you will be responsible for your own attorney's fees and
expenses.

What are your Options?

If you wish to remain a Settlor you do not need to take any action
at this time.  If you don't want to be legally bound by the
Settlement, you must exclude yourself in writing by February 1,
2012, or you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, Chunghwa
about the legal claims in this case.  If you remain a Settlor, you
may object to the Settlement by February 1, 2012.  The Detailed
Notice describes how to exclude yourself or to object.  The U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a
Fairness Hearing at 2:00 p.m. on March 15, 2012, at JAMS, Two
Embarcadero, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94111.  The hearing may
be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so
it is a good idea to check http://www.CRTsettlement.com
At this hearing the Special Master will consider whether the
Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.  The Special Master
will also consider Interim Lead Class Counsel's request for
payment of $2.5 million from the Settlement Fund to be used for
expenses incurred in this case. If there are objections or
comments, the Special Master will consider them at that time.  You
may appear at the hearing, but you don't have to.  After the
hearing, the Special Master will decide whether to approve the
Settlement.  We do not know how long these decisions will take.
Please do not contact JAMS or the Court about this case.  Please
retain any receipts or other evidence of purchase of any CRT
Product.  Before disposing of any CRT Product please see the
Detailed Notice for recommendations on preserving proof of
ownership.

For more details, call toll free 1-800-673-4790, visit
http://www.CRTsettlement.comor write to CRT Indirect Settlement,
c/o The Notice Company, P.O. Box 778, Hingham, MA 02043.


CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend Ingenix-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Corporation continues to defend lawsuits related to its use
of data from Ingenix, Inc., as a New Jersey court didn't dismiss
some ERISA-related claims under the lawsuits, according to the
Company's Oct. 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a number of putative
nationwide class actions asserting that due to the use of data
from Ingenix, Inc., the Company improperly underpaid claims, an
industry-wide issue.  Data from Ingenix, a subsidiary of
UnitedHealthcare, is used to calculate payments for services
provided by out-of-network providers.  All of the class actions
were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company et al., which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  The consolidated amended
complaint, filed on Aug. 7, 2009, asserts claims under ERISA, the
RICO statute, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various
medical associations.  Cigna filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2009.  Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification on May 28, 2010, which is
fully briefed and pending.  Fact and expert discovery have been
completed.

On September 23, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The
court dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical
association plaintiffs for lack of standing to sue, and as a
result the case will proceed only on behalf of subscribers. In
addition, the court dismissed all of the antitrust claims, the
ERISA claims based on disclosure and the New Jersey state law
claims.  The court did not dismiss the ERISA claims for benefits
and claims under the RICO statute.

On June 9, 2009, Cigna filed motions in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to enforce a previous
settlement, In re Managed Care Litigation, by enjoining the RICO
and antitrust causes of action asserted by the provider and
medical association plaintiffs in the Ingenix litigation on the
ground that they arose previously and were released in the prior
settlement.  On November 30, 2009, the Court granted the motions
and ordered the provider and association plaintiffs to withdraw
their RICO and antitrust claims from the Ingenix litigation.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit and the appeal is
pending.  The claims of these provider and association plaintiffs
have now been dismissed by the Franco court for lack of standing.

It is reasonably possible that others could initiate additional
litigation or additional regulatory action against the Company
with respect to use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc.  The Company
denies the allegations asserted in the investigations and
litigation and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.
Due to numerous uncertain and unpredictable factors presented in
these cases, including the lack of any clear basis to determine
whether and to what extent the claimants have been injured, it is
not possible to estimate a range of loss at this time, the Company
says.

Cigna Corp. -- http://www.cigna.com/-- is a global health service
and financial company dedicated to helping people improve their
health, well-being and sense of security.  The Company's operating
subsidiaries in the United States provide an integrated suite of
health services, such as medical, dental, behavioral health,
pharmacy and vision care benefits, as well as group life, accident
and disability insurance.  Outside the U.S., Cigna serves
expatriates in virtually every country in the world and provides
employers, affinity groups and individuals access to quality local
and global health care and related financial protection programs.
Cigna offers products and services in 30 countries and
jurisdictions and has approximately 66 million customer
relationships throughout the world.


CIGNA CORP: Oral Argument in "Amara" Suit Set for Dec. 9
--------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments before a trial court in a pension plan class action
complaint commenced by Janice Amara are set to be held on Dec. 9,
2011, according to Cigna Corporation's Oct. 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit,
captioned Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cigna Corporation and Cigna Pension Plan, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation
and the Cigna Pension Plan on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated participants in the Cigna Pension Plan affected
by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The plaintiffs
allege various ERISA violations including, among other things,
that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older
employees; the conversion resulted in a wear away period (during
which the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-
conversion benefit); and these conditions are not adequately
disclosed in the Plan.

In 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor of Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan on the age discrimination
and wear away claims.  However, the court found in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims and ordered an
enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance formula
for the majority of the class, requiring class members to receive
their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion Cigna Pension Plan
and their post-1997 accrued benefits under the post-conversion
Cigna Pension Plan.  The court also ordered, among other things,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Both parties appealed the court's decisions to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit which issued a decision on Oct. 6,
2009 affirming the District Court's judgment and order on all
issues.  On January 4, 2010, both parties filed separate petitions
for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
Cigna's petition was granted, and on May 16, 2011, the Supreme
Court issued its Opinion in which it reversed the lower courts'
decisions and remanded the case to the trial judge for
reconsideration of the remedy.  The Court unanimously agreed with
the Company's position that the lower courts erred in granting a
remedy for an inaccurate plan description under an ERISA provision
that allows only recovery of plan benefits.  However, the decision
identified possible avenues of "appropriate equitable relief" that
plaintiffs may pursue as an alternative remedy.

The case is now in the trial court following remand, and briefs
have been filed on the remedial issues.  Oral argument is
scheduled for December 9, 2011.  The Company will continue to
vigorously defend its position in the case.  As of September 30,
2011, the Company continues to carry a liability of $82 million
pre-tax ($53 million after-tax), that reflects the Company's best
estimate of the exposure.

Cigna Corp. -- http://www.cigna.com/-- is a global health service
and financial company dedicated to helping people improve their
health, well-being and sense of security.  The Company's operating
subsidiaries in the United States provide an integrated suite of
health services, such as medical, dental, behavioral health,
pharmacy and vision care benefits, as well as group life, accident
and disability insurance.  Outside the U.S., Cigna serves
expatriates in virtually every country in the world and provides
employers, affinity groups and individuals access to quality local
and global health care and related financial protection programs.
Cigna offers products and services in 30 countries and
jurisdictions and has approximately 66 million customer
relationships throughout the world.


CIGNA CORP: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Karp" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts court has yet to enter an order on a motion to
dismiss the class action complaint initiated by Bretta Karp
alleging gender discrimination, according to Cigna Corporation's
Oct. 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

On March 3, 2011, Bretta Karp filed a class action gender
discrimination lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The plaintiff alleges
systemic discrimination against females in compensation,
promotions, training, and performance evaluations in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and
Massachusetts law.  Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and various
other forms of broad programmatic relief, including injunctive
relief, backpay, lost benefits, and preferential rights to jobs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on May 16, 2011,
which is fully briefed and pending.

The Company denies the allegations asserted in the litigation and
will vigorously defend itself in this case.  Due to numerous
uncertain and unpredictable factors presented in this case,
including the merits of the case and the lack of any clear basis
to determine the definition of a class of claimants, it is not
possible to estimate a range of loss (if any) at this time.

Cigna Corp. -- http://www.cigna.com/-- is a global health service
and financial company dedicated to helping people improve their
health, well-being and sense of security.  The Company's operating
subsidiaries in the United States provide an integrated suite of
health services, such as medical, dental, behavioral health,
pharmacy and vision care benefits, as well as group life, accident
and disability insurance.  Outside the U.S., Cigna serves
expatriates in virtually every country in the world and provides
employers, affinity groups and individuals access to quality local
and global health care and related financial protection programs.
Cigna offers products and services in 30 countries and
jurisdictions and has approximately 66 million customer
relationships throughout the world.


COCOA BEACH, FL: Red-Light Cameras Unconstitutional, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FlaglerLive reports that as Florida lawmakers gear up for another
debate about red-light cameras, a Brevard County citation has led
to a class-action lawsuit about the constitutionality of the
devices.

The lawsuit focuses on red-light cameras in Cocoa Beach.  But
Melbourne attorney Stephen Koons said it also challenges the
constitutionality of a 2010 state law that has led to cameras
popping up across Florida.

"I think the hammer's about to fall -- that's my opinion,"
Mr. Koons said.

Palm Coast has spy-and-snap cameras at six locations, generating
$1.35 million in fines since cameras were first installed in 2008
by its contractor, American Traffic Solutions, which has itself
cashed in on more than half a million dollars.  Since a state law
went into effect in 2010 regulating all spy-and-snap fines,
requiring a universal fine of $158 and requiring a share for the
state, the state has cashed in on more than a quarter million
dollars from Palm Coast.  In this region, the devices have also
been installed in Daytona Beach, Holly Hill and DeLand.

Mr. Koons has represented Cocoa Beach resident Mary Lombardo in a
months-long legal fight stemming from a $158 citation she received
in September 2010.  He filed the class action this month in
Brevard County circuit court, though Cocoa Beach recently
requested that the case be moved to federal court in Orlando.
Mr. Koons said he hopes to keep the issue in state court.  If the
matter is federalized, the outcome would apply to Palm Coast.

"If the federal judge declares the red-light cameras
unconstitutional, then it would affect every red-light camera
ticket that's been paid in the state of Florida," Mr. Koons said,
and may have to lead to the reimbursement of every ticket paid.
Local governments claim that motorists who have already paid the
fines did so voluntarily, and therefore should not be reimbursed.
"Our position is that you voluntarily can't pay something that's
unconstitutional," Mr. Koons said.

The cameras are a controversial issue in communities throughout
Florida and in the Legislature.  They snap images of motorists who
don't stop at red lights, starting the process of citations being
issued.

Lawmakers in 2010 passed a law that approved and set standards for
the use of cameras.  But this spring, a legislative debate broke
out about trying to repeal the law -- a debate that already shows
signs of flaring again in 2012.

Supporters argue that the cameras help prevent traffic accidents,
particularly at busy intersections.  Also, the citations provide
money to local governments, which typically split revenue with
private vendors that install and operate cameras.

"The reason this statute was put in place was for revenue
generation.  Doesn't have anything to do with safety," Mr. Koons
says.  To the contrary: in some cases, as in Cocoa Beach, yellow
timers were shorter than state recommendations, meaning that the
reaction time is shortened at intersections, and accidents -- and
citations -- increase.  Municipalities intent on reducing
accidents and improving safety at intersections lengthen yellow
times in traffic lights. But that would reduce the number of
citations, and therefore profits.  "I have no sympathy for all
those municipalities that claim they're cash-strapped," Mr. Koons
said.

The lawsuit contends, in part, that the state law and a Cocoa
Beach ordinance are unconstitutional because people who dispute
red-light citations do not have the ability to cross-examine
witnesses.  That is because cameras, as opposed to police
officers, are the sources of the citations.

Also, it contends that the law and ordinance are unconstitutional
because motorists have to forfeit their right to remain silent if
they hope to fight the citation.  Disputes could arise, for
example, if the owner of a vehicle receives a citation but was not
the actual driver of the car at the time of the red-light
violation.

An attorney for the city of Cocoa Beach and a spokesman for vendor
American Traffic Solutions Inc. could not be reached for comment
on Oct. 28.

But on its city Web site, Cocoa Beach says the cameras are a way
to increase law enforcement in more locations.

"As a tourist destination, Cocoa Beach has more vehicular and
pedestrian traffic than many other communities," the Web site
says.  "The mixture of cars and people increases the chances that
a mishap can result in a serious injury of worse.  It also
underscores the importance of compliance with traffic
regulations."

Mr. Koons initially filed a lawsuit in April seeking an
injunction.  But Cocoa Beach successfully argued that Ms. Lombardo
could not challenge the cameras because she had already
voluntarily paid the fine.

That led to the attorney filing an amended complaint this month,
with Ms. Lombardo as a named plaintiff in a class action.  The
lawsuit seeks reimbursement for motorists who have received fines
because of the Cocoa Beach traffic cameras.

Mr. Koons has fought some 100 red-light camera tickets and never
lost a single one, he says.


COSTAR GROUP: Has Yet to File Deal in Acquisition-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2011, CoStar Group, Inc. signed a definitive
agreement to acquire LoopNet, Inc. ("LoopNet").  The transaction
is subject to customary closing conditions, including antitrust
clearance.  The holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of
LoopNet's common stock and Series A Preferred Stock, voting
together as a single class on an as-converted basis, approved the
adoption of the merger agreement on July 11, 2011.  The Company is
hopeful that the merger may close by the end of 2011; however, the
current timing is such that it is quite possible that the merger
may not close by such time.

In May 2011, LoopNet, its Board of Directors ("the LoopNet Board")
and/or the Company were named as defendants in three purported
class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet stockholders
challenging the proposed merger.  The stockholder actions allege,
among other things, that (i) each member of the LoopNet Board
breached his fiduciary duties to LoopNet and its stockholders in
authorizing the sale of LoopNet to the Company, (ii) the merger
does not maximize value to LoopNet stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and
the Company have made incomplete or materially misleading
disclosures about the proposed transaction and (iv) LoopNet and
the Company aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the members of the LoopNet Board.  The
stockholder actions seek class action certification and equitable
relief, including an injunction against consummation of the
merger.  The parties have stipulated to the consolidation of the
actions, and to permit the filing of a consolidated complaint.  In
June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of
this litigation, which could result in a loss to the Company of
approximately $100,000.  The proposed settlement is conditioned
upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate
stipulation of settlement, consummation of the merger and final
approval of the proposed settlement by the court.

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 quarter ended September 30, 2011.


ELI LILLY: Supreme Ct. Remands Zyprexa Class Suit to District Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Company related to the
product Zyprexa has been remanded back to a New York district
court for further proceedings, according to the Company's
Oct. 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Zyprexa, Eli Lilly's top-selling product, is a treatment for
schizophrenia, acute mixed or manic episodes associated with
bipolar I disorder, and bipolar maintenance.

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the Federal District Court for
the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide class
actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors,
excluding governmental entities, which made or will make payments
for their members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa.
These actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit, brought
under certain state consumer-protection statutes, the federal
civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and
common law theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa,
treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  Two
additional lawsuits were filed in the EDNY in 2006 on similar
grounds.  As with the product liability suits, these lawsuits
allege that the Company inadequately tested for and warned about
side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug.  In
September 2008, Judge Weinstein certified a class consisting of
third-party payors, excluding governmental entities and individual
consumers, and denied the Company's motion for summary judgment.
In September 2010, both decisions were reversed by the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the case cannot proceed
as a class action and entered a judgment in the Company's favor on
plaintiffs' overpricing claim.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' request for review of the Second Circuit decision. The
case has now been remanded back to Judge Weinstein for further
proceedings on potential individual third-party payor claims.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- is an
innovation-driven corporation, which is into developing a growing
portfolio of pharmaceutical products by applying the latest
research from its own worldwide laboratories and from
collaborations with eminent scientific organizations.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, USA, the Company provides answers,
through medicines and information, for some of the world's most
urgent medical needs.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit vs. Units
----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., is seeking dismissal of a class
action lawsuit filed against its subsidiaries in California,
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 November 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a class action in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Oakland Division, titled Vivian Hays, et al. vs. Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who deposited
their exchange funds with LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Service
("LES") and were not able to use them in their contemplated
exchanges due to the alleged illiquidity of LES caused by the
collapse of the auction rate security market in early 2008.
Plaintiffs allege Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation (which was merged into
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company) knew of the problems at
LES and had an obligation of disclosure to exchangers, but did not
disclose and instead recommended exchangers use LES in order to
fund prior exchangers' transactions with money from new
exchangers.  Plaintiffs have sued the Company's subsidiaries
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
constructive fraud and aiding and abetting LES. Plaintiffs ask for
compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest and
reasonable attorney's fees.

The Company says it has employed counsel and intends to vigorously
defend the action.  The case did not include a statement as to the
amount of damages demanded, but instead included a demand for
damages in an amount to be proved at trial.  Due to the early
stage of this case, it is not possible to make meaningful
estimates, if any, of the amount or range of loss that could
result from this case at this time.  The case was transferred on
the Company's motion to a Multi District Litigation proceeding in
South Carolina and a status conference was held on April 22, 2011.
This case was stayed until a decision was made on motions pending
in a similar class action against an unrelated party.  The Court
in that case ruled on June 15, 2011, on the motion to dismiss the
complaint filed by the unrelated party and dismissed the
complaint.  The plaintiffs in the case against Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
filed an amended complaint on August 15, 2011.  The Complaint
added approximately 20 new plaintiffs and two new defendants;
Commonwealth Land Title Co. and LandAmerica Charter Title Company,
both of which are affiliates of the Company.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the action on September 30, 2011.


GOLFSMITH INT'L: Still Awaits Approval of "O'Flynn" Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc., is still awaiting court
approval of its agreement to settle the class action lawsuit
commenced by David O'Flynn, 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 October 23, 2009, David O'Flynn, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit (the
"O'Flynn claim") in the California Superior Court in Orange County
against Golfsmith USA, LLC asserting denial of meal and rest
breaks, failure to timely pay final wages or commissions and
failure to provide itemized employee wage statements in violation
of the California Labor Code.  During the fourth quarter of 2010,
the Company reached an agreement to settle the O'Flynn claim,
subject to court approval.

The Company says that its provision for estimated losses on this
legal action of $0.2 million, net of insurance, has been recorded
in accrued expenses and other current liabilities as of
October 1, 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


GOV'T OF CANADA: Oct. 28 Hearing Set for Sixties Scoop Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Krystalline Kraus, writing for rabble.ca, reports that the appeal
of the Sixties Scoop Class Action Case was set to be heard on
Friday, October 28, 2011.

The appeal is a public hearing.  Anyone can attend.

Marcia Brown and Robert Commanda, as the two who seek to be the
representative plaintiffs, and all who have supported the case
from the First Nations communities, are leading the way on this
important journey towards the identification and security of a
human right to one's cultural identity.

The class action lawsuit initiated against the Canadian government
for their failure to protect first nations children's cultural
identity during the "'60s scoop."  It is a case about "cultural
genocide" and "identity genocide" of First Nations persons, status
and non-status aboriginal persons in the sense that claimants were
denied or had taken from them knowledge of their biological
parents, siblings, their spiritual connections, their language,
their birth names, their customs, their family, their genealogy.
The Plaintiffs are claiming "breach of fiduciary duty" and
"negligence" on the part of the federal government.

Claimants in the class action are limited to:

   -- those who experienced the loss/denial in the Province of
Ontario.

   -- those who experienced the loss/denial between the early
1960s to the mid 1980s: specifically, December 1, 1965 to
January 1, 1985.

   -- if an individual has already made a claim and participated
via the residential schools abuse cases, then they can still
provide their information in the Claimant Intake Form but most
likely cannot participate in this class action because those
individuals made a deal in that case.

Ms. Brown and Mr. Commanda are the representatives to a class
action where they are suing Canada.

They are suing Canada on behalf of themselves and possibly 16,000
other aboriginal persons.

They are arguing that a wrongful act was committed.  It happened
between the years 1965 and 1984 and it has to do with Canada
turning a blind eye or outsourcing its duty to preserve aboriginal
cultural identity for all of the children in Ontario who were
placed in non-aboriginal homes for adoption or as crown ward or
foster children.  They argue that in consequence of what Canada
did, or did not do, they lost their cultural identity and this has
caused them much pain and suffering.


HEALTHSPRING INC: Being Sold to Cigna for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that HealthSpring is selling
itself too cheaply to Cigna, for $3.8 billion or $55 a share, in a
deal that will primarily benefit insiders, shareholders say.

A copy of the Complaint in Coyne v. Healthspring, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 6989 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/31/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Zelding, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377


IMAX CORPORATION: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation continues to defend itself from a consolidated
amended class action complaint in New York, 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.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws.  These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight
class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital
Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd &
Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.

On October 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint. The amended complaint, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the
defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements during the class period regarding
the Company's revenue recognition of theater system installations,
and failing to disclose material information concerning the
Company's revenue recognition practices.  The amended complaint
also added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as
a defendant. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
costs, and expenses.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 10, 2007.  On September 16, 2008, the Court issued a
memorandum opinion and order, denying the motion.  On October 6,
2008, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint.  On
October 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Fact discovery on the merits commenced on
November 14, 2008.  On March 13, 2009, the Court granted a second
prospective lead plaintiff's request to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order naming Westchester Capital
Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and issued an order denying
without prejudice plaintiff's class certification motion pending
resolution of the motion for reconsideration.  On June 29, 2009,
the Court granted the motion for reconsideration and appointed
Snow Capital Investment Partners, L.P. as the lead plaintiff and
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead plaintiff's
counsel. Westchester Capital Management, Inc. appealed this
decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
denied its petition on October 1, 2009.  On April 22, 2010, the
new lead plaintiff filed its motion for class certification,
defendants filed their oppositions to the motion on June 10, 2010,
and plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2010.  On December 20,
2010, the Court denied Snow Capital Investment Partners' motion
and ordered that all applications to be appointed lead plaintiff
must be filed within 20 days of the decision.  Two applications
for lead plaintiff were filed, on January 10, 2011 and January 12,
2011, respectively.  On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order
appointing The Merger Fund as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier
Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. The Merger Fund
filed a motion for class certification on June 3, 2011, and on
July 1, 2011, the Company filed its opposition.  The Company is
not able to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time.  The
Company will vigorously defend the matter, although no assurances
can be given with respect to the outcome of such proceedings.  The
Company's directors and officers insurance policy provides for
reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with
this lawsuit as well as potential damages awarded, if any, subject
to certain policy limits and deductibles.


IMAX CORPORATION: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by investors against IMAX Corporation
alleging violations of Canadian securities laws remains pending,
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 class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006, in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws.  This lawsuit was brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between
February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006.  The lawsuit is in an early
procedural stage and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as costs and expenses.  As a result, the Company
is unable to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time.  For
reasons released December 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to the
Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the
Company and certain individuals and granted certification of the
action as a class proceeding.  These are procedural decisions, and
do not contain any conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to
the factual or legal merits of the claim. Leave to appeal those
decisions was denied.  The Company believes the allegations made
against it in the statement of claim are meritless and will
vigorously defend the matter, although no assurance can be given
with respect to the ultimate outcome of such proceedings.  The
Company's directors and officers insurance policy provides for
reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with
this lawsuit as well as potential damages awarded, if any, subject
to certain policy limits, exclusions and deductibles.


INTERNAP NETWORK: Obtains Court Okay of Suit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted in large part Internap Network Services
Corporation's motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit,
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 November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its former chief
executive officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and
Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P.
DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF.  The complaint
alleges that the Company and the individual defendant violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and that the individual defendant also violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a "control person" of
Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of the Company's investors who purchased its common stock
between March 28, 2007, and March 18, 2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream,
which the Company acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and
related credits due to services outages and (c) the Company's
previously reported 2007 revenue that the Company subsequently
reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs assert
that the Company and the individual defendant made these
misstatements and omissions to maintain the Company's share price.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint").  The Amended
Complaint added a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act based on alleged misrepresentations in the Company's
proxy statement in connection with the Company's acquisition of
VitalStream.  The Amended Complaint also added the Company's
former chief financial officer as a defendant and lengthened the
putative class period.

On September 11, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.  On December 7, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an
alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the
VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported
confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.  With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended
Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs'
one final opportunity to amend the complaint.  On October 26,
2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
On December 10, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint.  On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in large part
the motion to dismiss.  The two remaining claims involve certain
alleged misstatements concerning the progress of the integration
of VitalStream and the stability of the Company's content delivery
network ("CDN") platform.


KINDER MORGAN: Final Hearing on "Lugliani" Suit Deal Set Next Year
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California will hold a final hearing on the
proposed class action settlement between Kinder Morgan G.P. Inc.
and a former employee early next year, according to the Company's
October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

James Lugliani, a former Kinder Morgan employee, filed suit in
January 2010 against various Kinder Morgan affiliates.  On behalf
of himself and other similarly situated current and former
employees, Mr. Lugliani claims that the Kinder Morgan defendants
have violated the wage and hour provisions of the California Labor
Code and Business & Professions Code by failing to provide meal
and rest periods; failing to pay meal and rest period premiums;
failing to pay all overtime wages due; failing to timely pay
wages; failing to pay wages for vacation, holidays and other paid
time off; and failing to keep proper payroll records.  On
September 13, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval to a
proposed settlement of $2.2 million for a proposed settlement
class of approximately 400 current and former employees.  A final
hearing on the proposed class action settlement will be held in
the first quarter of 2012.


LINN ENERGY: Discovery in Royalty Payment Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC has been named as a defendant in a number of
lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed
royalty payments and royalty valuations.  The Company has
established reserves that management currently believes are
adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its
evaluation of these matters.  For a certain statewide class action
royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been
established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on
the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted
by the court, will result in no loss to the Company.  Discovery in
this dispute is ongoing and is not complete.  As a result, the
Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible loss, if any.  In addition, the Company is involved in
various other disputes arising in the ordinary course of business.
The Company is not currently a party to any litigation or pending
claims that it believes would have a material adverse effect on
its overall business, financial position, results of operations or
liquidity; however, cash flow could be significantly impacted in
the reporting periods in which such matters are resolved.

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 quarter ended September 30, 2011.


LORILLARD INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Reconsider in "Cleary" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc.'s subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, is
awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the order affirming the dismissal of their
lawsuit, 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 another Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco,
Cleary v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court,
Northern District, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998), a court allowed
plaintiffs to amend their complaint in an existing class action to
assert claims on behalf of a subclass of individuals who purchased
"light" cigarettes from the defendants, but it subsequently
dismissed the "light" cigarettes claims asserted against Lorillard
Tobacco.  In June 2010, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining
claims, and it entered final judgment in defendants' favor.  In
August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the final judgment entered in defendants' favor.  As of
October 21, 2011, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
had not ruled on plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the
order affirming the dismissal of the case.  Lorillard, Inc. is not
a defendant in Cleary.


LORILLARD INC: Trial Set for Sept. 2012 in "Brown" Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is set for September 14, 2012, in the class action lawsuit
against Lorillard, Inc.'s subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company,
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 one Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, Brown
v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior Court, San
Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997), the California
Supreme Court in 2009 vacated an order that had previously
decertified a class and returned Brown to the trial court for
further activity.  The class in Brown is composed of residents of
California who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes
between June 10, 1993, and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.
The trial court has permitted plaintiffs to assert claims based on
the alleged misrepresentation, concealment and fraudulent
marketing of "light" or "ultra-light" cigarettes.  Trial is set
for September 14, 2012.  Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in
Brown.


LORILLARD INC: Unit Paid $69.7-MM Judgment Share in "Scott" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In one of the class actions pending against Lorillard, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, captioned Scott v. The
American Tobacco Company, et al. (District Court, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), defendants exhausted their appeals
and paid the final judgment.  In August 2011, Lorillard Tobacco
paid approximately $69.7 million, or one-fourth of the award, to
satisfy its portion of the final judgment and the interest that
accrued while appeals were pending, 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 1997, Scott was certified as a class action on behalf of
certain cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana who
desire to participate in medical monitoring or smoking cessation
programs and who began smoking prior to September 1, 1988, or who
began smoking prior to May 24, 1996, and allege that defendants
undermined compliance with the warnings on cigarette packages.

Trial in Scott was heard in two phases.  At the conclusion of the
first phase in July 2003, the jury rejected medical monitoring,
the primary relief requested by plaintiffs, and returned
sufficient findings in favor of the class to proceed to a Phase II
trial on plaintiffs' request for a statewide smoking cessation
program.  Phase II of the trial, which concluded in May 2004,
resulted in an award of $591 million to fund cessation programs
for Louisiana smokers.  In two separate rulings, the Louisiana
Court of Appeal reduced the award to the class, first to
approximately $262 million and then to approximately $242 million.
The Court of Appeal also modified defendants' interest
obligations.  Both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S.
Supreme Court declined to review the case.  In August 2011,
following the exhaustion of all appeals, the defendants paid a
total of approximately $280 million to satisfy the final judgment
and the interest that was due.  Plaintiffs may seek an award of
costs and attorneys' fees.  As of October 21, 2011, plaintiffs had
not petitioned the court for costs or attorneys' fees.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Ex-Employees' Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a
class action lawsuit in California, 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 September 3, 2009, a former store manager and an assistant
store manager (together, the "Plaintiffs") filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company's subsidiary, Lumber
Liquidators, Inc. ("LLI"), in the Superior Court of California in
and for the County of Alameda.  The Plaintiffs allege that with
regard to certain groups of current and former employees in LLI's
California stores, LLI violated California law by failing to
calculate and pay overtime wages properly, provide meal breaks,
compensate for unused vacation time, reimburse for certain
expenses and maintain required employment records. The Plaintiffs
also claim that LLI did not calculate and pay overtime wages
properly for certain of LLI's non-exempt employees, both in and
out of California, in violation of federal law.  In their lawsuit,
the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, certain statutory
penalties, costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief.  LLI
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  In an order dated March 2, 2011,
the court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification of non-exempt employees throughout
the country.

LLI says it intends to continue to defend the claims in this
lawsuit vigorously.  While there is a reasonable possibility that
a material loss may be incurred, the Company cannot estimate the
loss or range of loss, if any, to the Company at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


MASCO CORP: Continues to Defend Columbus Drywall Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Masco Corporation continues to defend itself against an antitrust
class action lawsuit filed by insulation installation companies.

A lawsuit was brought against the Company and a number of its
insulation installation companies alleging that certain of their
practices violated provisions of the federal antitrust laws.  The
case was filed in October 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia by Columbus Drywall & Insulation,
Inc., Leo Jones Insulation, Inc., Southland Insulators, Inc.,
Southland Insulators of Maryland, Inc. d/b/a Devere Insulation,
Southland Insulators of Delaware LLC d/b/a Delmarva Insulation,
and Whitson Insulation Company of Grand Rapids, Inc. against the
Company, its subsidiaries Masco Contractors Services Group Corp.,
Masco Contractor Services Central, Inc. and Masco Contractor
Services East, Inc., and several insulation manufacturers -- the
"Columbus Drywall case."  In February 2009, the court certified a
class of 377 insulation contractors.  Another suit was filed in
March 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia by Wilson Insulation Company, Wilson Insulation of
Augusta, Inc. and The Wilson Insulation Group, Inc. against the
Company, Masco Contractor Services, Inc., and MCS Central that
alleged anticompetitive conduct.  This case has been removed from
the court's active docket.  In March 2007, Albert Von Der Werth
and Valerie Good filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, its
subsidiary Masco Contractor Services, and several insulation
manufacturers seeking class action status and alleging
anticompetitive conduct.  This case was subsequently transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
and has been administratively stayed by the court.  An additional
suit, which was filed in September 2005 and alleged
anticompetitive conduct, was dismissed with prejudice in December
2006.

No updates were reported in the Company's Oct. 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

The Company is vigorously defending the Columbus Drywall case.
Based upon the advice of its outside counsel, the Company believes
that the conduct of the Company and its insulation installation
companies, which is the subject of the lawsuits, has not violated
any antitrust laws.  The Company is unable at this time to
reliably estimate any potential liability which might occur from
an adverse judgment.  There cannot be any assurance that the
Company will ultimately prevail in these lawsuits, or, if
unsuccessful, that the ultimate liability would not be material
and would not have a material adverse effect on its businesses or
the methods used by its insulation installation companies in doing
business.

Headquartered in Taylor, Michigan, Masco Corporation --
http://www.masco.com/-- is a manufacturer of home improvement and
building products, as well as a provider of services that include
the installation of insulation and other building products.


MCKESSON: Settles Drug Pricing Class Action
------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for The Am Law Litigation Daily, reports
that co-lead class counsel at Hagens Berman and Richardson Patrick
saw their claims against McKesson shrink dramatically in March,
when a federal judge in Boston refused to include states in a
class of government entities that accused the drug maker of
inflating average wholesale prices.  But the plaintiffs lawyers
still managed to coax an $82 million settlement from McKesson for
the remaining cities and towns in the class.


NETFLIX INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits Over DVDs
----------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. continues to defend antitrust lawsuits over its DVD
sale and rental business, 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 January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-trust
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various
United States Federal Courts.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and
Walmart.com USA LLC (collectively, Wal-Mart) were also named as
defendants in these lawsuits.  These cases have been consolidated
in the Northern District of California and have been assigned the
multidistrict litigation number MDL-2029.  A number of
substantially similar lawsuits were filed in California State
Courts, and have been consolidated in Santa Clara County.  The
plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers, generally
allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an agreement to
divide the markets for sales and online rentals of DVDs in the
United States, which resulted in higher Netflix subscription
prices.  A number of other cases have been filed in Federal and
State courts by current or former subscribers to the online DVD
rental service offered by Blockbuster Inc., alleging injury
arising from similar facts.  These cases have been related to MDL
2029 or, in the case of the California State cases, coordinated
with the cases in Santa Clara County.  The complaint(s) seeks
unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and
fees and other equitable relief.

With respect to each of these matters, the Company's management
has determined that a potential loss is not probable and
accordingly, no amount has been accrued.  Management has
determined a potential loss is reasonably possible as it is
defined by ASC 450; however, based on its current knowledge,
management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss
or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable.


NETLOGIC MICROSYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Del. Suit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NetLogic Microsystems, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss a merger-related lawsuit pending in Delaware, 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 September 11, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Broadcom Corporation
("Broadcom"), and I&N Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Broadcom ("Merger Sub").  The Merger Agreement provides that,
upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein,
Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"),
with the Company as the surviving corporation.  As a result of the
Merger, the Company will become a subsidiary of Broadcom.

On September 16, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, New Jersey
Carpenters Pension Fund v. Broyles, et al., Case No. 111CV209381,
challenging the Merger was filed in California Superior Court,
County of Santa Clara (referred to as the "California Action")
against Broadcom, Merger Sub and the members of the Company's
board of directors.  On September 20, 2011, another putative class
action lawsuit, Vincent Anthony Danielo v. NetLogic Microsystems,
Inc., et al., CA No. 6881, challenging the Merger was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (referred to as the
"Delaware Action") against NetLogic, Broadcom, Merger Sub and the
members of the Company's board of directors.  The complaints in
both lawsuits allege that the Company's directors violated their
fiduciary duties to its stockholders by, among other things,
failing to ensure a fair sale process and a fair price in
connection with the Merger, and acting to further their personal
interests and the interests of Broadcom at the expense of
NetLogic's stockholders.  Each lawsuit also alleges that Broadcom
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Company's directors in
breaching their fiduciary duties.

On October 7, 2011, the plaintiff in the California Action filed
an amended complaint adding allegations that the preliminary proxy
statement filed on October 5, 2011, contained inadequate and
misleading disclosures under Delaware law by failing to provide
additional and more detailed disclosures regarding the events
leading up to the merger, the analysis and opinion of Qatalyst,
and the Company Projections.  On October 19, 2011, the plaintiff
in the Delaware Action filed his amended complaint adding similar
disclosure claims.  The plaintiffs in both lawsuits seek to enjoin
the consummation of the Merger and seek an award of the costs of
the action, including reasonable allowances for attorneys' and
experts' fees, among other relief.  On October 7, 2011, defendants
in the California Action filed a motion to stay that action
pending the resolution of the Delaware Action.  A hearing on that
motion is set for December 23, 2011.  On October 3, 2011, the
Broadcom defendants filed an answer to the original Delaware
Action complaint denying all the substantive allegations and
asserting affirmative defenses.  On October 13, 2011, the NetLogic
defendants filed their answer to the original Delaware Action
complaint denying all the substantive allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses.  On October 19, 2011, the NetLogic
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware Action.

The Company believes the allegations in these lawsuits are
entirely without merit, and it intends to defend against them
vigorously.


NEUROMETRIX INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------------
All legal action related to a consolidated securities lawsuit has
concluded, according to NeuroMetrix, Inc.'s October 27, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers.  On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities
class action complaint was filed in the same court, against the
same defendants.  These two actions were subsequently
consolidated, and the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  On
November 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed, which alleged, among other things, that between
October 27, 2005, and February 12, 2008, the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by allegedly making false and
misleading statements and failing to disclose material information
to the investing public.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified
damages.  On January 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among
others, that it failed to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.  On December 8, 2009, the Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit on January 6, 2010.  Oral arguments on the
plaintiffs' appeal were conducted on September 15, 2010.

On March 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint.
On April 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en
banc with the First Circuit, seeking a rehearing of their appeal
by the full members of the First Circuit court.  The defendants'
response to that petition was filed on April 25, 2011.  On May 26,
2011, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request for a rehearing.
The plaintiffs had until August 24, 2011, to file an appeal with
the United States Supreme Court, but no appeal was filed.  As a
result, all legal action related to this lawsuit has concluded.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend MDL on Fuel Surcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging antitrust violations.

On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
the Company and other Class 1 railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.  The Company believes the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intends to continue defending the
cases vigorously.  The Company does not believe that the outcome
of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial
position, results of operations, or liquidity.  A lawsuit
containing similar allegations against the Company and four other
major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling agreement entered
into in August 2008.

No updates were reported in the Company's Oct. 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is a
transportation company.  Its Norfolk Southern Railway subsidiary
operates approximately 20,000 route miles in 22 states and the
District of Columbia, serves every major container port in the
eastern United States, and provides efficient connections to other
rail carriers.  Norfolk Southern operates the most extensive
intermodal network in the East and is a major transporter of coal
and industrial products.


NVR INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
NVR Inc. continues to defend itself from purported class action
lawsuits filed in New York and in five other states, according to
the Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.  These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees
and interest, and where available, multiple damages.  The suits
were filed as purported class actions.  However, while a number of
individuals have filed consents to join and assert federal claims
in the New York action, none of the groups of employees that the
lawsuits purport to represent have been certified as a class.  The
lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and
North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in
the New York action.

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to
sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in
compliance with two letter rulings from the United States
Department of Labor ("DOL") issued in January 2007. The three
courts to most recently consider similar claims against other
homebuilders have acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and
marketing representatives were properly classified as exempt from
overtime wages and the only court to have directly addressed the
exempt status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position
was valid. Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and
intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Because
the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome of this case, or the amount of damages, if
any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal from "Lane" Suit Deal Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2008, Overstock.com, Inc., along with seven other
defendants, were sued in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other
individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a
class action lawsuit, alleging violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Computer Crime Law.  The complaint relates to the
Company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and
provided to the Company by Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon
provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data
among their Facebook friends.  The parties extended by agreement
the time for defendants' answer, including the Company's answer,
and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated
settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case
without requirement of financial contribution from the Company.
On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the
court accepted the proposed settlement.  Various parties objecting
to the settlement have appealed and their appeal is now pending.
The Company says the nature of the loss contingencies relating to
claims that have been asserted against it has been described.
However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.

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 quarter ended September 30, 2011.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hines" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit commenced by Cynthia
Hines, 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 March 10, 2009, Overstock.com, Inc., was sued in a class action
filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York.  Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims
for breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer
fraud laws.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to
properly disclose its returns policy to her and that the Company
improperly imposed a "restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum
cleaner.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon
assertions that its agreement with its customers requires all such
actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Alternatively,
the Company asked that the case be transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, so that
arbitration may be compelled in that district.  On September 8,
2009, the motion to dismiss or transfer was denied, the court
stating that the Company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient
under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to
arbitrate disputes in Utah.  On October 8, 2009, the Company filed
a Notice of Appeal of the court's ruling.  The appeal was denied.

On December 31, 2010, Hines filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of
contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah's consumer
protection statute and various other state consumer protection
statutes.  The amended complaint also asks for an injunction.  The
nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been
asserted against the Company has been described.  However, no
estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.  The lawsuit is
in final discovery stages.  The Company filed motions to dismiss
and to decertify the class.  The court has not ruled on these
motions.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this
action.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Defends 2nd Amended Shareholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company continues to defend a second amended shareholder
class action complaint over securities purchased from Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's Oct. 27, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 24, 2011.

On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named
Michael L. Warner filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors, including the President
and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief Financial
Officer, Judy Brown, among others.  The plaintiff sought to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1034.  The plaintiff generally
alleged that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose,
prior to February 3, 2009, that certain auction rate securities
held by the Company, totaling approximately $18,000 in par value
(the ARS), had been purchased from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
The plaintiff asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as
the seller of the ARS was material because after Lehman's
bankruptcy filing, on September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly
became unable to look to Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price
near par value.  The complaint sought unspecified damages and
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief, along with costs and
attorneys' fees.

On June 15, 2009, the Court appointed several purported
shareholders of the Company, namely CLAL Finance Batucha
Investment Management, Ltd., The Phoenix Insurance Company,
Ltd., Excellence Nessuah Mutual Funds Management, Ltd. and
Excellence Nessuah Gemel & Pension, Ltd., as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.
On July 31, 2009, these Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint dropped all claims against the
individual defendants other than Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, and
added a "control person" claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the members of the Company's Audit Committee.  The
amended complaints asserted many of the same claims and
allegations as the original pleading.  It also alleged that the
Company should have disclosed, prior to February 3, 2009, that
Lehman had sold the ARS to the Company and had provided the
allegedly inflated valuation of the ARS that the Company adopted
in its Form 10-Q filing for the first quarter of fiscal 2009,
which was filed with the SEC on November 6, 2008.  The amended
complaint also alleged that some portion of the write-down of the
value of the ARS that the Company recognized in the second quarter
of fiscal 2009 should have been taken in the prior quarter,
immediately following Lehman's bankruptcy filing.  On September
28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
against all defendants.  On September 30, 2010, the Court granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The Court
dismissed the "control person" claims against the members of the
Company's Audit Committee, but denied the motion to dismiss as to
the remaining claims and defendants.  On
October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the grounds that the Co-Lead Plaintiffs (who
were the only plaintiffs named in the amended complaint) lacked
standing to sue under the U.S. securities laws following a recent
decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act does not apply extraterritorially to the
claims of foreign investors who purchased or sold securities on
foreign stock exchanges.  On December 23, 2010, a shareholder
named Harel Insurance, Ltd., filed a motion to intervene as an
additional named plaintiff.  Although Harel is a non-U.S.
investor, it claims to have purchased the Company's common stock
on a U.S. exchange.  On January 10, 2011, the original plaintiff,
Warner, filed a motion renewing his previously withdrawn motion to
be appointed as Lead Plaintiff to replace the Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2011, the Court granted the defendants' renewed
motion to dismiss.  The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the
then-Co-Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) ruled that any class that might
ultimately be certified could only consist of persons who
purchased their Perrigo shares on the NASDAQ market or by other
means involving transactions in the United States; (iii) granted
Harel's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, subject to the
filing by Harel of an amended complaint alleging that Harel's
purchases of Perrigo stock were made in the United States; (iv)
ruled that Warner would be treated as a named plaintiff; and (v)
left for later the selection of Lead Plaintiffs.

On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
behalf of both Harel and Warner as named plaintiffs, alleging the
same claims as in the amended complaint but on behalf of a
purported class limited to those who purchased Perrigo stock on
the NASDAQ market or by other means involving transactions in the
United States.  The second amended complaint alleges that Harel
purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market during the purported
class period. Also on October 7, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
stipulation seeking to appoint Harel and Warner as the new co-lead
plaintiffs, subject to approval of the Court.  Defendants have not
yet responded to the second amended complaint and discovery has
not commenced.

Perrigo Company -- http://www.perrigo.com/-- is a global
healthcare supplier that develops, manufactures and distributes
over-the-counter and prescription pharmaceuticals, nutritional
products, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and pharmaceutical
and medical diagnostic products.  The company operates in three
segments: Consumer Healthcare, Rx Pharmaceuticals and API.  The
company has other category that consists of the Israel
Pharmaceutical and Diagnostic Products.  The company operates
through wholly owned subsidiaries.  In the United States, its
operations are conducted through L. Perrigo Company, Perrigo
Company of South Carolina, Inc., Perrigo New York, Inc., Perrigo
Holland, Inc. and Perrigo Florida, Inc.  Outside the United
States, its operations are conducted through Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chemagis Ltd., Quimica y Farmacia S.A. de
C.V., Laboratorios Diba, S.A., Wrafton Laboratories Limited,
Brunel Pharma Limited and Galpharm Healthcare Ltd.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Accrued $2.8MM on Potential Settlement of Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. disclosed that as of September 30, 2011, it
had accrued $2.8 million relating to a prospective settlement of
certain hour and wage putative class actions pending in
California, according to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company has defended class action lawsuits alleging various
regulatory violations and have paid material amounts to settle
such claims.  The Company accrues for litigation loss
contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable.
Legal fees and expenses associated with the defense of all of the
Company's litigation are expensed as such fees and expenses are
incurred.  As of September 30, 2011, the Company had accrued $2.8
million relating to a prospective settlement of certain putative
class actions pending in California, which allege various claims,
including violations of California wage and hour laws.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. operates 3,002 company-owned stores nationwide
and in Canada, Puerto Rico and Mexico, including 35 retail
installment sales stores under the names "Get It Now" and "Home
Choice," and 20 rent-to-own stores located in Canada under the
name "Rent-A-Centre."


REPUBLIC BANCORP: Subsidiary Defends "Webb" Suit in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed against Republic Bancorp
Inc.'s subsidiary in Kentucky is pending, according to the
Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On August 1, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky styled Brenda
Webb vs. Republic Bank & Trust Company d/b/a Republic Bank, Civil
Action No. 3:11-CV-00423-TBR.  The complaint was brought as a
putative class action and seeks monetary damages, restitution and
declaratory relief allegedly arising from the manner in which RB&T
assessed overdraft fees.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiff pleads
six claims against RB&T alleging: breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count I),
unconscionability (Count II), conversion (Count III), unjust
enrichment (Count IV), violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act and Regulation E (Count V), and violations of the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act, KRS Section 367, et seq. (Count VI).
Management is evaluating the claims of this lawsuit and is unable
to estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any,
that may result from this lawsuit.  RB&T intends to vigorously
defend this case.

An earlier, identical suit by the same plaintiff was filed on
July 19, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Middle
District for Florida styled Brenda Webb vs. Republic Bank & Trust
Company d/b/a Republic Bank, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-00405-JES-
SPC.  The plaintiff dismissed that suit without prejudice on
August 2, 2011.


REVLON INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Delaware & New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon Inc. continues to defend itself from class action lawsuits
filed in Delaware and New York, according to the Company's
October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

On October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange
offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc., issued to
stockholders who elected to exchange shares (other than MacAndrews
& Forbes) 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for
the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock
tendered in the Exchange Offer.  On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009,
May 5, 2009 and May 12, 2009, respectively, four purported class
actions were filed by each of Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri
Lefkowitz and T. Walter Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was
filed by Stanley E. Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New
York County.  Each such lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc.,
Revlon, Inc.'s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and
challenged a merger proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on
April 13, 2009, which would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes
and certain of its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s
outstanding Common Stock (in lieu of consummating such merger
proposal, the Company consummated the aforementioned Exchange
Offer).  Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed merger transaction.  On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court
consolidated the four Delaware actions, and appointed lead counsel
for plaintiffs.  As announced on August 10, 2009, an agreement in
principle was reached to settle the Initial Consolidated Action,
as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (as amended in
September 2009, the "Settlement Agreement").

On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants
should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange for the
Exchange Offer information regarding the Company's financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.  On
January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in
the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to
those in the amended Sullivan complaint.  Revlon initially
believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the
Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement
Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated
Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, Revlon,
Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews &
Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed
in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman.  Also on December 21,
2009, a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery
Court against Revlon, Inc.'s current directors and a former
director by Lawrence Corneck.  The Gutman and Corneck actions make
allegations similar to those in the amended complaints in the
Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated Action.  On
January 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and
Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action.  A briefing
schedule was then set to determine the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership
issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. Thereafter, newly appointed
counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and the
defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their motion
to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits discovery
would proceed. Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of the
concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part of
the Settlement Agreement.

On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have
disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding
the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009.  Merits discovery is proceeding in the
Consolidated Action.

On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo
against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former
director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law
claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer
to Exchange certain information relating to the Company's
financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.
On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff in this action filed an amended
complaint.  Otherwise, defendants and plaintiff have agreed to
stay proceedings in this action, including any response to the
amended complaint, until January 31, 2012, to permit plaintiff to
participate in the merits discovery in the Consolidated Action.  A
similar agreement has been reached with the plaintiff in the
Sullivan action to stay that action until January 31, 2012.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions are seeking, among other
things, an award of damages and the costs and disbursements of
such actions, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of each such plaintiff's attorneys and experts.

The Company believes the allegations contained in the amended
Sullivan complaint, the amended complaint in the Consolidated
Action, and the amended Garofalo complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.  The Company believes
it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at
issue and believes that it would prevail at trial.  However, in an
effort to mitigate the utilization of time and resources on these
matters, the Company has had discussions regarding settlement of
these matters.  Based on the current state of discussions, it
appears that the likelihood of a settlement is remote at this
time.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. is awaiting a ruling on an appeal filed by
plaintiffs regarding the dismissal of their antitrust class action
lawsuit against the Company.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against
the Company, Era Group Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and three other
defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group
Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438 (D. Del.). The Complaint alleges that
the Defendants violated federal antitrust law by conspiring with
each other to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices for
offshore helicopter services in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the
period January 2001 to December 2005. The purported class of
plaintiffs includes all direct purchasers of such services and the
relief sought includes compensatory damages and treble damages.
The Company believes that the claims set forth in the Complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. On
September 4, 2009, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint. On September 14, 2010, the Court entered an order
dismissing the Complaint. On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration and amendment and a motion for
re-argument. On November 30, 2010, the Court granted the Motions,
amended the Court's September 14, 2010 Order to clarify that the
dismissal was without prejudice, permitted the filing of an
Amended Complaint, and authorized limited discovery with respect
to the new allegations in the Amended Complaint. Following the
completion of such limited discovery, on February 11, 2011, the
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the
Amended Complaint with prejudice. On June 23, 2011, the Court
granted summary judgment for the Defendants. On July 22, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the potential exposure,
if any, resulting from these claims but believes they are without
merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action.

No updates were reported in the Company's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses All Claims in "Robin" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Louisiana court has dismissed all claims against SEACOR Holdings
Inc. in the lawsuit commenced by Terry G. Robin, et al., according
to the Company's October 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting
to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et
al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-cv-01986 (E.D.
La.), in which they assert that support vessels, including vessels
owned by the Company, responding to the explosion and resulting
fire that occurred aboard the semi-submersible drilling rig, the
Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in their efforts to save lives
and put out the fire and contributed to the sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill.  The action now is
part of the overall multi-district litigation ("MDL"), In re Oil
Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179.  The
complaint seeks compensatory, punitive, exemplary, and other
damages.

In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed petitions seeking
exoneration from, or limitation of liability in relation to, any
actions that may have been taken by vessels owned by the Company
to extinguish the fire. Pursuant to the Limitation of Liability
Act, those petitions imposed an automatic stay on the Robin Case,
and the court set a deadline of April 20, 2011, for individual
claimants to assert claims in the limitation cases. Approximately
66 claims were submitted by the deadline in all of the limitation
actions. On June 8, 2011, the Company moved to dismiss these
claims (with the exception of one claim filed by a Company
employee) on various legal grounds. On October 12, 2011, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety,
dismissing with prejudice all claims that had been filed against
the Company in the limitation actions (with the exception of one
claim filed by a Company employee that was not subject to the
motion to dismiss). The Court has asked the Company to prepare
final judgments to be entered in each of the limitation actions
and in the Robin Case and the Company expects those judgments to
be entered in the coming weeks.


SOAPSTONE NETWORKS: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a ruling holding that a last remaining objector to
a settlement of a consolidated securities lawsuit lacks standing
to object, remains pending, according to Soapstone Networks Inc.'s
October 27, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Twelve purported securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and one or more of the Company's underwriters
in its initial public offering, and certain officers and directors
of the Company.  The lawsuits alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and were docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "Court") as: Felzen, et al.
v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3363; Lefkowitz, et
al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3541; Lewis, et
al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3698; Mandel,
et. al v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3713; Minai,
et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3870;
Steinberg, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-
3983; Pelissier, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
01-CV-4204; Esther, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 01-CV-4352; Zhous, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc. et al., C.A.
No. 01-CV-4494; Mammen, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et. al.,
C.A. No. 01-CV-5722; Lin, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 01-CV-5674; and Shives, et al. v. Banc of America
Securities, et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-4956.  On April 19, 2002, a
consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Complaint"),
which superseded these twelve purported securities class action
lawsuits, was filed in the Court.  The Complaint is captioned "In
re Avici Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation" (21 MC 92, 01 Civ. 3363 (SAS)) and names as defendants
the Company, certain of the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering, and certain of the Company's officers and
directors.  The Complaint, which seeks unspecified damages,
alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including among
other things, that the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering ("IPO") improperly required their customers to pay
the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of stock in the aftermarket as conditions of
receiving shares in the Company's IPO.  The Complaint further
claims that these supposed practices of the underwriters should
have been disclosed in the Company's IPO prospectus and
registration statement.  In addition to the Complaint against the
Company, various other plaintiffs have filed other substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City, which along with the case against the Company have all been
transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of
case management.  The Company and its officers and directors
believe that the claims against the Company lack merit, and have
defended the litigation vigorously.  In that regard, on July 15,
2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as
defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints against them
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed without prejudice all
claims against the individual current and former officers and
directors who were named as defendants in the Company's
litigation, and they are no longer parties to the lawsuit.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions to
dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions to
dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants.  In that ruling, the
Court granted in part and denied in part those motions.  As to the
claims brought against the Company under the antifraud provisions
of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of these claims
with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity
to re-plead these claims against the Company.  As to the claims
brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws,
which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to the Company and as
to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well.  The
Court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in
all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
the proposed settlement had been approved by the Court, it would
have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against the Company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.  This proposed settlement was conditioned on, among
other things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims
against the Company and against the other issuers who had agreed
to the settlement would be certified for class action treatment
for purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors
included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by
the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be
excluded from the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision that six purported class action lawsuits
containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted
against the Company may not be certified as class actions due, in
part, to the Appeals Court's determination that individual issues
of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to
the proposed classes.  On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a
petition seeking rehearing en banc of this ruling.  On April 6,
2007, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing of the Court's December 5, 2006 ruling but noted that
the plaintiffs remained free to ask the District Court to certify
classes different from the ones originally proposed which might
meet the standards for class certification that the Court of
Appeals articulated in its December 5, 2006 decision.

In light of the Court of Appeals' December 5, 2006 decision
regarding certification of the plaintiffs' claims, the District
Court entered an order on June 25, 2007, terminating the proposed
settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers, including the
Company.  On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in the six focus cases.  On November 13, 2007, the
issuer defendants and the underwriter defendants separately moved
to dismiss the claims against them in the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.  On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued
an order in which it denied in substantial part the motions to
dismiss the amended complaints in the six focus cases.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009.  On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement.  Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement.  Ten appeals were filed
objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness
of the settlement, five of which have been dismissed with
prejudice.  On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed four
of the remaining appeals and remanded the final appeal to the
District Court to determine whether the appellant has standing to
object to the settlement.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court
ruled that the last remaining objector lacks standing to object to
the settlement.  That objector has appealed that ruling to the
Court of Appeals.

While the Company can make no promises or guarantees as to the
outcome of these proceedings, the Company does not believe that a
loss is probable.


SONUS NETWORKS: Objector Appeals Lack of Standing Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
One remaining objector took an appeal from a court ruling holding
that he lacks standing to object to a settlement of a consolidated
securities lawsuit, according to Sonus Networks, 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 November 2001, a purchaser of the Company's common stock filed
a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "District Court") against the Company,
two of its officers and the lead underwriters alleging violations
of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") and seeking unspecified monetary
damages.  The purchaser seeks to represent a class of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between the date of the IPO
on May 24, 2000, and December 6, 2000.  The amended complaint,
filed in April 2002, alleges that the Company's registration
statement contained false or misleading information or omitted to
state material facts concerning the alleged receipt of undisclosed
compensation by the underwriters and the existence of undisclosed
arrangements between the underwriters and certain purchasers to
make additional purchases in the after-market.  The claims against
the Company are asserted under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), and against the individual defendants under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  Other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar
class action cases against approximately 300 other publicly-traded
companies and their IPO underwriters which, along with the actions
against the Company, have been transferred to a single federal
judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, the Company, collectively with the other issuers
named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims
against many of the individual defendants, including the Company's
officers named in the complaint.  On February 19, 2003, the
District Court granted a portion of the motion to dismiss by
dismissing the Section 10(b) claims against certain defendants
including the Company, but denied the remainder of the motion as
to the defendants.

In October 2004, the District Court certified the class in a case
against certain defendants.  On August 31, 2005, the District
Court approved the terms of the proposed settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") reversed the District
Court's October 2004 order certifying a class.  On August 25,
2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the
proposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the
settlement fund and certification of the settlement classes.  A
settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009.  On
October 5, 2009, the District Court issued an opinion granting
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, approval
of the plan of distribution of a new settlement fund and
certification of the settlement classes.  An Order and Final
Judgment was entered on January 14, 2010.

On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had filed a notice of
appeal filed a stipulation with the Second Circuit withdrawing
their appeals with prejudice, and one of the remaining objectors
filed a brief in support of his appeal.  On December 8, 2010,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice the appeal filed by one
of the two appellants based on alleged violations of the Second
Circuit's rules, including failure to serve, falsifying proofs of
service, and failure to include citations to the record.  On May
17, 2011, the Second Circuit dismissed one of the appeals and
remanded the one remaining appeal to the District Court for
further proceedings to determine whether the remaining objector
has standing.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court concluded
that the remaining objector lacks standing to object to the
settlement because he was not a class member.  On September 23,
2011, the remaining objector filed a Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's August 25, 2011 Order.  That appeal remains
pending.  If the District Court's Order is upheld on appeal, the
Company says it would have no material liability in connection
with this litigation, and this litigation would be resolved.


TIME WARNER: Appeal in Set-Top Cable MDL Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable
Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions
filed in federal district courts throughout the United States.
These actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL")
Order transferring the cases for pre-trial purposes to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On July 26,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class
action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging that
the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade
practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television
services to the leasing of set-top converters boxes.  The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices.  On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on
April 8, 2011.  On June 17, 2011, plaintiffs appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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 quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company says is intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Brantley" Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against Time Warner Cable Inc.  The complaint, which
also named as defendants several other cable and satellite
providers (collectively, the "distributor defendants") as well as
programming content providers (collectively, the "programmer
defendants"), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  Among other things, the complaint alleged
coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell
and/or license programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor
defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to
subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or "a
la carte") basis.  Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported
nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, are seeking,
among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an
injunction to compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an
"a la carte" basis.  On December 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in this action that, among other things, dropped
the Section 2 claims and all allegations of horizontal
coordination.  On October 15, 2009, the district court granted
with prejudice a motion by the distributor defendants and the
programmer defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended
complaint, terminating the action.

On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and, on June 3, 2011, the
court reaffirmed the district court's decision.  On July 7, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a petition for en banc review.  The Company says
it intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is
unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.

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 quarter ended September 30, 2011.


TIME WARNER: Amended Complaints Pending in Two Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Amended complaints in two class action lawsuits filed against Time
Warner Cable Inc., are pending, 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.

The Company is also a defendant in two other purported class
actions.  On September 17, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink
and Brett Noia, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended
complaint in a purported class action in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company uses a
throttling technique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a
user's high-speed data service.  Plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.  On September 25, 2009, the Company moved for summary
judgment in this action.  On September 6, 2011, the district court
partially granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, but
denied the Company's summary judgment motion on two claims under
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and one common law fraud
claim.  On September 30, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

On January 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in Calzada, et al. v. Time
Warner Cable LLC, filed a purported class action in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company recorded
phone calls with plaintiffs without notice in violation of
provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Unfair
Business Practices Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages, injunctive relief,
restitution and attorneys' fees.  On April 4, 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in this action that, among other
things, omitted the unfair business practices claim and removed
two of the three named plaintiffs.

The Company says it intends to defend against the lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Swinegar" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Mark Swinegar, et al. v. Time
Warner Cable Inc., took an appeal from the order denying their
motion for reconsideration, according to Time Warner Cable Inc.'s
October 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action,
alleging that the Company provided to and charged plaintiffs for
equipment that they had not affirmatively requested in violation
of the proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 (the "Cable Act") against "negative option
billing" and that such violation was an unlawful act or practice
under California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL").  Plaintiffs
are seeking restitution under the UCL and attorneys' fees.  On
February 23, 2009, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint and, on July 29, 2010, the
court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment.  On
October 7, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a declaratory
ruling with the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC")
requesting that the FCC determine whether the Company's general
ordering process complies with the Cable Act's "negative option
billing" restriction.

On March 1, 2011, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling that
informed consent is adequate to satisfy the requirements under the
Cable Act.  On March 29, 2011, the Los Angeles County Superior
Court vacated its prior summary judgment ruling and, on May 12,
2011, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment.
On June 13, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of
the decision, which the court denied on July 28, 2011.  On
September 26, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
California Court of Appeal for the Second District.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


U.S. DAIRY COS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that in an
antitrust class action, a milk drinker claims major dairy
companies and trade groups -- including the National Milk
Producers Federation, Dairy Farmers of America and Land O'Lakes --
have fixed the price of raw milk for almost a decade by
manipulating the milk supply through "herd retirements."

Lead plaintiff Mark Petersen says the industry-wide scheme
illegally inflated the price of fresh milk products, killed
500,000 young cows and brought the defendants more than $9 billion
in unfair and illegal profits.

According to the federal complaint, "defendants sought to and
successfully manipulated prices throughout the dairy marketing
chain by reducing the supply of milk across the nation -- thereby
increasing wholesale prices of dairy products and, through
marketing order regulations, increasing farm prices of milk."

Mr. Petersen, who sued on behalf of thousands of dairy consumers
from 26 states and the District of Columbia, says the National
Milk Producers Federation and its co-conspirators formed
Cooperatives Working Together (CWT), a national dairy industry
trade group, to manipulate milk prices for its members' benefit.

The CWT includes almost 70% of the nation's milk producers, who
finance its programs by paying assessments based on productivity,
according to the complaint.

"Indeed, CWT's primary activity since inception has been to
increase the profitability of dairy producers through coordinated
herd retirements," the complaint states.  "Through this program,
dairy producers can submit bids for the price at which they will
sell their herd to slaughter prematurely.  CWT provides a formula
through which farmers can calculate their bids essentially based
on subtracting the price the farmer can recoup by selling them at
auction as slaughter cows from their market value as producing
dairy cows, with CWT paying the difference.

"CWT then reviews and tentatively accepts bids subject to farm
visits by CWT auditors who supervise the tagging of the herds for
removal.  The producers are then required to ship their cows for
slaughter within 15 days after completion of the audit.  CWT makes
payment within 30 days of receiving verification that all cows
have gone to slaughter.  In 2009, for example, CWT membership
assessments generated $219 million in revenues for CWT, which
spent $217 million on herd reductions.

"The purpose and effect of the herd retirement program was to
reduce the supply of raw farm milk in order to increase its price,
which in turn increased the price paid by consumers for milk and
other fresh milk products.

"By all accounts, the herd retirement program was a huge success
for CWT and its members.  CWT financed ten rounds of herd
retirements from 2003 to 2010, during which CWT was responsible
for removing over 500,000 cows from production, reducing the
nation's milk supply by approximately 10 billion pounds.
According to studies commissioned by CWT from Dr. Scott Brown at
the University of Missouri, the program resulted in a raw farm
milk price increase of $0.85/cwt by 2007 and $1.75/cwt by 2010.
By the end of the program in 2010, it was responsible for a
cumulative increase in milk price revenue of $9.55 billion.
Further, Dr. Brown's studies indicate that 'each herd retirement
round has effects that extend forward years into the future,' so
that dairy farmers are still significantly profiting from previous
herd retirements.

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

Mr. Petersen says CWT sponsored 10 herd retirements between 2003
and 2010, giving dairy producers incentives to sell all their cows
and reduce milk output.  According to a CWT survey cited in the
complaint, "only 12% of those retiring their herds through the CWT
program planned on engaging in dairy farming again."

What's more, Mr. Petersen says, in 2009 CWT changed its policy,
requiring participants to the herd retirement program to cease
dairy production for one year.

He says "the program in effect put smaller farmers out of
business, while unfairly increasing the profits of agribusiness
giants."

Mr. Petersen adds: "In total, CWT was responsible for removing
506,921 cows from production, resulting in the removal of 9.672
billion pounds of farm milk . . ."

CWT ended its herd retirement program in October 2010, finding
that it "has reached a point of diminishing returns," according to
the complaint.

The complaint cites a recent analysis by Scott Brown of the
University of Missouri, a farm policy expert, which showed that
CWT's herd retirement program, combined with export assistance
programs, helped raise farm-level milk prices by $1.75 per
hundredweight (a unit equal to 100 pounds) and milk price revenues
by more than $9 billion.  Mr. Brown noted that "the beauty of CWT
herd retirements is that the impact of each herd retirement lasts
several years."

Mr. Petersen adds: "The CWT herd retirement program raised farm
prices of milk, and thus raised the price of the key input into a
broad range of dairy products.  Higher prices of farm milk
subsequently resulted in higher retail prices of milk and other
fresh milk products and harmed consumers of those products.
Consumers of milk and other fresh milk products paid higher prices
for dairy products than they would have paid had CWT not enacted
its herd retirement program."

He says the defendants are not entitled to antitrust immunity
under the Capper-Volstead Act, which does not apply to restraints
on production.

Mr. Petersen seeks class certification, restitution and punitive
damages for antitrust violations and unjust enrichment.

Named as defendants are the National Milk Producers Federation aka
Cooperatives Working Together, with over 40,000 producer members,
Dairy Farmers of America, Land O'Lakes, Dairylea Cooperative and
Agri-Mark.

A copy of the Complaint in Petersen v. National Milk Producers
Federation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-03186 (D. Minn.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/31/Milk.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Gender Bias Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart discriminates
against women employees in pay and promotions in Texas, according
to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
11-cv-02954 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/31/WalMart.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hal K. Gillespie, Esq.
          Yona Rozen, Esq.
          Joseph H. Gillespie, Esq.
          GILLESPIE, ROZEN & WATSKY, PC
          3402 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 720-2009
          E-mail: hkg@grwlawfirm.com
                  yrozen@grwlawfirm.com
                  josephgillespie@grwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen Tinkler, Esq.
          TINKLER LAW FIRM
          309 Johnson Street
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: 505-983-9834

               - and -

          Brad Seligman, Esq.
          THE IMPACT FUND
          125 University Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: 510-845-3473

               - and -

          Merit Bennett, Esq.
          THE BENNETT FIRM
          460 St. Michael's Drive, Suite 703
          Santa Fe, NM 87505
          Telephone: 505-982-8533
          E-mail: mb@thebennettfirm.us

               - and -

          Joseph Sellers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-408-4600


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in
favor of Waste Management Holdings, Inc., in a class action
lawsuit on claims related to the offering of WM stock as an
investment option in the Company's Employee Retirement Income
Security Act plans, according to the Company's Oct. 27, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

In April 2002, certain former participants in the ERISA plans of
Waste Management Holdings, Inc., filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in a case entitled
William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al.  The lawsuit
attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan
participants on behalf of the plan based on allegations related to
both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the
securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in
1998, the litigation against WM in Texas that was settled in 2002,
as well as the decision to offer WM common stock as an investment
option within the plan beginning in 1990, despite alleged
knowledge by at least two members of the investment committee of
financial misstatement by WM during the relevant time period.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain
claims against individual defendants, including all claims against
each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Previously, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the
settlement of the securities class action against WM that was
settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of
participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not
individually.  During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled
in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims
brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM
stock as an investment option within the plan.  The Court still
has under consideration additional motions that, if granted, would
resolve the few remaining claims against WM and its Committees.
The outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predicted with certainty.
The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in the
litigation.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Court Enters Final Okay on Calif. Labor Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court entered a final order approving a settlement of
two coordinated class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
state's wage and hour laws by Waste Management, Inc.'s
subsidiaries, according to the Company's Oct. 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Two separate wage and hour lawsuits were commenced in October 2006
and March 2007 against certain of the Company's subsidiaries in
California, each seeking class certification.  The actions were
coordinated to proceed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both
lawsuits make the same general allegations that the Company's
subsidiaries failed to comply with certain California wage and
hour laws, including allegedly failing to provide meal and rest
periods and failing to properly pay hourly and overtime wages.
The Company has executed a settlement agreement in connection with
the matter.  Following hearings held on July 15, 2011 and October
21, 2011, the Court approved the class action settlement and final
judgment.  The settlement did not have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial statements.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Alabama Court Junks Improper Charge Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Alabama court dismissed without prejudice a class action
complaint over alleged improper fuel and environmental charges by
Waste Management, Inc., the Company disclosed in its Oct. 27,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

In July 2008, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported
class action in the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama,
which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.  The lawsuit pertained to
the Company's fuel and environmental charge in its customer
service agreements and generally alleged that such charges were
not properly disclosed, were unfair, and were contrary to the
contracts.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss that was
partially granted during the third quarter of 2010, resulting in
dismissal of the plaintiffs' national class action claims.  During
the third quarter of 2011, the plaintiffs filed and the Court
granted a motion to dismiss the litigation without prejudice.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Improper Charge Class Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action over improper charges was commenced in
October 2011 against Waste Management, Inc., in the Circuit Court
of Sarasota County, Florida, according to the Company's Oct. 27,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

The suit was filed by the same law firm that brought a similar
complaint in an Alabama court.  It also pertains to the Company's
fuel and environmental charges in the Company's customer service
agreements, generally alleging that such charges were not properly
disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the contracts.

The Company asserts that it will vigorously defend the matter.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate
outcome of the case cannot be predicted at this time, nor can
possible damages, if any, be reasonably estimated, the Company
says.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


                           *********

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  * * *