CAR_Public/111108.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, November 8, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 221

                             Headlines

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Awaits Decision in "Bang" Suit
AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Tenn.
ALL WAYS PAVING: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Facsimile Ads
ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Suits Over Program Reorganization
ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal From Trial Court Ruling Still Pending

ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Claims by Katrina Victims
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Issuance of Mandate to Remand Class Suit Stayed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 29
AMERICAN EXPRESS: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Baydale" Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend "Anti-Steering" Class Suits

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion for Arbitration in "Meeks" Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Certification Hearing Set for February 2012
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Lopez" Suit Still Stayed in California
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Agrees to Pay $49.5-Mil. to Settle "Ross" Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Renewed Arbitration Plea in "Homa" Suit Pending

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Court Denies Class Status in "Tronox" Lawsuit
ARIZONA PUBLIC: Defends Two California Consumer Lawsuits
BOY SCOUTS: Recalls 5,400 Cub Scout Wind Tech Jackets
CHAMPION LABS: Lawyers Want More Than 50 Class Actions Revised

CHRISTIANE FARAZLI: Sued Over Lax Infection Prevention Practices
CLECO CORP: Forwards Appeal in Overcharge Suit to La. Supreme Ct.
DAVEY TREE: Trial in "Ely" Suit Going Forward in January 2012
DAVEY TREE: Continues to Defend Suits Over California Wildfire
DIRECTV: Class Action Challenges Cancellation Penalties

EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Court Orders Dismissal of "Midwest" Cases
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Class Action in Pennsylvania Dismissed
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Class Action in Mississippi Still Pending
EXCO RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Nonsuit Two Class Actions
FANNIE MAE: Genesee County Commissioners Mull Class Action

FIFTH THIRD BANK: Accused of Violating Illinois Wage & Hour Law
FIRST AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Business Practices
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Ohio Consumer Suit Still Pending
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Continues to Defend NJ Outage Claims
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suits in Pa.

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Continues to Defend Overdraft Litigation
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Continues to Defend 365/360 Interest Litigation
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Approves Settlement in Schneider Suit
FMC CORP: Still Defends Hydrogen Peroxide-Related Suits in Canada
FORD MOTOR: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Ford Focus Vehicles

FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP: Faces Class Action Over New Busing Fee
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Order in "Russell" Suit
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Settlement Still Pending in Connecticut Suit
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: New York Court Dismisses Securities Suit

ITRON INC: Continues to Face Securities Class Suit in Washington
KINETIC CONCEPTS: Texas Court Orders Dismissal of Claims
LEAR CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Suits Over Wire Harness Price
LIBBEY GLASS: Recalls 18,600 Glass Bowls Due to Laceration Hazard
MF GLOBAL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action

MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Agreement Reached in California Class Suit
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSISTANCE: Sued Over Unpaid Wages in Illinois
NICOR INC: Settlement Resolving Merger-Related Suit Still Pending
NICOR INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Gas Line Comfort Guard
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Plea Still Pending in N.J.

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Outcome of Securities Suit Settlement
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaits Ruling on Suit Dismissal Request
QUALCOMM INC: Remains a Defendant in Suits Over Sale of Phones
REAL ESTATE COMPANIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
ROLLINS INC: Court Dismisses "Khan" Class Action Vs. Orkin

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Class Action Suits Still Pending in Florida
SERVICE CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Appeal
STREAM GLOBAL: Appeals Filed Vs. Final OK of Sirius Settlement
TENET HEALTHCARE: Court OKs $25MM Pact on 2 Katrina-Related Suits
TUESDAY MORNING: Motion to Certify Class Action Suit Still Pending

TUESDAY MORNING: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in California
UMG RECORDINGS: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Royalties
UNDER ARMOUR: Recalls 541,000 Chin Straps for Football Helmets
UNITED STATES: Gay Airforce Vet's Severance Pay Suit Can Proceed
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Medicare Beneficiaries

UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Hausfeld LLP Files Class Action Over Royalties
UNUM GROUP: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Class Suit in Maine
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 7
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Nov. 22
WISCONSIN ENERGY: Enters Into Talks to Resolve Pension Plan Suit




                          *********

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Awaits Decision in "Bang" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is still awaiting a court order on
its motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in
Illinois, according to the Company's October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A lawsuit captioned Bang v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, et al, was
filed on September 10, 2010, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case
1:10-cv-05757) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 21, 2006 and April 22, 2010.  The complaint
alleged that certain Company officers made false or misleading
statements, or failed to disclose material facts in order to make
statements not misleading, relating to the Company's Acurox(R)
with Niacin Tablet product candidate, resulting in violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
complaint further alleges that such false or misleading statements
or omissions had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the Company's common stock.  On March 14, 2011, an amended
complaint was filed in this lawsuit.  The amended complaint
asserts the same claims as the initial complaint based on the same
alleged false or misleading statements, and has added three of the
Company's current directors as defendants.  The Court has changed
the caption of the case to In re Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
case on May 13, 2011.  The Company believes that the allegations
in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend the litigation.


AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Nov. 3 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock of AgFeed
Industries, Inc. between March 12, 2008, and September 29, 2011,
inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The case is entitled June W. Dougherty v. AgFeed
Industries, Inc., C.A. No. 3:11-CV-01046 (M.D. Tenn.).

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         919 North Market Street, Suite 980
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (888) 969-4242
         E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com

                    or at:

     http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/AgFeed-Industries-Inc-FEED

According to its Web site, AgFeed is an international agri-
business with operations in the United State and China.  Founded
in 1995 with a focus on animal nutrition, today AgFeed is made up
of three distinct operating units: Animal Nutrition, Hog
Production and Harvesting.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, certain
directors and officers of AgFeed issued materially false and
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts, regarding the Company's financial condition, operations and
prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
knew and/or recklessly failed to disclose that: AgFeed had
improperly accounted for the acquisition of certain farm assets in
its hog production business that it had acquired in 2007 and 2008;
it had failed to properly monitor and/or assess the
creditworthiness of certain customers so that various accounts
receivable were uncollectible; the Company's doubtful accounts
allowances were undervalued; and the Company lacked adequate
internal financial controls.  This, in turn, caused the Company to
overstate asset values and understate expenses, which caused the
price of AgFeed common stock to be artificially inflated during
the Class Period.

On August 2, 2011, the Company announced its preliminary financial
results for the second quarter of 2011, reporting that the Company
was performing well below expectations and that AgFeed expected to
post a loss of $17 million, as it added $5 million in allowances
for its bad debt expenses.  Additionally, on August 9, 2011,
AgFeed disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
the true nature of its finances and the Company's decision to
withdraw the Registration Statement for its Animal Nutrition
business.

Subsequently, on September 29, 2011, AgFeed announced that its
Board of Directors had established a special committee to
investigate the accounting relating to certain of the Company's
Chinese farm assets (acquired during 2007 and 2008) used in its
hog production business, as well as the validity and
collectability of certain of the Company's accounts receivables
relating to its animal nutrition business in China and any other
issues that may arise during the course of the investigation.

The Complaint alleges that as the true financial condition of the
Company was disclosed following the foregoing announcement, the
price of AgFeed common stock dropped significantly, damaging the
plaintiff and other members of the Class.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 19, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

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


ALL WAYS PAVING: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Facsimile Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Town Pizza of Lombard, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. All
Ways Paving Inc., and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2011-CH-36198 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October 19, 2011) challenges the Defendants'
alleged practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that unsolicited faxes damage their
recipients because a junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax
machine, paper, and ink toner.  The Plaintiff adds that an
unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable time that would
have been spent on something else, and that a junk fax interrupts
the recipient's privacy.

Old Town Pizza is an Illinois corporation.

All Ways Paving is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.  The
Plaintiff says that the Doe Defendants will be identified in
discovery but are not presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Suits Over Program Reorganization
------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits filed in connection with its agency program
reorganization, according to the Company's October 31, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  Although these
cases have been pending for many years, they currently are in the
early stages of litigation because of appellate court proceedings
and threshold procedural issues.  These matters include a lawsuit
filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws ("EEOC I")
and a class action filed in 2001 by former employee agents
alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA
violations ("Romero I").  In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and
Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order
that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a
mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes
of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release was
voidable at the option of the release signer.  The court also
ordered that an agent who voided the release must return to
Allstate "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange
for signing the release."  The court also stated that, "on the
undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age
discrimination."  The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to
clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order and in January
2007, the judge denied their request.  In June 2007, the court
reversed its prior ruling that the release was voidable and
granted the Company's motions for summary judgment, ruling that
the asserted claims were barred by the release signed by most
plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In July 2009, the Third
Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the
Company's favor and remanded the cases to the trial court for
additional discovery, including additional discovery related to
the validity of the release and waiver.  In its opinion, the Third
Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to be valid,
then all of the claims in Romero I and EEOC I are barred.  Thus,
if the waiver and release is upheld, then only the claims in
Romero I asserted by the small group of employee agents who did
not sign the release and waiver would remain for adjudication.  In
January 2010, following the remand, the cases were assigned to a
new judge for further proceedings in the trial court.  Plaintiffs
filed their Second Amended Complaint on July 28, 2010.  Plaintiffs
seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief," including back
pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost
investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable
relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status with all
attendant benefits for up to approximately 6,500 former employee
agents.  Despite the length of time that these matters have been
pending, to date only limited discovery has occurred related to
the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs, and no damages
discovery has occurred related to the claims of the putative
class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of the
putative class's alleged back pay or the alleged liquidated,
compensatory or punitive damages, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
approximately 6,500 putative class members also are subject to
individual variation and determination dependent upon retirement
dates, participation in employee benefit programs, and years of
service.  Discovery limited to the validity of the waiver and
release is in process.  At present, no class is certified.
Summary judgment proceedings on the validity of the waiver and
release are expected to occur in early 2012.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a
worker classification issue ("Romero II").  These plaintiffs are
challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are
seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as
employees for benefit purposes.  Romero II was dismissed with
prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further
proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial
court in 2005.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the Third Circuit.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated
the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case
to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
case be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In its opinion,
the Third Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to
be valid, then one of plaintiffs' three claims asserted in Romero
II is barred.  The Third Circuit directed the district court to
consider on remand whether the other two claims asserted in Romero
II are barred by the release and waiver.  In January 2010,
following the remand, the case was assigned to a new judge (the
same judge for the Romero I and EEOC I cases) for further
proceedings in the trial court.  On April 23, 2010, plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs seek broad but
unspecified "make whole" or other equitable relief, including
losses of income and benefits as a result of their decision to
retire from the Company between November 1, 1999 and December 31,
2000.  They also seek repeal of the challenged amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits revised and
recalculated for thousands of former employee agents, and
attorney's fees and costs.  Despite the length of time that this
matter has been pending, to date only limited discovery has
occurred related to the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs,
and no damages discovery has occurred related to the claims of the
putative class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of
the putative class's alleged losses, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
approximately 6,500 putative class members also are subject to
individual variation and determination dependent upon retirement
dates, participation in employee benefit programs, and years of
service.  As in Romero I and EEOC I, discovery at this time is
limited to issues relating to the validity of the waiver and
release.  Class certification has not been decided.  Summary
judgment proceedings on the validity of the waiver and release are
expected to occur in early 2012.

In these agency program reorganization matters, the threshold
issue of the validity and scope of the waiver and release is yet
to be decided and, if decided in favor of the Company, would
preclude any damages being awarded in Romero I and EEOC I and may
also preclude damages from being awarded in Romero II.  In the
Company's judgment a loss is not probable.  Allstate has been
vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to
its agency program reorganization.


ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal From Trial Court Ruling Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal from a trial court's decision related to a class action
lawsuit filed against The Allstate Corporation is pending,
according to the Company's October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

Allstate has been vigorously defending a lawsuit in regards to
certain claims employees involving worker classification issues.
This lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a state wage
and hour law.  In this case, plaintiffs sought actual damages in
an amount to be proven at trial, liquidated damages in an amount
equal to an unspecified percentage of the aggregate underpayment
of wages to be proven at trial, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  Plaintiffs have not made a settlement demand nor have they
alleged the amount of damages with any specificity.  The case was
bifurcated between liability and damages and is currently focused
only on liability issues.  No discovery has taken place regarding
plaintiffs' alleged damages.  In December 2009, the liability
phase of the case was tried, and, on July 6, 2010, the court
issued its decision finding in favor of Allstate on all claims.
The plaintiffs have appealed the decision in favor of Allstate to
the first level appellate court.  After concluding the current
appeal, the parties may seek a subsequent appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court.  Only liability issues are being addressed on
appeal and no damages may be awarded at this stage of the
proceedings.  In the event the trial court's order were to be
overturned, however, the parties would need to conduct damages
discovery, and a trial on damages would have to take place, before
any damages could be awarded.  In the Company's judgment a loss is
not probable.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Claims by Katrina Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed by the Louisiana Attorney General over its
alleged failure to pay the insurance claims of Hurricane Katrina
victims, according to the Company's October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

The Company is vigorously defending a number of matters in various
stages of development filed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The Louisiana Attorney General filed a putative class action
lawsuit in state court against Allstate and every other homeowner
insurer doing business in the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the
State, as assignee, and on behalf of a class of Road Home fund
recipients alleging that the insurers have failed to pay all
damages owed under their policies.  The insurers removed the
matter to federal court.  The district court denied plaintiffs'
motion to remand the matter to state court and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the claims involving a Road Home subrogation
agreement.  In March 2009, the district court denied the State's
request that its claims be remanded to state court.  As for the
defendant insurers' motion, the judge granted it in part and
denied it in part.  Dismissal of all of the extra-contractual
claims, including the bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty
claims, was granted.  Dismissal also was granted of all claims
based on the Valued Policy Law and all flood loss claims based on
the levee breaches finding that the insurers flood exclusions
precluded coverage.  The remaining claims are for breach of
contract and for declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of
claims by the insurers.  The judge did not dismiss the class
action allegations.  The defendants also had moved to dismiss the
complaint on grounds that the State had no standing to bring the
lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because of anti-assignment
language in the insurers' policies.  The judge denied the
defendants' motion for reconsideration on the assignment issue but
found the matter was ripe for consideration by the federal
appellate court.  The defendants filed a petition for permission
to appeal to the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit accepted
review.  After the Fifth Circuit accepted review, plaintiffs filed
a motion to remand the case to state court, asserting that the
class claims on which federal jurisdiction was premised have now
effectively been dismissed as a result of a ruling in a related
case.  The Fifth Circuit denied the motion for remand, without
prejudice to plaintiffs' right to refile the motion for remand
after the Fifth Circuit disposes of the pending appeal.  On
July 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order stating that
since there is no controlling Louisiana Supreme Court precedent on
the issue of whether an insurance policy's anti-assignment clause
prohibits post-loss assignments, the Fifth Circuit is certifying
that issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  On May 10, 2011, the
Louisiana Supreme Court issued its ruling, holding that the
contractual prohibition on post-loss assignments does not violate
public policy, and that parties can contract to prohibit post-loss
assignments.  However, the Court went on to hold that the contract
language must clearly and unambiguously express that the non-
assignment clause applies to post-loss assignments.  The Supreme
Court refused to evaluate the language of the various policies
before it.  Rather, the Court stated that it is necessary for the
federal court to evaluate the relevant anti-assignment clauses on
a policy-by-policy basis to determine whether the language is
sufficient to prohibit post-loss assignment.  The case will now be
sent back to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana for a determination of whether each
carrier's anti-assignment clause is sufficient to prohibit post-
loss assignment.

The State has yet to identify the specific claims that it contends
are at issue in the Road Home Class Action, or the alleged
deficiencies in adjusting those claims.  There are many potential
individual claims at issue in this litigation, each of which will
require individual analysis, and a number of which may be subject
to individual defenses, including release, accord and
satisfaction, prescription, waiver and estoppel.  There has been
no factual development or discovery in connection with the Road
Home Class Action.  The motions to dismiss have been pending since
the inception of the case.  The case remains stayed until the
current appeal is concluded.  The United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the State's motion to
remand during oral argument held on October 19, 2011.  The
remaining claims continue to be for breach of contract and for
declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of claims by the
insurers.  In the Company's judgment a loss is not probable.

The Company believes that its adjusting practices and processes in
connection with Katrina homeowners claims were sound and in
accordance with industry standards and state law.  Each of the
claims involved is fact-specific and requires independent
analysis.  There remain significant questions of Louisiana law
that have yet to be decided, including the enforceability of the
Company's anti-assignment clause and certain statute of limitation
(prescription) issues.  Based on recent rulings by the Louisiana
Supreme Court, which have been construed to extend the time period
within which Katrina actions can be filed, new individual cases
continue to be filed.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Issuance of Mandate to Remand Class Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The issuance of a mandate remanding a consolidated class action
lawsuit against American Express Company back to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York remains
stayed, according to the Company's  November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Since July 2003, the Company has been named in a number of
putative class actions in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful
antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the Company's
charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and
federal laws. These cases have all been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption: In re American Express Merchants' Litigation. A case
making similar allegations was also filed in the Southern District
of New York in July 2004 captioned: The Marcus Corporation v.
American Express Company et al. The Marcus case is not
consolidated. The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive
relief and an unspecified amount of damages. In April 2004, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss all the actions filed prior to
the date of its motion. In March 2006, that motion was granted,
with the court finding the claims of the plaintiffs to be subject
to individual arbitration. The plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's arbitration ruling and in January 2009, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District
Court. The Company filed with the United States Supreme Court a
petition for a writ of certiorari from the Second Circuit's
arbitration ruling. In May 2010, the Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition, vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and
remanded the case back to the Second Circuit for further
consideration in light of decisions by the Supreme Court relevant
to the arbitration issues decided subsequent to the Second
Circuit's decision. On March 8, 2011, the Second Circuit again
reversed the District Court, and reaffirmed its prior reasoning in
doing so notwithstanding the Supreme Court's vacation and remand
of the decision. The Company filed a motion with the Second
Circuit request that the court stay issuance of the mandate
remanding the matter to the District Court pending further review
by the Supreme Court. On April 4, 2011, the Second Circuit granted
the Company's motion to stay the issuance of the mandate.
Subsequently, in light of the United States Supreme Court's
decision in the unrelated case of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion,
which decided an issue directly relevant to the Second Circuit's
arbitration ruling, the Second Circuit requested that the parties
submit briefs addressing the issues raised by the Concepcion
decision. The parties submitted their briefs on June 6, 2011, and
are awaiting a further ruling from the Second Circuit.

In October 2007, The Marcus Corporation filed a motion seeking
certification of a class. In March 2009, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, without prejudicing
their right to remake such a motion upon resolution of the pending
summary judgment motion. In September 2008, American Express moved
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of The Marcus Corporation's
complaint, and The Marcus Corporation cross-moved for partial
summary judgment on the issue of liability. A decision on the
summary judgment motions is pending. A case captioned Hayama Inc.
v. American Express Company et al., which makes similar
allegations, was filed and remains in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County (filed December 2003). To date the
Hayama action has been stayed at the Company's request.

In February 2009, an amended complaint was filed in In re American
Express Merchants' Litigation. The amended complaint contains a
single count alleging a violation of federal antitrust laws
through an alleged unlawful tying of: (a) corporate, small
business and/or personal charge card services; and (b) Blue,
Costco and standard GNS credit card services. In addition, in
February 2009, another complaint making the same allegations as
made in the amended complaint filed in In re American Express
Merchants' Litigation was also filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. That case is
captioned Greenporter LLC and Bar Hama LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Express
Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
Proceedings in the Greenporter action and on the amended complaint
filed in In re American Express Merchants' Litigation have been
held in abeyance pending the disposition of the motions for
summary judgment in the Marcus case.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing of the proposed settlement of a class action
lawsuit captioned Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related
Services is set for February 29, 2012, according to American
Express Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
allegations in Kaufman relate primarily to monthly service fee
charges assessed on the Company's gift card products, with the
principal claim being that the Company's gift cards violate
consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly have
difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards
prior to the imposition of monthly service fees. On or about
September 12, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement that was submitted to the Court for preliminary
approval. The Court granted preliminary approval on September 21,
2011 and preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of
(with some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of
all gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002
through the date of preliminary approval of the Settlement,
including without limitation, gift cards sold at physical retail
locations, via the internet, or through mall co-branded programs."
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, an approximate $6.8
million total settlement fund will be created and class members
will be entitled to submit claims against the settlement fund to
receive refunds of certain gift card fees. In addition, the
Company would make available to the settlement class for a period
of time the opportunity to buy gift cards without paying a
purchase fee or any shipping fees. Any monies remaining in the
settlement fund after payment of claims to class members, costs of
notice and administration and class counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses would be paid to charity. The final settlement approval
hearing is scheduled for February 29, 2012. The Company is also a
defendant in Goodman v. American Express Travel Related Services,
a putative class action pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York that involves
allegations similar to those made in Kaufman. Plaintiffs in
Goodman have intervened in the Kaufman proceedings and are
objecting to the Kaufman settlement. If the Court approves the
final settlement in Kaufman, all related gift card claims and
actions would also be released.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Baydale" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has
affirmed a district court's decision to dismiss a class action
lawsuit captioned Baydale v. American Express Co., Kenneth I.
Chenault and Daniel Henry, according to the Company's November 2,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On February 20, 2009, a putative class action captioned Brozovich
v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel T. Henry,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The lawsuit alleged violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with certain alleged
misstatements regarding the credit quality of the Company's credit
card customers. The purported class covered the period from March
1, 2007 to November 12, 2008. The action sought unspecified
damages and costs and fees. The Brozovich action was subsequently
voluntarily dismissed. In March 2009, a putative class action,
captioned Baydale v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and
Daniel Henry, which made similar allegations to those made in the
Brozovich action, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. In October 2009, the
plaintiff in the Baydale action filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint in the action. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss with the Court. In July 2010, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its
entirety. The plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision on
motion to dismiss to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which affirmed the district court's dismissal on
August 30, 2011.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend "Anti-Steering" Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is still defending itself against certain
putative class actions over its "anti-steering" policies,
according to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Since August 2005, the Company has been named in a number of
putative class actions alleging that the Company's "anti-steering"
policies and contractual provisions violate United States
antitrust laws. Those cases were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the
caption In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust
Litigation. The plaintiffs' complaint in that consolidated action
seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. These plaintiffs
agreed that a stay would be imposed with regard to their
respective actions pending the appeal of the Court's arbitration
ruling. Given the 2009 ruling of the Second Circuit (in connection
with In re American Express Merchants' Litigation), the stay was
lifted, and American Express' response to the complaint was filed
in April 2009. In July 2010 the Court entered an order partially
staying the case pending the Second Circuit's arbitration ruling
(following the 2010 remand by the Supreme Court in connection with
In re American Express Merchants' Litigation). In June 2010, the
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in In re American Express
Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation filed an action making
similar allegations captioned National Supermarkets Association v.
American Express and American Express Travel Related Services.
Upon filing, the plaintiffs designated that case as "related" to
In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation.
That case had been partially stayed pending the Second Circuit's
arbitration ruling.

In June 2008, five separate lawsuits were filed against American
Express Company in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York alleging that the Company's "anti-
steering" provisions in its merchant acceptance agreements with
the merchant plaintiffs violate federal antitrust laws. As alleged
by the plaintiffs, these provisions prevent merchants from
offering consumers incentives to use alternative forms of payments
when consumers wish to use an American Express-branded card. The
five suits were filed by each of Rite-Aid Corp., CVS Pharmacy
Inc., Walgreen Co., Bi-Lo LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company. The
plaintiff in each action seeks damages and injunctive relief.
American Express filed its answer to these complaints and also
filed a motion to dismiss these complaints as time barred. The
Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaints in
March 2010. On October 1, 2010, the parties to these actions
agreed to stay all proceedings pending related mediations, and
Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes entered an order staying these
actions on October 18, 2010. The parties have since notified the
Court that those mediations have reached impasses. On January 21,
2011, these parties filed lawsuits making similar allegations that
the Company's "anti-steering" provisions violate antitrust laws:
Meijer, Inc., Publix Super Markets, Inc., Raley's Inc., Supervalu,
Inc., The Kroger Co., Safeway, Inc., Ahold U.S.A., Inc.,
Albertson's LLC, Hy-Vee, Inc., and The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company, Inc.

In November 2010, two putative class action complaints making
allegations similar to those in In re American Express Anti-
Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation were filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
Firefly Air Solutions, LLC d/b/a 128 Caf‚ and Plymouth Oil Corp.
d/b/a Liberty Gas Station. In addition, in December 2010, a
putative class action complaint making similar allegations, and
seeking certification of a Wisconsin-only class, was filed by
Treehouse Inc. d/b/a Treehouse Gift & Home in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. In January
2011, a putative class complaint, captioned Il Forno v. American
Express Centurion Bank, seeking certification of a California-only
class and making allegations similar to those in In re American
Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, was filed in
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. These matters also had been partially stayed pending
the Second Circuit's arbitration decision in the action captioned
In re American Express Merchants' Litigation. After the partial
stay was lifted, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Complaint
making similar allegations to the prior class allegations in the
various class complaints, but dropping certain merchants as
plaintiffs. After this complaint was filed, the Court again
partially stayed these matters on September 15, 2011, in light of
the Second Circuit's stay of the issuance of the mandate in the
action captioned In re American Express Merchants' Litigation.

On February 7, 2011, in response to a transfer motion filed by the
plaintiffs in the Plymouth Oil action, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order centralizing
these actions in the Eastern District of New York for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Nicholas
G. Garaufis: (a) the putative class action that had been
previously pending in the Southern District of New York captioned
In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation;
(b) the putative class actions already pending in the Eastern
District of New York filed by Firefly Air Solutions, LLC and by
Plymouth Oil Corp.; and (c) the individual merchant suits already
pending in the Eastern District of New York. On February 15, 2011,
the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
issued a conditional transfer order centralizing the related
putative class actions pending in the Central District of
California and Western District of Wisconsin before Judge Garaufis
in the Eastern District of New York, and those actions have been
centralized before Judge Garaufis for all pre-trial purposes.
These consolidated matters are being coordinated with the action
brought by DOJ and certain states that is also pending in the
Eastern District of New York against American Express relating to
the non-discrimination provisions in its merchant agreements.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion for Arbitration in "Meeks" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company's motion to compel individual arbitration
in the class action captioned Meeks v. American Express Centurion
remains pending, according to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In September 2010, a putative class action, captioned Meeks v.
American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in Fulton County
Superior Court, Georgia, alleging that plaintiff received
unilateral interest rate increases despite alleged promises that
the rate would remain fixed. In October 2010, the Company removed
the matter to federal court. In October 2010, a First Amended
Class Action Complaint was filed, which included three additional
named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs asserts claims for breach of
contract, covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, unjust enrichment, duress, violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition
law, and violation of California's False Advertising Act.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of all American
Express Cardmembers who received unilateral interest rate
increases despite their accounts being in good standing. In
November, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to remand the
case from federal court back to state court, which the Court
denied in April 2011. In April 2011, American Express filed a
Motion to Compel Arbitration. That motion has been fully briefed
and remains pending before the District Court.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Certification Hearing Set for February 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2011, in a matter captioned 9085-4886 Quebec Inc. and
Peter Bakopanos v. Amex Bank of Canada and Amex Canada Inc., a
motion was filed in the Quebec Superior Court seeking to authorize
the bringing of a class action lawsuit alleging that American
Express Company's "anti-steering" rules violate Canadian
competition law. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and the
elimination of the "anti-steering" rules. A certification hearing
is scheduled for February 7 and 8, 2012, according to the
Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Lopez" Suit Still Stayed in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against American Express Bank FSB and American Express
Centurion Bank remains stayed pending the outcome of an unrelated
case pending before the United States Supreme Court, according to
American Express Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al.
v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint seeks to certify a
nationwide class of American Express Card members whose interest
rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009
or otherwise increased. American Express filed a motion to compel
arbitration, and plaintiff has amended their complaint to limit
the class to California residents only. The Company filed a
revised motion to compel arbitration and a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Both motions were denied by the Court.
Subsequently, in response to a request by the Company, the Court
stayed the action pending the outcome of a case captioned AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion, which is pending before the United States
Supreme Court and may impact the question of whether the Company's
motion to compel arbitration should have been granted.

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Agrees to Pay $49.5-Mil. to Settle "Ross" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties of the lawsuit captioned Ross, et al. v. American Express
Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American
Express Centurion Bank have agreed to settle the lawsuit for $49.5
million, according to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In July 2004, a purported class action captioned Ross, et al. v.
American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services
and American Express Centurion Bank was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges that American Express conspired with Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency
conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in
certain of their cardmember agreements. The suit seeks injunctive
relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as "all Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used
cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American Express
cardholders are not part of the class. In September 2005, the
District Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the action
and preliminarily certified an injunction class of Visa and
MasterCard cardholders to determine the validity of Visa's and
MasterCard's cardmember arbitration clauses. American Express
filed a motion for reconsideration with the District Court, which
motion was denied in September 2006. The Company filed an appeal
from the District Court's order denying its motion to compel
arbitration. In October 2008, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit denied the Company's appeal and remanded
the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In January
2010, the Court (1) certified a damage class of all Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club general purpose cardholders who used
cards issued by any of the alleged co-conspiring banks during the
period July 22, 2000 to November 8, 2006, who were assessed a
foreign exchange transaction fee or surcharge and who have
submitted valid claims in In re Currency Conversion Antitrust
Litigation, and (2) denied American Express' motion to amend its
answer to add the affirmative defense of release. In June 2010,
the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with the Court,
which sought dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, and on March 29,
2011, the Court denied that motion. Trial has been scheduled to
begin on May 7, 2012. The parties have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the claims asserted on behalf of the damage
class concerning foreign currency conversion rates. Under the
terms of the agreement, the Company would pay $49.5 million into a
settlement fund. Any proposed settlement is subject to final
documentation and approval by the Court. The claims asserted by
the injunction class concerning cardmember arbitration clauses are
not included in the proposed settlement and will continue to be
litigated.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Renewed Arbitration Plea in "Homa" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company's renewed motion to compel individual
arbitration in the lawsuit, Homa v. American Express Company et
al., remains pending, according to the Company's November 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In June 2006, a putative class action captioned Homa v. American
Express Company et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The case alleges, generally,
misleading and fraudulent advertising of the "tiered" "up to 5
percent" cash rebates with the Blue Cash card. The complaint
initially sought certification of a nationwide class consisting of
"all persons who applied for and received an American Express Blue
Cash card during the period from September 30, 2003 to the present
and who did not get the rebate or rebates provided for in the
offer." On December 1, 2006, however, plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint dropping the nationwide class claims and
asserting claims only on behalf of New Jersey residents who "while
so residing in New Jersey, applied for and received an American
Express Blue Cash card during the period from September 30, 2003
to the present." The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other
unspecified relief that the District Court deems appropriate. In
May 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion to
compel individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiff appealed that decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, and in February 2009, the Third
Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further proceedings. In October 2009, a
putative class action captioned Pagsolingan v. American Express
Company, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. That case made allegations
that were largely similar to those made in Homa, except that
Pagsolingan alleged multiple theories of liability and sought to
certify a nationwide class of "[a]ll persons who applied for and
received an American Express Blue Cash card during the period from
September 30, 2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate
or rebates provided for in the offer." In May 2010, plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Pagsolingan case in its entirety.
Subsequently, in response to a request by the Company, the
District Court stayed the Homa action pending the outcome of the
case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which was subsequently decided
by the United States Supreme Court in a manner that supports the
Company's position that its motion to compel arbitration should
have been granted. The Company has renewed its motion to compel
individual arbitration, and that motion is being briefed by the
parties.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its request
to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit related to the
"Deepwater Horizon," according to the Company's October 31, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, in which
Anadarko holds a 25% non-operating leasehold interest, discovered
hydrocarbon accumulations. During suspension operations, the well
blew out, an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling
rig, and the drilling rig sank, resulting in the release of
hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven people lost their
lives in the explosion and subsequent fire, and others sustained
personal injuries. The Macondo well was plugged on September 19,
2010.  BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BP), the operator of
Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in which the Macondo well is located
(Lease), is funding claims and coordinating cleanup efforts. BP
invoiced the Company $6.1 billion for what BP considered to be
Anadarko's proportionate share of actual costs and anticipated
near-term future costs related to these activities. Anadarko
withheld payment to BP for all Deepwater Horizon event-related
invoices pending the completion of various ongoing investigations
into and litigation regarding the cause of the well blowout,
explosion, and subsequent release of hydrocarbons.

Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August
2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York District Court) on behalf of
purported purchasers of the Company's stock between June 9, 2009,
and June 12, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers.
The complaints allege causes of action arising pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and
omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's liability
related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest
thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. In November 2010,
the New York District Court consolidated the two cases and
appointed The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and
Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin
Islands (Virgin Islands Group) to act as Lead Plaintiff. In
January 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended
Complaint. Prior to filing its Consolidated Amended Complaint, the
Lead Plaintiff requested leave from the New York District Court to
transfer this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. The Company opposes the Lead
Plaintiff's request to transfer the case to the District Court for
the Southern District of Texas. The parties have submitted briefs
to the New York District Court concerning the transfer of venue
issue. In March 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint of the Lead Plaintiff, and in April
2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to
dismiss. The motion to transfer and motion to dismiss remain under
advisement of the New York District Court.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Court Denies Class Status in "Tronox" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' request for class certification in the lawsuit filed
by purchasers of Tronox, Inc.'s securities against Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation has been denied, according to the Company's
October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In July 2009, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in
the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of
Tronox's equity and debt securities between November 21, 2005, and
January 12, 2009 (Class Period), against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee,
several former Kerr-McGee officers and directors, several former
Tronox officers and directors, and Ernst & Young LLP
(collectively, the Securities Defendants). The complaint alleges
causes of action arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) for purported
misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things,
Tronox's environmental-remediation and tort claim liabilities. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that these purported
misstatements and omissions are contained in certain of Tronox's
public filings, including filings made in connection with Tronox's
initial public offering. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as
litigation fees and costs. Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, and other
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint and in August 2010 moved to dismiss an amended
consolidated class action complaint that had been filed in July
2010. The New York District Court issued the second of two
opinions and orders on the motions (Orders). Following the Orders,
only the plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims under the Exchange Act
remain against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee. The plaintiffs' claims
against Anadarko are limited to the period beginning on August 10,
2006, through the end of the Class Period. In August 2011,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Securities
Defendants filed briefs in opposition to class certification in
September 2011. The court denied class certification in October
2011 and has requested the parties to re-brief the class
certification motion. The discovery process is ongoing.

The Company relates that at this time it cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential losses related to the proceedings
because the amount of potential damages will depend on
circumstances that have not yet occurred, including the outcome of
expert testimony and certain determinations to be made by the
Bankruptcy Court. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself, its officers, and its directors in these
proceedings.


ARIZONA PUBLIC: Defends Two California Consumer Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Public Service Company is defending itself against two
purported consumer class action complaints, which have been
filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
according to the Company's Nov. 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2011.

The complaints also name Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and San
Diego Gas & Electric Company as defendants, and seek damages for
loss of perishable inventory as a result of interruption of
electrical service.  APS and Pinnacle West have numerous defenses
against any such complaints, and do not believe that any potential
impact would be material.

Arizona Public Service provides energy in the Grand Canyon state.
Arizona Public Service, a subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital,
distributes power to more than 1 million customers in 11 of 15
Arizona counties, making it the largest electric utility in the
state.  It operates 5,760 miles of transmission lines and 28,680
miles of distribution lines; it also generates 6,160 MW of
capacity at mainly fossil-fueled and nuclear power plants.  The
Company's marketing and trading division sells excess energy from
the utility's power plants, as well as power generated by Pinnacle
West Energy, to wholesale customers in the western US.


BOY SCOUTS: Recalls 5,400 Cub Scout Wind Tech Jackets
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Boy Scouts of America, Charlotte, North Carolina, announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,400 Cub Scout Wind Tech jackets.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The jackets have retractable cords with toggles at the hood/neck
area and at the waist, which can pose a strangulation or
entrapment hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/208.pdf]which were
incorporated into an industry voluntary standard in 1997, to help
prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck
and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes the blue Cub Scout Wind Tech jacket sold in
youth sizes.  The jackets are nylon with a polyester lining, long-
sleeve, with a full zipper front and a Cub Scout wolf head emblem
embroidered on the upper left chest.  SKU numbers 73291, 73292,
and 73293 are printed on the hangtag that is attached to the
jacket at retail.  Picture of the recalled products is available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12033.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Boy
Scouts of America retail outlets nationwide and online at
http://www.scoutstuff.org/from November 2009 through July 2011
for approximately $32.

Consumers should immediately remove the cords from these jackets
to eliminate the hazard, or return the jacket to Boy Scouts of
America for a full refund.  For additional information, contact
the Boy Scouts of America toll-free at (855) 873-2408 anytime or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.scoutstuff.org/


CHAMPION LABS: Lawyers Want More Than 50 Class Actions Revised
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Voreacos, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Champion
Laboratories Inc. and other oil-filter makers want a judge to
order the refiling of more than 50 class-action lawsuits to remove
any reference to a former employee who pleaded guilty to
fabricating a document that triggered a U.S. antitrust probe.

Champion, Honeywell International Inc. (HON) and other companies
made the request Nov. 1 in federal court in Chicago, after the
Oct. 26 sentencing of William G. Burch to two years in prison.
Mr. Burch, 53, pleaded guilty on June 29 in Philadelphia,
admitting he concocted evidence in a 2008 whistle-blower lawsuit
claiming Champion and its competitors fixed prices on automobile
aftermarket filters.

Mr. Burch, who was fired by Champion, admitted he altered a price-
increase letter on Honeywell stationery to create a "smoking gun'
that made the case more enticing to a law firm he hired.  He said
he lied to Justice Department prosecutors who opened a grand jury
investigation based on his phony claims.  The companies also claim
he doctored conversations he recorded.

Lawyers for the filter makers urged the judge overseeing the civil
litigation to bar those suing on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of filters from "benefiting from Burch's fraud by using
his manipulated tapes and perjured testimony to support their
case," according to the filing.

"This court has the inherent power to do much more; courts have
appropriately dismissed cases based on misconduct this egregious,"
wrote the attorneys, who amplified an earlier request made in
court papers before the Burch sentencing hearing.

Lawyers for plaintiffs say they have substantial evidence
independent of Burch to show that the companies engaged in a
price-fixing scheme that began in 1999.  In a Sept. 26 court
filing, they urged U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman to allow
the case to proceed so that they can conduct pre-trial depositions
of witnesses.

"We believe that based on material independent of Mr. Burch and
certain material that corroborates what he says that the case
should continue," said attorney Bernard Persky of Labaton Sucharow
LLP in New York, who represents direct purchasers.  "We should be
allowed to do discovery."

An attorney who represented Burch in his whistle-blower lawsuit,
G. Steven Stidham of SneedLangHerrold in Tulsa, Oklahoma, didn't
immediately return a call seeking comment.

Mr. Burch's criminal attorney, Robert Nigh Jr. of Tulsa, said in
an interview that his client "has attempted to remove himself from
that litigation, but that shouldn't have an impact on legitimate
claims by others."

In a pre-sentencing memo filed Oct. 19, Mr. Nigh wrote: "This was
a situation in which price-fixing had actually occurred and could
be established with evidence independent of Mr. Burch and the
altered document."

Rob Ferris, a spokesman for Morris Township, New Jersey-based
Honeywell, said in an e-mailed statement: "Mr. Burch admitted to
providing false evidence when he was sentenced last week . . .
This case began with and remains based on a fraud.  There is no
case against Honeywell apart from Mr. Burch and his fake evidence.
Honeywell will continue to defend itself and is confident in the
outcome."

"While obviously the litigation is still ongoing, we don't believe
that it should be," said Keith Zar, general counsel for
Evansville, Indiana-based UCI International Inc., which owns
Champion Laboratories, based in Albion Illinois.  Champion is one
of the world's largest suppliers of filters.

"We're outraged that the illegal acts of one individual could
result in a case like this being brought in the first place,"
Mr. Zar said.  "We don't believe that there is any evidence of
price-fixing activity without Mr. Burch's fabricated evidence."

Mr. Burch, of Tulsa, had worked as a division sales manager at
Champion when he was fired in January 2006 over what the company
said were expense report fabrications, court records show.  He
filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit days later.

On March 30, 2008, he filed a lawsuit under the False Claims Act,
which lets citizens sue on behalf of the government and share in
any recovery.  On that day, a lawsuit seeking class-action status
was filed against Champion and others that was based on many of
the facts alleged by Burch, records show.

On April 24, 2008, he was interviewed by Justice Department
prosecutors.  He gave them a Honeywell price increase letter dated
Oct. 11, 2004, that he falsified by adding a facsimile header
dated Sept. 24, 2004, he admitted as part of his guilty plea.

On June 7, 2008, the Justice Department's antitrust division
opened a grand jury investigation, which prosecutors say would not
have begun without the phony letter.  Mr. Burch settled his
wrongful termination case on Sept. 5, 2008, with Champion paying
him $450,000, according to court documents.

At his sentencing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Crawley said
Mr. Burch sought to "deceive the antitrust division, to have a
criminal investigation opened, to get his enemies prosecuted and
then to make money out of the whole thing."

U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage in Philadelphia said: "What we
see here is a crime that undermines our system of justice that was
motivated by both greed and spite.  It was calculated, it was
manipulated.  It was not an isolated incident."

Aside from the prison term, Judge Savage ordered Mr. Burch to pay
a $30,000 fine and restitution of $83,669 to cover the salaries of
prosecutors who worked on the case.

The criminal case is United States v. William G. Burch, 11-cr-334,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia).  The civil case is In Re: Aftermarket Filters
Antitrust Litigation, 08-cv-4883, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).


CHRISTIANE FARAZLI: Sued Over Lax Infection Prevention Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Nease, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed against a doctor and her Ottawa
clinic over what health officials have described as lax infection-
prevention practices.

Dr. Christiane Farazli's now-closed clinic, which conducted
endoscopy procedures, has been the subject of an investigation by
the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The investigation was made public recently when the Ottawa Public
Health authority revealed it was sending a letter to about 6,800
patients who had been treated at the clinic over the past decade,
warning them they may have been exposed to hepatitis and HIV
infection.

The suit has been launched by the Merchant Law Group LLP, a
Saskatchewan-based firm that has been involved with numerous high-
profile class-action lawsuits in this country.

The firm says its claim asserts that Dr. Farazli failed to
consistently follow standard and statutory practices and
procedures used to clean endoscopes and that patients have
suffered worry, anxiety, and possible bodily injuries as a result.

None of these allegations has been proven in court.


CLECO CORP: Forwards Appeal in Overcharge Suit to La. Supreme Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation and the Louisiana Public Service Commission
(LPSC) have forwarded their appeal from an administrative law
judge's ruling that the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims
raised by plaintiffs in an overcharge lawsuit against Cleco
Corporation to the Louisiana Supreme Court, according to the
Company's Nov. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2011.

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf
of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The
complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by
applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco
Power applies to all of its retail customers.  The plaintiffs
allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely for
customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and
distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of
Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers
in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Cleco Power currently operates in
Opelousas pursuant to a franchise granted to Cleco Power by the
City of Opelousas in 1986 and an operating and franchise agreement
dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own
electric facilities and leases and operates electric facilities
owned by the City of Opelousas.  In April 2010, Cleco Power filed
a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring
that the ratepayers of Opelousas have been properly charged the
rates that are applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and
that no overcharges have been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power
removed the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
Opelousas electric customers from the state court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in April
2010, so that it could be properly addressed under the terms of
the Class Action Fairness Act.  On May 11, 2010, a second class
action lawsuit was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of
St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, repeating the allegations
of the first complaint, which was submitted on behalf of 249
Opelousas residents.  Cleco Power has responded in the same manner
as with the first class action lawsuit.  On September 29, 2010,
the federal court remanded both cases to the state court in which
they were originally filed for further proceedings.  On January
21, 2011, the presiding judge in the state court proceeding ruled
that the jurisdiction to hear the two class actions resides in the
state court and not with the LPSC as argued by both Cleco and the
LPSC Staff.  Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff appealed this ruling to
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of Louisiana.  On
September 9, 2011, the Third Circuit denied both appeals.  On
October 10, 2011, both Cleco and the LPSC appealed the Third
Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  On February 7,
2011, the administrative law judge in the LPSC proceeding ruled
that the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the
class action plaintiffs.  The customers have not stated an amount
of overcharges they seek to recover.  In view of the uncertainty
of the claims, management is not able to predict or give a
reasonable estimate of the possible range, if any, of these
claims.

Cleco Corp. -- http://www.cleco.com/-- is a regional energy
company headquartered in Pineville, La.  It operates a regulated
electric utility company, Cleco Power LLC, which serves about
277,000 retail customers across Louisiana.  Cleco also operates a
wholesale energy business, Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, which
includes the pending sale of Acadia Power Station Unit 2.


DAVEY TREE: Trial in "Ely" Suit Going Forward in January 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
The scheduled trial in the lawsuit Ely v. Davey Tree Surgery
Company is going forward on January 30, 2011, according to The
Davey Tree Expert Company's Nov. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 1, 2011.

Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert
Company, has been named in a purported class-action lawsuit in the
State of California filed on July 15, 2008 in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda.  The
plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and a putative class
that Davey Tree Surgery Company has failed to comply with
California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required
content of paycheck stubs.

The plaintiffs allege that they and the putative "meal periods"
class have not been provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-
minute meal periods.  In addition, plaintiffs allege that because
they were supposedly made to work during their meal breaks, Davey
Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law
because they and the putative members were not paid minimum wage
for their alleged work during meal breaks.  Plaintiffs also
contend Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law by not
including the time they and the putative "wage statement" class
members worked during their meal periods, their hourly rates of
pay and number of hours worked at each hourly rate on their
paycheck stubs.

The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements"
class; some individuals are members of both classes, while others
are members of only one class. A trial is scheduled for
January 30, 2012.

At this time, it is not reasonably possible to evaluate the
likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome to this matter or
to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, the
Company says.  However, any potential losses from claims of this
nature would not be insured, and therefore an adverse result could
have a negative effect on Davey's business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows which could be material.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend ourselves against the
lawsuit, and it believes that its defenses against these claims
are meritorious.

There have been no material changes in the quarterly period ended
Oct. 1, 2011, to the legal proceedings.


DAVEY TREE: Continues to Defend Suits Over California Wildfire
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Davey Tree Expert Company continues to defend itself in the
California Fire Litigation.

Davey Tree Surgery Company, a Davey subsidiary, and Davey Resource
Group, a Davey division, have previously been sued, together with
a utility services customer, San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E"),
and its parent company, as defendants, and as cross-defendants in
cross-complaints filed by the utility service customer, in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
San Diego, arising out of a wildfire in San Diego County that
started on October 22, 2007, referred to as the Rice Canyon fire.

Numerous lawsuits related to the Rice Canyon fire were filed
against SDG&E, its parent company, Sempra Energy, and Davey.  The
earliest of the lawsuits naming Davey was filed on April 18, 2008.
The court ordered that the lawsuits be organized into four groups
based on type of plaintiff, namely insurance subrogation
claimants, individual/business claimants, governmental claimants,
and plaintiffs seeking class certification.  Plaintiffs' motions
seeking class certification have since been denied.  SDG&E has
filed cross-complaints against Davey for contractual indemnity,
declaratory relief, and breach of contract.  SDG&E has reportedly
settled many of the third-party claims and is now actively
asserting damage claims against Davey.

No updates were reported in Davey's Nov. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Oct. 1, 2011.

Davey has notified its insurers of the Rice Canyon fire claims, is
vigorously defending the third-party claims, and continues to work
with the insurers both to defend the claims and to ensure coverage
of any potential liabilities.

At this time, Davey believes that insurance coverage and recorded
accruals are sufficient to provide for losses related to these
potential liabilities.

However, due to the nature and extent of these claims, an adverse
result in these proceedings leading to a loss in excess of Davey's
available insurance coverage could have a material and adverse
effect on Davey's business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.  Adverse results, even if within the
limits of Davey's available insurance coverage, could materially
and adversely (a) affect Davey's ability to obtain comparable
insurance in the future, or, (b) if such insurance were
obtainable, affect the policy limits, premiums, self-insured
retentions and other terms and conditions.


DIRECTV: Class Action Challenges Cancellation Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV reported net profit of $516 million for the 3rd Quarter of
2011, bringing its net profit to $1.89 billion for the first 9
months of the year and putting the company on track to top its
record 2010 profit of $2.3 billion.  DIRECTV's profits come at the
expense of its customers who are assessed hefty "cancellation
penalties" -- up to $480 -- when they terminate their service,
said Consumer Watchdog.  This "early cancellation penalty," the
subject of pending litigation, is charged regardless of the reason
for the cancellation, and is often removed without consent from
customers' bank accounts or credit card accounts.

According to Consumer Watchdog, whose attorneys represent a class
of California DIRECTV customers in a lawsuit challenging the
cancellation penalty, DIRECTV has levied the cancellation fee on
over 570,000 California consumer accounts from 2004-2010, pulling
millions of dollars from their bank and credit card accounts as
many juggled budgets to pay for groceries and gasoline.  Consumer
Watchdog warned shareholders that if the case is successful
DIRECTV will have to refund millions of dollars.

"During a time when many families are struggling to make ends
meet, DIRECTV is earning record profits while it continues to
plunder its customers' bank accounts to pay a fee that we believe
is unlawful," said Consumer Watchdog Litigation Director Pamela
Pressley, who is one of the attorneys in the case.

In a complaint filed in September 2010 in Los Angeles Superior
Court on behalf of current and former California DIRECTV customers
who were charged an early cancellation penalty, Los Angeles
resident Kathy Greiner explained that when her DIRECTV receiver
stopped working, she ordered a new one, which triggered a new
contract without her knowledge.  The new receiver experienced
problems, but DIRECTV would not resolve them, and even suggested
that Ms. Greiner climb onto her roof to "reset" the equipment.  So
Ms. Greiner, a six-year customer of the company, canceled her
service and returned the equipment.  DIRECTV subsequently levied a
$237 "early cancellation" penalty on Ms. Greiner, which the
company took directly from her bank account without her knowledge
or permission.

According to Ms. Greiner, "DIRECTV reached into my bank account
without my permission and took an early termination fee which I
never agreed to and didn't know about until I checked my bank
balance."

Another customer, Mary Cox, said she canceled DIRECTV after seven
years due to equipment problems and "terrible" customer service.
DIRECTV deducted the cancellation penalty from her bank account
without notice.  "This fee caused my account to go into overdraft,
resulting in my bank charging me overdraft fees.  I spent
countless hours trying to get the charges reversed with my bank.
This is money I need to pay for my groceries and other bills."

Ms. Greiner's complaint was consolidated with another lawsuit
brought by Amy Imburgia, also a California resident, and
subsequently certified as a class action in April 2011.  The class
action lawsuit, Imburgia, et. al, v. DIRECTV, Inc., Los Angeles
Superior Court Case No. BC398295 challenges DIRECTV's assessment
of early cancellation penalties (ECPs) to subscribers of DIRECTV
satellite television services in California pursuant to a uniform
"liquidated damages" clause buried in a form contract to which all
subscribers were subjected.  According to the lawsuit: "the [ECP]
penalties imposed by DIRECTV are unlawful liquidated damages
because they are not designed to compensate DIRECTV for any
damages arising from [customers'] cancellation, but rather are
designed to lock in [customers] and serve as a disincentive to
prevent [customers] from switching to competing services in the
event they become dissatisfied with the service provided by
DIRECTV or can no longer access DIRECTV's service."

Along with Consumer Watchdog attorneys, Ms. Greiner is represented
by the Law Offices of F. Edie Mermelstein, based in Huntington
Beach, and Paul Stevens and Shireen Mohsenzadegan of the Santa
Monica-based firm of Milstein, Adelman LLP.  Plaintiff Imburgia is
represented by Ingrid Evans of the San Francisco office of The
Evans Law Firm.

A copy of the joint amended complaint can be found here:

http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/resources/DirecTVSuitComplaint.pdf

Consumer Watchdog, formerly The Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Court Orders Dismissal of "Midwest" Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Complaints filed against Midwest Generation in Illinois have been
dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, according to Edison
International's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In May 2011, two complaints were filed against Midwest Generation
in the Northern District of Illinois by residents living near the
Crawford and Fisk facilities on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance,
negligence, trespass, and strict liability.  The plaintiffs sought
to have their suits certified as a class action and requested
injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
In October 2011, the complaints were dismissed for lack of federal
jurisdiction.  EME does not know whether the plaintiffs will
appeal the dismissal or file a complaint in state court.

EME is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edison Mission Group Inc., a
power generation segment of Edison International.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Class Action in Pennsylvania Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Claims in a purported class action lawsuit filed against Edison
International in Pennsylvania have been dismissed, according to
the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In January 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
filed a complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania against
EME Homer City Generation L.P., the sale-leaseback owner
participants of the Homer City plant, and two prior owners of the
Homer City plant.  The complaint alleged violations of the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V provisions of
the Clean Air Act, as a result of projects in the 1990s performed
by prior owners without PSD permits and the subsequent failure to
incorporate emissions limitations that meet the best available
control technology into the station's Title V operating permit.
In addition to seeking penalties ranging from $32,500 to $37,500
per violation, per day, the complaint called for an injunction
ordering Homer City to install controls sufficient to meet BACT
emission rates at all units subject to the complaint and for other
remedies.  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, the State of New York and the State of New Jersey
intervened in the lawsuit.

Also in January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the
Western District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Homer City, the sale-leaseback
owner participants of the Homer City plant, two prior owners of
the Homer City plant, EME, and Edison International, claiming that
emissions from the Homer City plant had adversely affected their
health and property values.  The plaintiffs sought to have their
suit certified as a class action and requested injunctive relief,
the funding of a health assessment study and medical monitoring,
as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

On October 12, 2011, all of the claims in the US EPA's lawsuit
were dismissed with prejudice.  On October 13, 2011, the claims in
the purported class action lawsuit that were based on the federal
CAA were dismissed with prejudice, while state law statutory and
common law claims were dismissed without prejudice to re-file in
state court should the plaintiffs choose to do so.  EME does not
know whether the US EPA and the other plaintiffs in these cases
will appeal the dismissal of these cases, or whether plaintiffs in
the purported class action lawsuit will file a complaint in state
court. If the plaintiffs are able to revive the lawsuits, adverse
decisions in these cases could involve penalties, remedial actions
and damages that could have a material impact on the financial
condition and results of operations of Homer City and EME.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Class Action in Mississippi Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint filed against Southern
California Edison Company in Mississippi remains pending,
according to Edison International's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On May 27, 2011, private citizens filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, naming among a large number of
defendants, Edison International and its subsidiaries, including
SCE and EME.  EME is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edison Mission
Group Inc., a power generation segment of Edison International.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' activities resulted in
emissions of substantial quantities of greenhouse gases that have
contributed to climate change and sea level rise, which in turn
are alleged to have increased the destructive force of Hurricane
Katrina.  The lawsuit alleges causes of action for negligence,
public and private nuisance, and trespass, and seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.  The claims in this lawsuit are
nearly identical to a subset of the claims that were raised
against many of the same defendants in a previous lawsuit that was
filed in, and dismissed by, the same federal district court where
the current case has been filed.  Edison International was
dismissed as a defendant in this complaint in July 2011, but SCE
and EME remain defendants.


EXCO RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Nonsuit Two Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of two class action lawsuits against Exco Resources,
Inc., voluntarily "nonsuited" those cases, according to the
Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 29, 2010, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Douglas H. Miller presented a letter to its board of
directors indicating an interest in acquiring all of the
outstanding shares of its stock not already owned by Mr. Miller
for a cash purchase price of $20.50 per share. This proposal did
not represent a definitive offer and there was no assurance that a
definitive offer would be made or accepted, that any agreement
would be executed or that any transaction would be consummated.
The Company's board of directors established a special committee
on November 4, 2010, comprised of two of its independent directors
to, among other things, evaluate and determine the Company's
response to the October 29, 2010 proposal. On July 8, 2011, after
consultation with its independent financial and legal advisors,
the special committee released a statement that its review of
strategic alternatives did not result in any firm proposal or any
other proposal that was in the best interests of the Company and
its shareholders and that they had terminated the review process.

Since November 3, 2010, two putative shareholder class actions
were filed against the Company and all of the members of its board
of directors in state district courts in Dallas County, Texas.

All of the state court proceedings were consolidated into one
court and were handled as a consolidated derivative action and a
consolidated class action. Separate lead plaintiffs' counsel were
appointed for the consolidated derivative action and the
consolidated direct class action. As a result, there were three
lawsuits in Texas state and federal courts related to Mr. Miller's
proposal: the consolidated derivative action and consolidated
direct class action were pending in state court and one derivative
action was pending in federal court. During the third quarter
2011, the plaintiffs in the two state court actions voluntarily
nonsuited those cases and the federal court action was dismissed.


FANNIE MAE: Genesee County Commissioners Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ron Fonger, writing for Flint Journal, reports that County
commissioners might take on the Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (Freddie Mac), two giant players in the home mortgage
business nationwide, for failing to pay real estate transfer taxes
here.

County attorneys are considering how to move forward with a
proposal from Treasurer Deb Cherry, who asked the Board of
Commissioners to enter into a representation agreement with a
Troy-based law firm, which would file suit against the two
companies to recover up to six years of the unpaid taxes.

The windfall could approach $500,000 total for six years of unpaid
real estate transfer taxes, Ms. Cherry said.

Commissioners held off from entering into the agreement after the
treasurer said the law firm might require it pay an
up-front filing fee if it represents the county as lead plaintiff
in a class action lawsuit against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to
recover the unpaid taxes.

Ms. Cherry said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have claimed they were
exempt from paying the taxes previously, but "recently the state
treasurer has issued guidance to local officials that they are not
exempt under the (law) and that transfer taxes should be
collected."

"We are asking to be the lead plaintiff of a class action suit,"
Ms. Cherry said.  "They should pay this like anybody else."

Already, Oakland and Ingham counties have filed separate lawsuits
against Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, also alleging they improperly
avoided paying real estate taxes there.

Ms. Cherry told commissioners her office might need $10,000 to
$20,000 to start a class action suit, money that her office had
set aside but that was recaptured for the county's general fund at
the end of the last fiscal year.

"It's not the initial . . . but the cost of going all the way
through this litigation" that I'm concerned about, said
Commissioner Patrick Gleason, D-Richfieled Township.

Fannie Mae bills itself as a "government-sponsored enterprise
chartered by Congress to keep money flowing to mortgage lenders,
to help strengthen the U.S. housing and mortgage markets, and to
support affordable homeownership."

Freddie Mac's Web site says it was chartered by Congress in 1970
with a public mission to stabilize the nation's residential
mortgage markets and expand opportunities for homeownership and
affordable rental housing.


FIFTH THIRD BANK: Accused of Violating Illinois Wage & Hour Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alaina Morerro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 2011-CH-38111 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., November 2, 2011) is brought pursuant to the
Illinois Code of Civil Procedure and in accordance with Illinois
state wage and hour law against the Defendant to challenge its
policy and practice of failing to pay its loan officers their
overtime wages pursuant to Illinois state law.

Although its loan officers did not qualify as being exempt from
Illinois state wage and hour laws, Fifth Third Bank failed to pay
them overtime compensation when they worked over 40 hours in a
week, the Plaintiff alleges.  She adds that the Defendant's
supervisors have instructed the loan officers not to record any
overtime hours they worked in an effort to evade state and federal
law.

Ms. Morerro is a resident of Chicago, Illinois.  She has been
employed as a loan officer for Fifth Third Bank since February 1,
2010, at the Defendant's Chicago, Illinois branch.

Fifth Third Bank is an Ohio corporation with its principal place
of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Defendant sells mortgage loans
and other financial products in multiple states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Lee B. Szor, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  lszor@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  pmadden@bm.net


FIRST AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits mostly challenging practices in its
title insurance business, according to the Company's Nov. 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its
agents:

  * charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance
    transaction, including:

    -- Boucher v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
       on May 16, 2007 and pending in the United States District
       Court for the Western District of Washington,

    -- Campbell v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
       on August 16, 2008 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the District of Maine,

    -- Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
       on August 22, 2007 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the Northern District of Texas,

    -- Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
       al., filed on August 25, 2008 and pending in the Superior
       Court of the State of North Carolina, Wake County,

    -- Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
       on September 29, 2010 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the District of New Jersey,

    -- Johnson v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
       on May 27, 2008 and pending in the United States District
       Court for the District of Arizona,

    -- Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
       February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

    -- Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
       November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the District of Idaho,

    -- Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
       on February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit Court,
       Nassau County, Florida,

    -- Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
       on December 19, 2005 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
       and

    -- Tello v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
       July 14, 2009 and pending in the United States District
       Court for the District of New Hampshire.

    All of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has
    granted class certification only in Campbell, Hamilton (North
    Carolina), Johnson, Lewis, Raffone and Slapikas.  An appeal
    to a higher court is pending with respect to the granting of
    class certification in Hamilton (North Carolina).  The
    Company has been unable to assess the probability of loss or
    estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the
    Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
    believes the amount is immaterial to the condensed
    consolidated financial statements as a whole.

  * purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an
    inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to
    the Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents
    and others for referrals of business, in each case in
    violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
    including:

    -- Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
       June 12, 2007 and pending in the United States District
       Court for the Central District of California, and

    -- Galiano v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
       filed on February 8, 2008 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

    Galiano is a putative class action for which a class has not
    been certified. In Edwards, a narrow class has been
    certified.  The United States Supreme Court is reviewing
    whether the Edwards plaintiff has the legal right to sue.
    The Company has been unable to assess the probability of loss
    or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

  * conspired with its competitors to fix prices or otherwise
    engaged in anticompetitive behavior, including:

    -- Barton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al,
       filed March 10, 2008 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the Northern District of California,

    -- Holt v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
       filed March 11, 2008 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

    -- Katz v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
       filed March 18, 2008 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,

    -- McCray v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
       filed October 15, 2008 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the District of Delaware, and

    -- Swick v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
       filed March 19, 2008, and pending in the United States
       District Court for the District of New Jersey.

    All of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a
    class has not been certified. Consequently, the Company has
    not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or
    estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

  * engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

    -- Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
       filed on October 16, 2006 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the District of Connecticut, and

    -- Katin v. First American Signature Services, Inc., et al.,
       filed on May 9, 2007 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

    Katin is a putative class action. A class has been certified
    in Gale.  The Company has not yet been able to assess the
    probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the
    range of loss.

  * overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and
    services provided in connection with the closing of real
    estate transactions, denied home warranty claims, recorded
    telephone calls, acted as an unauthorized trustee and gave
    items of value to developers, builders and others as
    inducements to refer business in violation of certain other
    laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
    prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
    obligations, including:

    -- Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection
       Corporation, filed on September 23, 2009 and pending in
       the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
       Los Angeles,

    -- Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
       filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States
       District Court for the District of New Jersey,

    -- Coleman v. First American Home Buyers Protection
       Corporation, et al., filed on August 24, 2009 and pending
       in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
       of Los Angeles,

    -- Eberhard v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
       al., filed on April 4, 2011 and pending in the Court of
       Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, Ohio,

    -- Eide v. First American Title Company, filed on February
       26, 2010 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
       California, County of Kern,

    -- Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
       on July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States District
       Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

    -- Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
       filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior
       Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

    -- Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
       June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the
       State of California, County of Los Angeles,

    -- Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
       filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior
       Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

    -- Tavenner v. Talon Group, filed on August 18, 2009 and
       pending in the United States District Court for the
       Western District of Washington, and

    -- Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
       filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court
       of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

    All of these lawsuits, except Sjobring, are putative class
    actions for which a class has not been certified. In
    Sjobring, a class has been certified, however that ruling is
    subject to an appeal. Consequently, the Company has not yet
    been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
    possible loss or the range of loss.

While some of the lawsuits described may be material to the
Company's operating results in any particular period if an
unfavorable outcome results, the Company does not believe that any
of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's overall financial condition.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Ohio Consumer Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on an appeal from the dismissal of an Ohio consumer class
action complaint against FirstEnergy Corp. remains pending,
according to the Company's Nov. 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2011.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy and its
subsidiaries The Cleveland Illuminating Electric Company and Ohio
Edison Company, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief, as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential
damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to the
reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for
residential customers with electric heating, electric water
heating, or load management systems.  The reduction in the
discount was approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
In March 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to
dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of
common pleas.  The court granted the motion to dismiss on
September 7, 2010.  The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the
Court of Appeals of Ohio, which has not yet rendered an opinion.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Continues to Defend NJ Outage Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. continues to defend itself
against individual claims in New Jersey, according to the
Company's Nov. 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including Jersey Central
Power & Light Company.  Two class action lawsuits, subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding, were filed in New Jersey
Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU, Inc. and other GPU
companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to the
outages.  GPU, Inc., former parent of JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec,
that merged with FirstEnergy Corp. on November 7, 2001.  After
various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs' claims for
consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
strict product liability and punitive damages were dismissed,
leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of
actions.  On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the
trial court's decision decertifying the class. In November 2010,
the Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to appeal. The Court's order effectively ends the attempt to
certify the class, and leaves only nine plaintiffs to pursue their
respective individual claims.  The matter was referred back to the
lower court, which set a trial date for February 13, 2012, for the
remaining individual plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs have accepted an
immaterial amount in final settlement of all matters and the
settlement documentation is being finalized for execution by all
parties.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suits in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. continues to defend itself
against a class action complaint in Pennsylvania relating to air
emissions, the Company disclosed in its Nov. 1, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

In July 2008, three complaints were filed against FirstEnergy
Generation Corp or FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on coal-fired Bruce
Mansfield Plant air emissions.  Two of these complaints also seek
to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a
"safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner," one being a
complaint filed on behalf of 21 individuals and the other being a
class action complaint seeking certification as a class action
with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives.
FGCO believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend
itself against the allegations made in these three complaints.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Continues to Defend Overdraft Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Corporation and its wholly-
owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N.A. The complaints were
brought as putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who
maintained a checking account at the Bank and who incurred one or
more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of
debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit
County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on
July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual
damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages,
interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees, according to the
Corporation's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Continues to Defend 365/360 Interest Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation's bank subsidiary continues to defend
itself against a class action lawsuit alleging improper
calculation of interest.

In August 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Corporation's wholly-owned
subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N.A. The breach of contract complaint
was brought as a putative class action on behalf of Ohio
commercial borrowers who allegedly had the interest they owed
calculated improperly by using the 365/360 method. The complaint
seeks actual damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney
fees.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 2, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Approves Settlement in Schneider Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement resolving the lawsuit filed by the receiver for
Alan and Joanne Schneider against FirstMerit Corporation's bank
subsidiary was approved in August, according to the Company's
November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Commencing in May 2006, two lawsuits were filed in the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas against the Bank. One complaint was
filed by the receiver for the Bank customers Alan and Joanne
Schneider, and the other complaint was filed by alleged defrauded
investors of the Schneiders seeking to represent a class of
persons who invested in promissory notes offered by the
Schneiders. The allegations against the Bank arose out of Alan
Schneider's business checking account at the Bank into which
investors' checks were deposited and from which certain investors
received payments. The complaints sought, among other things,
actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, interest,
rescission and attorney fees. On January 14, 2011, a third-party
complaint was filed by the Bank against its insurers in the
receiver's lawsuit. By opinion dated February 10, 2011 the
Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decision certifying an investor class in the case brought by the
alleged defrauded investors.

On July 20, 2011, the Bank entered into a settlement agreement in
the lawsuit with the receiver for Alan and Joanne Schneider that
provides if certain conditions are satisfied the Bank's insurer
will make a settlement payment of approximately $9.9 million and
the Bank will make a settlement payment of approximately $0.6
million. These payments will be used to pay the receiver's legal
fees and expenses and the balance distributed to the allegedly
defrauded investors by the receiver in accordance with the
settlement agreement. The Court conducted a hearing and approved
the proposed settlement on August 15, 2011. All conditions have
been met and the Bank's insurer and the Bank have made the
settlement payments. All of the named plaintiffs in the second
lawsuit participated in the settlement with the receiver.


FMC CORP: Still Defends Hydrogen Peroxide-Related Suits in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits in
Canada, which were filed against hydrogen peroxide producers,
according to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In 2005, putative direct and indirect purchaser class action
complaints were filed against six U.S. hydrogen peroxide producers
(and certain of their foreign affiliates) in various federal and
state courts alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws. In 2009,
FMC reached an agreement to settle with the direct purchaser class
for $10 million, with a pro rata credit for any claims the Company
might wind up paying to plaintiffs which decided to opt out of the
class action. The Company recorded the $10 million as a component
of "Restructuring and other charges (income)" in the Company's
consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31,
2008. Some class members (predominantly paper producers) opted out
of this class settlement and pursued their claims directly against
FMC and the other defendants. FMC settled or obtained the
dismissal of these opt-out plaintiffs, as well as the indirect
purchaser class claims, for an aggregate net cost of $2.0 million,
which the Company recorded as a component of "Restructuring and
other charges (income)" in its consolidated statements of income
for the year ended December 31, 2010.  As a result, all U.S.
litigation against FMC regarding alleged price fixing in the
hydrogen peroxide industry is now concluded.

The Company says that it still faces putative class actions along
with five other major hydrogen peroxide producers in provincial
courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the laws of
Canada.  The other five defendants have settled these claims for a
total of approximately $20.6 million.  On September 28, 2009, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class of direct and
indirect purchasers of hydrogen peroxide.  The Company's motion
for leave to appeal the class certification decision was denied in
June 2010. Since then, the case has been largely dormant.  The
plaintiffs have yet to provide the Company with a document
request, nor have they produced any documents.  Since the
proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect to the
merits, the Company is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of
its potential exposure of loss at this time.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend these matters.


FORD MOTOR: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Ford Focus Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Ford Focus 2005-2001 have
a defect which makes its tires wear out unevenly and prematurely
and makes the cars drift dangerously on wet roads, and Ford won't
honor its warranty, according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Daniel, et al. v. Ford Motor Company,
Case No. 11-cv-02890 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/03/FordCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John B. Thomas, Esq.
          Eric Grant, Esq.
          HICKS THOMAS LLP
          8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100
          Sacramento, CA 95826
          Telephone: (916) 388-0833
          E-mail: jthomas@hicks-thomas.com
                  grant@hicks-thomas.com

               - and -

          J. Allen Carney, Esq.
          Hank Bates, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES PULLIAM & BOWMAN, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: acarney@carneywilliams.com
                  hbates@carneywilliams.com


FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP: Faces Class Action Over New Busing Fee
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Corbin, writing for WIBC, reports that an Indianapolis
attorney for the mom suing Franklin Township Schools says they
have a "classic" class action lawsuit.

Tom Blessing says they're waiting for a Marion County Superior
Court judge to certify their lawsuit as class action.  Mr.
Blessing believes the suit could potentially represent thousands
of angry parents like his client Lora Hoagland.  Ms. Hoagland is
suing Franklin Township Schools.  She says she simply can't afford
the new $500 a year busing fee for each of her two kids.

Franklin Township cut its busing program among other things to
balance its 2011-2012 budget.  Ms. Hoagland says as a result of
the new busing fee, thousands of parents have resorted to other
costly ways of getting their kids to school.  Ms. Hoagland says
even though the district's proposed tax hike to fund busing failed
in a referendum last year, residents would likely be staring at
the same issue now.

Ms. Hoagland says passage of the tax hike for busing would have
affected the one-percent property tax cap and exposed residents to
all sorts of property tax mayhem.  FTCSC Superintendent Walter
Bourke is away on vacation and unavailable for comment.  FTCSC has
about 20 days to review and respond to the suit.

Ms. Blessing says the suit is likely to take two years minimum.
As part of the suit, they're seeking an injunction blocking the
current busing fees, a judgment declaring current policy
unconstitutional in addition to monetary damages.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Order in "Russell" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, is still awaiting a
court decision on its motion to dismiss a putative class action
lawsuit commenced by Patrick Russell, according to the Company's
November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on
December 7, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class
action complaint on June 2, 2008, against Harman and certain of
its officers and directors alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and seeking, on
behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman
International Industries, Incorporated Retirement Savings Plan
(the "Plan"), compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well
as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust,
restitution, and other monetary relief.  The amended complaint
alleges that from April 26, 2007, to the present, defendants
failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's assets, thereby
breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing
the Plan to invest in the Company's common stock notwithstanding
that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for
the Participants' retirement savings."  The amended complaint
further claims that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to
monitor the Plan fiduciaries, failed to provide the Plan
fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan participants, adverse
facts regarding Harman and its businesses and prospects.  The
Russell Plaintiff also contends that defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty.  As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the
amended complaint asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial
losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Plan's
Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
August 5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on
October 20, 2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of September 30, 2011, the Company says the case remained open
with no new developments.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, is still awaiting a
court decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in the District of Columbia,
according to the Company's November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia (the "Court") seeking compensatory damages and costs
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between April 26, 2007, and September 24, 2007 (the "Class
Period").  The original complaint alleged claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects.  The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. ("KKR") and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners
was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or
it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the
Company's common stock therefore would not have been artificially
inflated during the Class Period.  The Kim Plaintiff alleged that,
following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be
completed, the price of the Company's common stock declined,
causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan (the "Boca Raton Plaintiff") filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Harman and certain of its officers in the Court
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between April 26, 2007,
and September 24, 2007.  The allegations in the Boca Raton
complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the
original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the
Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through
January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations
alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant
problems" relating to its Personal Navigation Device ("PND")
sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to
January 14, 2008.  The amended complaint claimed that when
"Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that
shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by
more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further
decline in the Company's share value and additional losses to the
plaintiff class.

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR).  That
same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as
lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint").  The Consolidated
Complaint, which extends the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contends that Harman and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding the Company's financial condition
in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.  In particular, the
Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants knowingly or
recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG
radios, PNDs and the Company's capital expenditures.  The
Consolidated Complaint alleges that when Harman's true financial
condition became known to the market, the price of the Company's
common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the
plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of September 30, 2011, the Company says the case remained open
with no new developments.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Settlement Still Pending in Connecticut Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. continues to defend
itself from a consolidated amended class-action complaint filed by
participants of its savings plan, according to the Company's
November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

In November and December 2008, following a decline in the share
price of the Company's common stock, seven putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of certain participants in the
Company's Investment and Savings Plan, which offers the Company's
common stock as one of many investment options.  These lawsuits
have been consolidated, and a consolidated amended class-action
complaint was filed on March 23, 2009, alleging that the Company
and certain of its officers and employees violated ERISA by
allowing the Plan's participants to invest in the Company's common
stock and by failing to disclose to the Plan's participants
information about the Company's financial condition.  The lawsuit
seeks restitution or damages for losses arising from the
investment of the Plan's assets in the Company's common stock
during the period from December 10, 2007 to the present.  In
January 2010, the district court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  In February 2011, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle on a class
basis for an immaterial amount.  The settlement is contingent upon
the execution of a final settlement agreement and preliminary and
final court approval.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: New York Court Dismisses Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A New York district court dismissed a putative securities class
action lawsuit filed against The Hartford Financial Services Group
Inc., according to the Company's November 2, 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 present or former officers are
defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in March 2010.  The operative complaint, filed in October
2010, is brought on behalf of persons who acquired Hartford common
stock during the period of July 28, 2008 through February 5, 2009,
and alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or
misleading statements during the alleged class period about the
Company's valuation of certain asset-backed securities and its
effect on the Company's capital position.  In September 2011, the
district court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. The
plaintiffs did not appeal.


ITRON INC: Continues to Face Securities Class Suit in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
Itron Inc. continues to face a class action lawsuit in Washington
alleging violation of securities laws relating to its restatement
of financial results, according to the Company's November 1, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On February 23, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
Federal Court for the Eastern District of Washington alleging a
violation of federal securities laws relating to a restatement of
our financial results for the quarters ended March 31, June 30,
and September 30, 2010. These revisions were made primarily to
defer revenue that had been incorrectly recognized on one contract
due to a misinterpretation of an extended warranty obligation. The
effect was to reduce revenue and earnings in each of the first
three quarters of the year. For the first nine months of 2010,
total revenue was reduced by $6.1 million and diluted EPS was
reduced by $0.11.

The Company believes that the facts and legal claims alleged are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend its interests.

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


KINETIC CONCEPTS: Texas Court Orders Dismissal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
A Texas district court dismissed the claims asserted in a
consolidated action filed against Kinetic Concepts Inc., according
to the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

Following the announcement on July 13, 2011, that KCI had entered
into a definitive merger agreement under which a consortium of
funds advised by Apax Partners will acquire KCI, four purported
shareholders of KCI initiated legal actions challenging the
Merger.  Between July 20 and August 23, 2011, these purported
shareholders filed four separate putative derivative and/or class
action petitions in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas.
The petitions in these actions asserted claims against KCI's
directors and against KCI as a nominal defendant, and certain of
these actions additionally named as defendants Apax, CPPIB, PSP
Investments, Chiron Holdings, Inc., Chiron Merger Sub, Inc., and
John Does 1-25 (unidentified associates and affiliates forming the
consortium to purchase KCI).

The petitions generally alleged that KCI's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by their actions in approving the Merger
and that Apax Partners aided and abetted in these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.  The petitions additionally alleged that the
Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed
transaction contained material omissions and misstatements.  The
petitions all requested that the Merger be enjoined.  The District
Court of Bexar County, Texas consolidated these actions into a
single action styled "In re Kinetic Concepts, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation."  KCI and its directors filed motions to dismiss the
petitions pending in the Consolidated Action.  On October 6, 2011,
the District Court of Bexar County, Texas held a hearing on the
KCI defendants' motions to dismiss.  At the conclusion of the
hearing, the court dismissed all of the claims asserted in the
Consolidated Action, without prejudice.


LEAR CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Suits Over Wire Harness Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation is facing multiple class action complaints
accusing the Company of conspiring with other suppliers of
automotive wire harness to fix its price, according to the
Company's October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 1, 2011.

On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in United States district court against the Company and
several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses
alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and related
laws. Since that time, several other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action complaints against the Company
and these and other suppliers and individuals, and it is possible
that additional similar lawsuits may be filed in the future.

Plaintiffs claim that they are indirect purchasers of automotive
wire harnesses supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants
in vehicles purchased or leased by the plaintiffs for personal use
or for resale.  The complaints allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were
sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate
commerce in the United States.  The complaints further allege that
defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy.  The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees.
One plaintiff has filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation requesting that these separate civil
proceedings be consolidated into one proceeding before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Responses to
this motion are due in November 2011.  The ultimate outcome of
this litigation, and consequently, an estimate of the possible
loss, if any, related to this litigation cannot reasonably be
determined at this time.  However, the Company believes the
plaintiffs' allegations against it are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings.


LIBBEY GLASS: Recalls 18,600 Glass Bowls Due to Laceration Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Libbey Glass Inc., of Toledo, Ohio, announced a
voluntary recall of about 16,600 Fantasy glass bowls in the United
States of America and 2,000 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The glass bowl can break when subjected to sudden temperature
changes or impact, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

The firm has received one report of a glass bowl breaking while
being washed in a commercial dishwasher.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall includes the Fantasy glass bowls sold with a lop-sided
shape with one side taller than the other.  The bowls are made of
clear, colorless glass and were sold in only one size as 8.5
ounces.  The bowls measure about 5 3/8 inches in height on the
tallest side and about 2 1/4 inches across the base.  Picture of
the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12034.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold to
commercial customers for use in foodservice establishments
nationwide from August 2010 through September 2011.  In addition,
48 bowls were sold to consumers at Libbey Outlet stores in Toledo,
Ohio, and Shreveport, Louisiana, from August 2010 through
September 2011 for about $6 to $7.  Also, 45 bowls were sold to
consumers at Home Outfitters in Canada from August 2011 through
September 2011 for about $6.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled glass bowls.
Consumers can return the glass bowls to the point of purchase for
a refund.  Commercial customers should contact Libbey Glass Inc.
to arrange for destruction of the product and receipt of a credit
or refund.  For additional information, contact Libbey Glass Inc.
at (800) 982-7063 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.libbey.com/


MF GLOBAL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP on Nov. 3 filed a securities class action
against certain officers and directors of MF Global Holdings Ltd.

Block & Leviton is a Boston-based law firm representing investors
seeking to recover money lost due to investment fraud.  The
lawsuit, captioned DeAngelis v. Corzine, et al., is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  To obtain a copy of the complaint, e-mail Block & Leviton
at info@blockesq.com

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on
behalf of MF Global's common stockholders from May 20, 2011
through October 28, 2011.  Claims for Class Period purchasers
arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint asserts that MF Global (formerly traded on NYSE
under MF and/or MFGLQ.PK) through its most senior officers and
directors made certain materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's internal financial controls and liquidity
levels.  The positive statements about MF Global were allegedly
knowingly false and misleading when made because: (1) the Company
was suffering from serious liquidity pressures based on its
exposure to the European debt crisis; (2) the Company's internal
controls were highly deficient and were unable to clearly
segregate clients' funds; and (3) MF Global's senior management
failed to disclose that the Company's true risk profile would
inevitably lead to a credit rating downgrade.

In late October, MF Global faced multiple downgrades of its credit
ratings by Moody's Investor Service, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch
Ratings.  The first downgrade occurred on October 24, 2011 when
Moody's cut the Company's rating to near junk status.  On this
news, the Company's stock price plunged $1.69 per share -- from
$3.55 per share on October 24, 2011 to close at $1.86 per share on
October 25, 2011 -- a decline of more than 47% on unusually high
volume.  Moody's and Fitch then slashed the Company's credit
rating to junk status on October 27, 2011.  This downgrade
followed the threat of similar action by S&P.  The market reacted
swiftly to this news as the Company's stock price fell an
additional $0.27 per share -- from $1.70 per share on October 26,
2011, to close at an all-time low of $1.43 per share on October
27, 2011 -- representing a decline of more than 15%.  Thereafter,
attempts to spin off the Company's futures trading business failed
and, on October 31, 2011, MF Global filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection in United States Bankruptcy Court in
New York.  The New York Stock Exchange suspended trading in the
Company's stock and moved to de-list its shares on November 1,
2011.  All told, investors lost approximately $585.0 million in
market capitalization in a single week.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than
January 2, 2012, request that the court appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the Class.  You may contact the attorneys at Block &
Leviton to discuss your rights in the case.  You may also retain
counsel of your choice and you need not take any action at this
time to be a class member.

Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-
based law firm representing investors for violations of securities
laws.  The firm's lawyers have collectively been prosecuting
securities cases on behalf of investors for over 40 years.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Agreement Reached in California Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morton's Restaurant Group Inc. continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed by a former employee in California,
according to the Company's November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended October 2, 2011.

In August 2010, a former employee of the Costa Mesa Morton's
steakhouse filed a state-wide class action complaint against
Morton's of Chicago in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging certain
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Unfair
Competition Law for failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to pay overtime and failure to provide employees with
accurate wage statements as a result of the classification of
California-based Assistant Managers and Day Managers as salaried
exempt.  The plaintiff is seeking recovery of statutory penalties,
unpaid wages and overtime, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company is contesting
this matter vigorously.

In September 2010, the Company removed the case to Federal court
and the plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand.  On
January 26, 2011, the plaintiff's motion to remand was denied.  In
addition, on June 13, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  A jury trial is scheduled for January
2012.  In October 2011, an agreement was reached to resolve this
matter.


NEIGHBORHOOD ASSISTANCE: Sued Over Unpaid Wages in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Reid, Bradley Sears and Andrell Thomas, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown v. Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, Case
No. 2011-CH-37979 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., November 2, 2011)
arises under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly-
situated employees earned wages resulting from violations of the
Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act and the
Illinois Residential Mortgage License Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant unlawfully required its
mortgage consultants to split their compensation from loan
transactions in violation of the SAFE Act and the IRMLA resulting
in earned wages not being paid in violation of IWPCA.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Cook County, Illinois.  The
Plaintiffs and the classes they represent are current and former
employees of the Defendant working as mortgage consultants.

NACA is a corporation organized under the laws of Massachusetts
and licensed to do business in Illinois and several other states
in the United States of America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Curcio, Esq.
          CURCIO LAW OFFICE
          161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 321-1l11

               - and -

          Michael Lee Tinaglia, Esq.
          J. Molly Wretzky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LEE TINAGLIA, LTD.
          9700 West Higgins Road - Suite 1015
          Rosemont, IL 60018
          Telephone: (847) 692-0421


NICOR INC: Settlement Resolving Merger-Related Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement that will resolve class action complaints filed
against Nicor, Inc., remains pending.

Nicor, its board of directors, AGL Resources and one or both of
AGL Resources' acquisition subsidiaries and, in one instance,
Nicor's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer have
been named as defendants in six putative class action lawsuits
brought by purported Nicor shareholders challenging Nicor's
proposed merger with AGL Resources, two of which, including the
lawsuit that named Nicor's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer as a defendant, have subsequently been
voluntarily dismissed.  The first action, Joseph Pirolli v. Nicor
Inc., et al. was filed on December 7, 2010 in the Eighteenth
Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division.  Four other actions were filed between December
10, 2010 and December 17, 2010 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division: Maxine
Phillips v. Nicor Inc., et al., filed December 10, 2010; Plumbers
Local #65 Pension Fund v. Nicor Inc., et al., filed December 13,
2010; Gus Monahu v. Nicor Inc., et al., filed December 17, 2010;
and Roberto R. Vela v. Russ M. Strobel, et al., filed December 17,
2010.  The sixth action, which is both an individual action and a
putative class action, was filed on
March 1, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division and captioned Maxine
Phillips v. Nicor Inc., et al.

On January 10, 2011, the four actions filed in the Cook County
Court were consolidated.  On February 18, 2011, plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action filed an amended complaint.  On February 28,
2011, the Phillips Action in the Cook County Court was voluntarily
dismissed and, on March 7, 2011, the Pirolli Action in DuPage
County Court was voluntarily dismissed.  Accordingly, the
remaining cases pending are the Consolidated Action and the
Federal Action.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges, among other things,
that: (a) the Nicor Board breached its fiduciary duties to Nicor
and its shareholders by (i) approving the sale of Nicor to AGL
Resources at an inadequate purchase price (and thus failing to
maximize value to Nicor shareholders), (ii) conducting an
inadequate sale process by agreeing to preclusive deal protection
provisions in the Merger Agreement and failing to solicit other
potential bids or alternative transactions and (iii) failing to
disclose material information regarding the proposed merger to
Nicor shareholders; and (b) AGL Resources, Nicor and the
acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, including
an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed
merger.

The Federal Action asserts both individual and purported class
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the federal
securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiffs allege that: (i)
Nicor and the Nicor board of directors violated Section 14(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a materially incomplete registration
statement in connection with the proposed merger; and (ii) the
Nicor board of directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by virtue of its control over the content and dissemination of
that registration statement.  The Federal Action also claims that:
(a) the Nicor board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to
Nicor and its shareholders by (i) approving the sale of Nicor to
AGL Resources at an inadequate price (and thus failing to maximize
value to Nicor shareholders), (ii) conducting an inadequate sale
process by agreeing to preclusive deal protection provisions in
the Merger Agreement and failing to solicit other potential bids
or alternative transactions and (iii) failing to disclose material
information regarding the proposed merger; and (b) Nicor and AGL
Resources aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The Federal Action seeks, among other things, damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining
the defendants from consummating the proposed merger.

On May 25, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, Nicor and the other named
defendants signed a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs to settle the Consolidated Action and the Federal
Action.  This memorandum of understanding provides, among other
things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of
settlement which provides for the release of all asserted claims.
The asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of
settlement is approved by the court.  Additionally, as part of the
memorandum of understanding, Nicor and AGL Resources made certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger.  Finally,
in connection with the proposed settlement, plaintiffs intend to
seek, and the defendants have agreed to pay, an award of attorneys
fees and expenses of $675,000, subject to court approval.

No updates were reported in the Company's Nov. 1, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Nicor Inc. -- http://nicorinc.net/-- is a solution provider that
helps customers solve difficult mechanical problems as they relate
to interconnect, RF, and industrial applications.  The company
supports Electronics, Industrial, Automotive, Marine,
Telecommunications, and Water Works markets with its line of
product solutions, including its newest released Hydroconn AMR
Series III waterproof connector line.


NICOR INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Gas Line Comfort Guard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated class
action lawsuit filed by Nicor Gas customers, according to the
Company's Nov. 1 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended Sept. 30,
2011.

In the first quarter of 2011, three putative class actions were
filed against Nicor Services and Nicor Gas, and in one case
against Nicor.  In September 2011, the three cases were
consolidated into a single class action pending in state court in
Cook County, Illinois.  The plaintiffs purport to represent a
class of customers of Nicor Gas who purchased appliance warranty
and service plans from Nicor Services and/or a class of customers
of Nicor Gas who purchased the Gas Line Comfort Guard product from
Nicor Services.  In the consolidated action, the plaintiffs
variously allege that the marketing, sale and billing of the Nicor
Services appliance warranty and service plans and Gas Line Comfort
Guard violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, constitute common law fraud and result in unjust
enrichment of Nicor Gas and Nicor Services.  The plaintiffs seek,
on behalf of the classes they purport to represent, actual and
punitive damages, interest, costs, attorneys fees and injunctive
relief.  While the company is unable to predict the outcome of
this matter or to reasonably estimate its potential exposure
related thereto, if any, and has not recorded a liability
associated with this contingency, the final disposition of this
matter is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the
company's liquidity or financial condition.

Nicor Inc. -- http://nicorinc.net/-- is a solution provider that
helps customers solve difficult mechanical problems as they relate
to interconnect, RF, and industrial applications.  The company
supports Electronics, Industrial, Automotive, Marine,
Telecommunications, and Water Works markets with its line of
product solutions, including its newest released Hydroconn AMR
Series III waterproof connector line.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Plea Still Pending in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. continues to defend itself from
a consolidated amended complaint filed in New Jersey, according to
the Company's November 2, 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 former executive officers have been
named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of purchasers of its common stock between July 23, 2001 and
July 5, 2006.  The lawsuits followed its July 5, 2006 announcement
regarding the restatement of certain of its financial statements
and allege that the Company and certain members of its then
management engaged in violations of the Exchange Act, by issuing
false and misleading statements concerning its financial condition
and results of operations.  The class actions are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  On July 23,
2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended
complaint.  On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a motion to
dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion
as to the Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff.  The
Company and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the Amended
complaint and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated class
action. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification
which the Company and the other defendants intend to oppose.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Outcome of Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Securities Litigation
are awaiting the outcome of a verbal settlement they entered into,
according to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's October 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 25, 2011.

On October 29, 2008, Ronald Acaldo filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division,
against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim,
Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill and
Clifford E. Butler. The Complaint alleged that the Company and the
individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by allegedly failing to disclose that "(i)
the Company's hedges to protect it from adverse changes in costs
were not working and in fact were harming the Company's results
more than helping; (ii) the Company's inability to continue to use
illegal workers would adversely affect its margins; (iii) the
Company's financial results were continuing to deteriorate rather
than improve, such that the Company's capital structure was
threatened; (iv) the Company was in a much worse position than its
competitors due to its inability to raise prices for consumers
sufficient to offset cost increases, whereas its competitors were
able to raise prices to offset higher costs affecting the
industry; and (v) the Company had not made sufficient changes to
its business to succeed in the more difficult industry
conditions." Mr. Acaldo further alleged that he purports to
represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired the
common stock of the Company from May 5, 2008 through September 24,
2008. The Complaint sought unspecified injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

On November 21, 2008, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and
Brief in Support Thereof, asserting that plaintiff failed to
identify any misleading statements, failed to adequately plead
scienter against any defendants, failed to adequately plead loss
causation, failed to adequately plead controlling person liability
and, as to the omissions that plaintiff alleged defendants did not
make, defendants alleged that the omissions were, in fact,
disclosed.

On November 13, 2008, Chad Howes filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division,
against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim,
Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill and
Clifford E. Butler. The allegations in the Howes Complaint are
identical to those in the Acaldo Complaint, as are the class
allegations and relief sought. The defendants were never served
with the Howes Complaint.

On May 14, 2009, the Court consolidated the Acaldo and Howes cases
and renamed the style of the case, "In re: Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation Securities Litigation." On May 21, 2009, the Court
granted the Pennsylvania Public Fund Group's Motion for
Appointment of Lead Plaintiff. Thereafter, on June 26, 2009, the
lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated (and amended) Complaint. The
Consolidated Complaint dismissed the Company and Clifford E.
Butler as Defendants. In addition, the Consolidated Complaint
added these directors as Defendants: Charles L. Black, Key
Coker, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller, James G. Vetter, Jr.,
Donald L. Wass, Linda Chavez, and Keith W. Hughes. The
Consolidated Complaint alleges four causes of action violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder solely
against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Clint Rivers, and Richard A. Cogdill
(the "Officer Defendants"). Those claims assert that, during the
Class Period of May 5, 2008 through October 28, 2008, the
defendants, through various financial statements, press releases
and conference calls, made material misstatements of fact and/or
omitted to disclose material facts by purportedly failing to
completely impair the goodwill associated with the Gold Kist
acquisition. The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all defendants,
asserting that, statements made in a registration statement in
connection with the May 14, 2008 secondary offering of the
Company's  common stock were materially false and misleading for
their failure to completely impair the goodwill associated with
the Gold Kist acquisition. Finally, the Consolidated Complaint
asserts a violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the Officer Defendants only, claiming that the Officer
Defendants were controlling persons of the Company and the other
defendants in connection with the Section 11 violation. By the
Consolidated Complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks certification of
the Class, undisclosed damages, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On July 27, 2009, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint for its failure to adequately plead, as
to the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims, scienter and loss
causation and, as to the Sections 11 and 15 claims, for its
failure to adequately plead misrepresentations and omissions.
Defendants requested that the Consolidated Complaint be dismissed
with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss on August 27, 2009. Defendants filed a Reply Brief on
September 10, 2009 and plaintiffs filed a Sur-Reply on
September 24, 2009. The Court has not yet ruled on the Motion to
Dismiss.

On August 17, 2010, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and
Order on the motion to dismiss, granting in part and denying in
part, the defendants' motion. The Court dismissed without
prejudice the plaintiffs' claims alleging securities fraud under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and for
controlling person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect
to the plaintiffs' claim for negligent misrepresentation under
Section 11 of the Securities Act and for controlling person
liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs
were granted leave to amend their complaint but elected not to do
so. The defendants filed their Original Answer to the Complaint on
November 15, 2010.

On May 9, 2011, the Court issued an Order setting a class
certification hearing for February 7, 2012 and ordering the
parties to confer and file a Docket Control Order by May 26, 2011.
Thereafter, as per the Court's Order, the parties negotiated a
proposed Docket Control Order, which was signed by the Court on
May 31, 2011.

The parties have since reached a verbal agreement to settle this
matter, subject to the execution of settlement documents. In the
interim, the parties have agreed not to engage in discovery. If
the case does not settle as expected, the defendants intend to
defend vigorously against the merits of the action and any
attempts by the Lead Plaintiff to certify a class action.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaits Ruling on Suit Dismissal Request
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. is still awaiting a ruling on its request to
dismiss an amended consolidated complaint alleging ERISA
violations, 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 25, 2011.

On December 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim,
Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee
N. DeBar, the Company's Compensation Committee and other unnamed
defendants. On January 2, 2009, a nearly identical suit was filed
by Denise M. Smalls in the same court against the same defendants.
The complaints in both actions, brought pursuant to section 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
US C. Section 1132, alleged that the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the
Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan (the "Stock Plan"), as
administered through the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan
(the "RSP"), and the To-Ricos, Inc. Employee Savings and
Retirement Plan by failing to sell the common stock held by the
Plans before it declined in value in late 2008, based on factual
allegations similar to the allegation made in the Acaldo
securities case. Patterson and Smalls further alleged that they
purported to represent a class of all persons or entities who were
participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans at any time between
May 5, 2008 through the present and whose accounts held the
Company's common stock or units in its common stock. Both
complaints sought actual damages in the amount of any losses the
Plans suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual
accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' diminution
in value, attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and
the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each
of the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the
Plans' participants.

On July 20, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Smalls and Patterson actions. On August 12, 2009, the Court
ordered that the consolidated case will proceed under the caption
"In re Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No.
2:08-cv-472-TJW."

Patterson and Smalls filed a consolidated amended complaint on
March 2, 2010. The Amended Complaint names as defendants the
Pilgrim's Pride Board of Directors, Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie
Ken Pilgrim, Charles L. Black, Linda Chavez, S. Key Coker, Keith
W. Hughes, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller, James G. Vetter,
Jr., Donald L. Wass, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, the
Pilgrim's Pride Pension Committee, Robert A. Wright, Jane
Brookshire, Renee N. DeBar, the Pilgrim's Pride Administrative
Committee, Gerry Evenwel, Stacey Evans, Evelyn Boyden, and "John
Does 1-10." The Amended Complaint purports to assert claims on
behalf of persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
RSP or the To-Ricos Plan at any time between January 29, 2008
through December 1, 2008, and whose accounts included investments
in the Company's common stock.

Like the original Patterson and Smalls complaints, the Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants breached ERISA fiduciary
duties to participants and beneficiaries of the RSP and To-Ricos
Plan by permitting both Plans to continue investing in the
Company's common stock during the alleged class period. The
Amended Complaint also alleges that certain defendants were
"appointing" fiduciaries who failed to monitor the performance of
the defendant-fiduciaries they appointed. Further, the Amended
Complaint alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries
for one another's alleged breaches. Plaintiffs seek actual damages
in the amount of any losses the RSP and To-Ricos Plan attributable
to the decline in the value of the common stock held by the Plans,
to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts as
benefits due in proportion to the accounts' alleged diminution in
value, costs and attorneys' fees, an order for equitable
restitution and the imposition of constructive trust, and a
declaration that each of the defendants have breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties to the RSP and To-Ricos Plan's participants.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
May 3, 2010. The plaintiffs responded to that motion on July 2,
2010, dropping plaintiff Smalls from the case and adding an
additional plaintiff, Stanley Sylvestros. The defendants filed
their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on August 2,
2010. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.


QUALCOMM INC: Remains a Defendant in Suits Over Sale of Phones
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated remains a defendant, along with many other
manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and industry-
related organizations, in purported class action lawsuits, and
individually filed actions pending in federal court in
Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. superior court, seeking monetary
damages arising out of its sale of cellular phones, according to
the Company's November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

While there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, the Company
believes the claims made by other parties in the foregoing matters
are without merit and will vigorously defend the actions. The
Company has not recorded any accrual at September 25, 2011 for
contingent liabilities or recognized any asset impairment charges
during fiscal 2011 associated with the legal proceedings based on
the Company's belief that liabilities, while possible, are not
probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be reasonably
estimated at this time. The Company is engaged in numerous other
legal actions not arising in the ordinary course of its business
and, while there can be no assurance, believes that the ultimate
outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect
on its operating results, liquidity or financial position.


REAL ESTATE COMPANIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that U.S. District Judge Arthur J.
Schwab on Nov. 1 approved a settlement of a class-action lawsuit
alleging that area real estate players stifled competition by
keeping some rival businesses from effectively marketing
properties.

The case filed by Dormont homeowner Thomas L. Logue against
West Penn Multilist Inc., Howard Hanna Real Estate, Coldwell
Banker Real Estate, Freeman Realty, Northwood Realty and
Prudential Preferred Realty applies to property buyers who made
purchases through those businesses from Feb. 13, 2005, through
Feb. 13, 2009.  The case settled for $2.4 million, of which the
plaintiff's attorneys will get $1 million to cover fees and costs,
and Mr. Logue will get $10,000.

Court documents did not say how many buyers would share in the
remaining $1.39 million, or when checks would go out.  Claims from
property buyers were due Oct. 14.


ROLLINS INC: Court Dismisses "Khan" Class Action Vs. Orkin
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has dismissed a class action against Orkin, Inc., one
of Rollins, Inc.'s subsidiaries, 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.

Orkin, one of the Company's subsidiaries, is aggressively
defending these lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking class
certification:

  * John Maciel v. Orkin, Inc., et al. (pending in the Superior
    Court of Los Angeles County, California);

  * Douglas F. Bracho v. Orkin, Inc., et al. (pending in the
    Superior Court of Orange County, California);

  * Khan v. Orkin, Inc., et.al. (pending in the United States
    District Court for the Northern District of California); and

  * Salazar v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. (originally filed
    in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, but
    removed to the United States District Court for the Central
    District of California).

In the Khan case, the Plaintiff's class action was dismissed by
the Court in early October; none of the other matters has been
scheduled for a class certification hearing.  Western, another of
the Company's subsidiaries, is aggressively defending the Jennifer
Thompson and Janet Flood v. Philadelphia Management Company,
Parkway Associated, Parkway House Apartments, Barbara Williams,
and Western Pest Services lawsuit (pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania) in which the
plaintiffs are seeking class certification.  This lawsuit has not
been scheduled for a class certification hearing.  Additionally,
the Company and a subsidiary, The Industrial Fumigant Company,
LLC, have been served as named defendants in Severn Peanut Co. and
Meherrin Agriculture & Chemical Co. v. Industrial Fumigant Co., et
al.(pending in the Northern Division of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina).  The Company
intends to defend itself vigorously through trial, if necessary.
Other lawsuits against Orkin, Western and other subsidiaries of
the Company, and in some instances the Company are also being
vigorously defended.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Class Action Suits Still Pending in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits filed in Florida, according to the Company's
October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of
stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean
International cruise vessels alleging that they were required to
pay other crew members to help with their duties in violation of
the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act.  The lawsuit also alleges that certain
lower rated stateroom attendants were required to work back of
house assignments without the ability to earn gratuities in
violation of the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act.  Plaintiffs seek judgment
for damages, wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate
amount.  The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining agreement
requires any such claims to be arbitrated.  The Company believes
it has meritorious defenses to the lawsuit which it intends to
vigorously pursue.

Between August 1, 2011 and September 8, 2011, three similar
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of Florida.  In each action, the plaintiff is seeking to
represent a class of purchasers of its common stock during some or
all of the period from April 23, 2009 through July 28, 2011.  Each
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making purported false and misleading
statements about the Company's financial condition, internal and
financial controls and prospects in public filings prior to the
second quarter release.  The complaints seek unspecified damages,
equitable, and injunctive relief.  The Company believes the claims
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against
them.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is awaiting a ruling regarding
its appeal from the certification of a class in a lawsuit filed
by the Garcia family in Florida, 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.

Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris
Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland
Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., was
filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No.
04-25646 CA 32. Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent,
Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in
March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial
Gardens, Inc. Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual
claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia.
Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor recordkeeping, spacing issues
and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to
purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the
decedent could not be readily located. Subsequently, the
decedent's grave was located and verified. In July 2006,
plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of
all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be
located, claiming that this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps,
and surveys at the cemetery. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third
amended class action complaint and added two additional named
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. On May 4,
2011, the trial court certified a class and the Company is
appealing that ruling.

The Company says it cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if
any, for the payment of any damages.


STREAM GLOBAL: Appeals Filed Vs. Final OK of Sirius Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals have been lodged against the final court approval of the
class settlement in a lawsuit involving Sirius XM Radio, Inc.,
according to Stream Global Services, Inc.'s Nov. 2, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

Stream Global has been named as a third-party defendant in a
putative class action captioned Kambiz Batmanghelich, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public, v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., filed in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court on November 10, 2009, and removed to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The Plaintiff alleges that Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
recorded telephone conversations between Plaintiff and members of
the proposed class of Sirius customers, on the one hand, and
Sirius and its employees, on the other, without the Plaintiff's
and class members' consent in violation of California's telephone
recording laws.  The Plaintiff also alleges negligence and
violation of the common law right of privacy, and seeks injunctive
relief.  On December 21, 2009, Sirius XM Radio, Inc. filed a
Third-Party Complaint in the action against Stream Global seeking
indemnification for any defense costs and damages that result from
the putative class action.  On March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint that added the Company as a defendant.  The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
intend to vigorously defend against these claims.  In March 2011,
the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement of the
class action.  In September 2011, the court granted final approval
of the settlement and entered judgment. Three class members who
had objected to the settlement filed appeals of the judgment.  The
judgment will not become final until these appeals are resolved.

Stream Global Services, Inc., is a leading global business process
outsourcing service provider specializing in customer relationship
management, including sales, customer care and technical support,
for Fortune 1000 companies.  Its clients include leading
technology, computing, telecommunications, retail,
entertainment/media, and financial services companies.  Its
service programs are delivered through a set of standardized best
practices and sophisticated technologies by a highly skilled
multilingual workforce with the ability to support 35 languages
across 50 locations in 22 countries.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Court OKs $25MM Pact on 2 Katrina-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court entered a final order approving a $25 million
settlement resolving two Hurricane Katrina-related class action
complaints against Tenet Healthcare Corporation, according to the
Company's Nov. 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

In March 2011, following the commencement of trial proceedings in
the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, the Company
agreed to settle two previously reported class action lawsuits
brought on behalf of patients, their family members and others who
were present and allegedly injured at Memorial Medical Center, one
of the Company's former New Orleans area hospitals, during
Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.  A $25 million cash
settlement payment, which was fully reserved at March 31, 2011,
will be apportioned among the approximately 1,400 eligible class
members who file a proof of claim in the cases.  The court
approved the final settlement agreement at a fairness hearing held
on October 27, 2011.

Six lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who chose to opt out of the class
proceedings involving Memorial Medical Center remain pending at
this time.  As of September 30, 2011, trial dates had not been set
in these individual cases.  In addition, a third previously
reported purported class action lawsuit (also filed in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans) remains pending.  The
class certification hearing in that action, which was brought on
behalf of patients, their family members and others who were
present and allegedly injured following Hurricane Katrina at Lindy
Boggs Medical Center, another one of the Company's former New
Orleans area hospitals, was postponed in late 2010 and has not yet
been rescheduled.  Furthermore, 11 individual Hurricane Katrina-
related lawsuits remain pending against Lindy Boggs and two other
New Orleans-area hospitals that the Company has since divested --
Meadowcrest Hospital and Kenner Regional Medical Center.  In
general, the plaintiffs allege that the hospitals were negligent
in failing to properly prepare for the storm, failing to evacuate
patients ahead of the storm, and failing to have properly
configured emergency generator systems, among other allegations of
general negligence.  The plaintiffs seek damages in various and
unspecified amounts for the alleged wrongful death of some
patients, aggravation of pre-existing illnesses or injuries to
patients who survived and were successfully evacuated, and the
inability of patients and others to evacuate the hospitals for
several days under challenging conditions.

The Company is unable to predict the ultimate resolution of the
pending lawsuits, but it intends to continue to vigorously defend
the hospitals in these matters.

                      About Tenet Healthcare

Dallas, Texas-based Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) --
http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is a health care services company
whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operate acute care
hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and diagnostic imaging
centers.


TUESDAY MORNING: Motion to Certify Class Action Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to certify a class action lawsuit filed by a former store
manager against Tuesday Morning Corporation is pending, according
to the Company's October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In July 2009, a lawsuit alleging failure to pay overtime
compensation was filed in Alabama by a former store manager.  The
plaintiff sought to certify a class action made up of current and
former store managers.  In fiscal 2010, the Company filed a
request with the court to deny this motion.  The court has not
ruled, and no trial date has been set.  Tuesday Morning will
rigorously defend its position at trial, and does not expect these
complaints to have a material impact on the Company's results of
operations or financial position.


TUESDAY MORNING: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Morning Corporation continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the
Company's October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In December 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed by hourly,
non-exempt employees in the Superior Court of California in and
for the County of Los Angeles, alleging claims covering meal and
rest period violations.  The putative class action has now been
limited to Senior Sales Associates in California during the class
period. The parties are presently conducting discovery.  Tuesday
Morning does not expect this complaint to have a material impact
on the Company's results of operations or financial position.


UMG RECORDINGS: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chuck D (Carlton Ridenhour) and Public Enemy sued UMG Recordings
in a class action, claiming it cheats artists of royalties for
ringtones and digital downloads.

A copy of the Complaint in Ridenhour v. UMG Recordings, Case No.
11-cv-05321 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/03/Ringtones.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  bwecker@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com
               - and -

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          15165 Venture Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswplaw.com
                  cpearson@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          William J. Newsom, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com
                  wnewsom@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq.
          Christophe Bela Szapary, Esq.
          PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, L.L.C.
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 410-2795
          E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com
                  czapary@provostylaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com


UNDER ARMOUR: Recalls 541,000 Chin Straps for Football Helmets
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
retailer, Under Armour, Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland, and
importer, JR286, Inc., of Redondo Beach, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 541,000 UA Defender Chin Straps.
Consumers should stop using recalled product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal snap that connects the chin strap to the helmet has
sharp edges, posing a laceration hazard when the user's metal snap
comes into contact with another player.

Under Armour has received six reports of injuries that required
stitches.

This recall involves all UA Defender Chin Straps.  They were sold
in the following colors: white and black, red, midnight, navy and
royal and have a hard nylon shell, a padded chin area and a
plastic strap with "Under Armour" printed on it.  The chin straps
have metal clasps that tighten the straps and attach them to the
helmet.  Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12035.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods stores and Under Armour outlet stores nationwide
and at http://www.underarmour.com/from January 2008 through
September 2011 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chin straps
and contact Under Armour for a free replacement chin strap.  For
additional information, contact Under Armour toll-free at (888)
823-0343 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.underarmour.com/


UNITED STATES: Gay Airforce Vet's Severance Pay Suit Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action alleging that the U.S. government gave a fraction of the
severance pay due to an Air Force staff sergeant honorably
discharged under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy
will play out in the Court of Federal Claims.

Richard Collins sued the government in November 2010 on behalf of
himself and other service members who were discharged under DADT
between 2004 and 2010.  Department of Defense instructions include
"homosexuality" as condition meriting half separation pay,
according to the complaint.  Mr. Collins said this policy violates
service members' rights to equal protection and substantive due
process.

Involuntarily discharged after over nine years of able Air Force
service, Mr. Collins qualified for nearly $27,000 in separation
pay, according to the complaint.  He instead received $13,000.

Attorneys for the government moved to dismiss the case, arguing
that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over the
military and that Mr. Collins had failed to state a claim for
which relief could be granted.  But Judge Christine Odell
Cook Miller disagreed.

"Having decided that this particular case falls within this
court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, does concern the
constitutionality of promulgated regulations, and does not invade
that area of the military's discretion in making personnel
decisions, this court does have the 'ability' to provide relief in
this case," Judge Miller wrote on Oct. 31.

"Based on the well-pleaded allegations, plaintiff could prevail
under the regulatory structure, which requires further exploration
and analysis that are inappropriate for this stage of the
proceedings," she added.

Mr. Collins' legal team includes Joshua Block of Manhattan and
ACLU attorneys Leslie Cooper and Laura Schauer Ives.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Medicare Beneficiaries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Benson, writing for theday.com, reports that the Center for
Medicare Advocacy and the National Senior Citizen Law Center on
Nov. 3 filed a class-action lawsuit against Kathleen Sebelius, the
secretary of Health and Human Services, on behalf of seven
plaintiffs who represent Medicare beneficiaries nationwide harmed
by being improperly classified as outpatients for their hospital
stays.

The Willimantic-based nonprofit advocacy group filed the lawsuit
in federal court in Hartford.  Among the seven plaintiffs are Lee
Barrows of Canton, whose husband was a Medicare beneficiary.

The plaintiffs received inpatient hospital services, but for
Medicare billing purposes were classified as outpatients in the
hospital under "observation status."  As such, they were deprived
of Medicare Part A coverage for their hospital stay and after
care, the center said in a news release.

The misapplication of "observation status" deprives Medicare
beneficiaries of their coverage rights and may cause them to
absorb significant hospital costs that otherwise would be paid for
under Medicare Part A, the center said.  Additionally, they may be
forced to forego critical post-hospitalization skilled nursing
facility care or pay exorbitant out-of-pocket costs for it because
Medicare requires a minimum of three consecutive days as a
hospital inpatient to qualify for this care.

"We've turned to the courts for fairness because 'observation
status' harms thousands of Americans receiving Medicare each year,
nationwide," said Judith Stein, the center's founder and executive
director.  "It causes severe financial problems for beneficiaries
and their families, and deprives them of nursing home coverage
altogether."


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Hausfeld LLP Files Class Action Over Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hausfeld LLP filed a nationwide class action lawsuit on Nov. 2 in
San Francisco federal court on behalf of Universal Music Group
(UMG) recording artists.  The lawsuit contends that UMG routinely
miscalculates the royalties owed to artists for digital downloads,
such as MP3s and ringtones, by treating them as "sales" of
physical records rather than "licenses."  Carlton Ridenhour, who
performs under the name "Chuck D" and is one of the founding
members of the rap group "Public Enemy," is the named plaintiff in
the action.  Public Enemy is one of the most successful music
groups of the 1980s and 1990s with hits such as "Fight the Power,"
"Bring the Noise," and "Don't Believe the Hype".

The Complaint alleges that UMG utilizes standardized contracts
that calculate lower artist royalties for album "sales" as opposed
to "licenses."  License royalty rates are more favorable to
artists because record companies do not have the associated
marketing and packaging costs or the possibility of product
returns that may occur with physical album sales.  Artists'
contracts that were in place prior to the advent of digital music
distribution generally allow record companies to license master
recordings to third parties.  The lawsuit contends that although
UMG's contracts with digital music providers (like iTunes)
specifically characterize digital distributions as licenses, UMG
has applied the much lower "sales" royalty rate to digital
downloads and underpaid its artists by hundreds of millions of
dollars.

Chuck D's lawsuit follows on the heels of a decision by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar case brought by Eminem's
production company (F.B.T. Productions, Inc. v. Aftermath Records,
621 F.3d 958 (2010)).  There, the Court found that UMG improperly
calculated Eminem's digital downloads royalty rate as a "sale"
rather than a "license."  After the Supreme Court denied review,
the case returned to the district court for further proceedings.

"As digital downloads have emerged as the primary method by which
many consumers acquire music, UMG has systematically failed to pay
appropriate royalties to musicians for these downloads," said
James Pizzirusso, a partner at Hausfeld LLP involved in the case.
"Chuck D has been 'fighting the power' for over two decades and
will continue to do so through this suit in order to help all
musicians, including many legacy artists who are living on fixed
incomes."

Hausfeld LLP has an active entertainment and sports law practice
and represents athletes and artists in various other class
actions.  Other counsel in the case include Pearson Simon Warshaw
& Penny LLP, a class action law firm in California; and Provosty &
Gankendorff, L.L.C., an entertainment law firm in New Orleans.

Hausfeld LLP is a class action firm with offices in Washington,
DC; San Francisco, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and London, UK and
affiliated firms around the globe.  A copy of the Chuck D
complaint will be available for download at:
http://www.hausfeldllp.com


UNUM GROUP: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Class Suit in Maine
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. subsidiary of Unum Group continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed in Maine, according to the Company's
November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine.  This is a putative class action alleging that Unum
breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under
certain group life insurance policies when it paid life insurance
proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts
rather than by mailing checks.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that
were employee welfare benefit plans under ERISA and under which
Unum paid death benefits pursuant to a retained asset account.
Plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of the class the difference
between the interest paid to them and amounts alleged to have been
realized by Unum through its investment of the retained assets.
Unum intends to vigorously defend the action.

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


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the class certification motion filed in connection
with the class action lawsuit styled Medical West Ballas Pharmacy,
LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., is scheduled for December 7, 2011,
according to Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s November 1, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
purported class action complaint against the Company alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.  In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint substituting Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, as
the defendant.  The amended complaint alleges that by sending
unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the
class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they
received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in
violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.  The TCPA allows recovery of minimum
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled if
the violations are found to be willful.  The complaint seeks to
assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other
similarly situated third parties.

In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended complaint,
denying the allegations.  In November 2009, the court granted
plaintiff's motion to expand the proposed class of plaintiffs from
individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of express permission
or an established business relationship to "All persons who on or
after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent
telephone facsimile messages advertising pharmaceutical drugs and
products by or on behalf of Defendant."  In November 2010, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint further expanding the
definition and scope of the proposed class of plaintiffs.  On
November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition with the Federal
Communications Commission, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory
basis for its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes
sent with express permission of the recipient.  The FCC's ruling
on Anda's petition may determine whether fax recipients who
expressly agree to receive faxes may assert claims for receipt of
such faxes pursuant to the TCPA.

On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss claims the
plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of putative class members
who expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes from Defendant,
or in the alternative, to stay the court proceedings pending
resolution of Anda's petition to the FCC.  On April 11, 2011, the
court denied the motion.  On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed
their motion for class certification. Anda filed its opposition to
the motion on July 13, 2011.  The hearing on the class
certification motion is scheduled for December 7, 2011.  No trial
date has been set.  Anda intends to defend the action vigorously.
However, this action, if successful, could have an adverse effect
on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Nov. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts court will hold a hearing on November 22, 2011, to
consider the proposed settlement of a consolidated class action
filed against Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., according to the
Company's November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

Beginning in July 2002, the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies,
were named as defendants in various state and federal court
actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices
related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale
acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants
committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and
market shares. Some of these actions have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (In re:
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 145).  The consolidated amended Class Action complaint
in that case alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated
the reimbursement amounts of certain drugs paid by various public
and private plans and programs.  Certain defendants, including the
Company, have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all
claims against them in the Consolidated Class Action. The total
amount of the settlement for all of the settling defendants is
$125 million.  The amount to be paid by each settling defendant is
confidential.  On July 2, 2008, the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track
Two settlement.  On April 27, 2009, the Court held a hearing to
further consider the fairness of the proposed settlement.  The
Court adjourned the hearing without ruling on the fairness of the
proposed settlement until additional notices are provided to
certain of the class members in the action.  The court held
further hearings on the fairness of the proposed settlement in
June and August 2011.  No ruling was made. The court has scheduled
another hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement for
November 22, 2011.  The settlement is not expected to materially
adversely affect the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Enters Into Talks to Resolve Pension Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Energy Corporation has entered into mediation with other
parties of a class action lawsuit related to the Company's Cash
Balance Pension Plan, according to the Company's November 1, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In June 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Alan M. Downes, a former
employee, against the Plan in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin. Counsel representing the plaintiff
has sought class certification for other similarly situated
plaintiffs. The complaint alleges that Plan participants who
received a lump sum distribution under the Plan prior to their
normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which
they were entitled in violation of ERISA and are owed additional
benefits, because the Plan failed to apply the correct interest
crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal
retirement age. In September 2010, the plaintiff filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint alleging additional claims under
ERISA and adding Wisconsin Energy as a defendant. The plaintiff
has not specified the amount of relief he is seeking.

In March 2011, after the matter was addressed by the Plan's
Employee Benefits Committee and following the Committee's review
and analysis of the facts and evolving state of the law, the Plan
acknowledged in an amended answer that it had used an incorrect
interest crediting rate in computing lump sum payments prior to
normal retirement age. The Committee determined the interest
crediting rates that should be applied to address the interest
crediting rate calculation and determined that the benefits for
certain eligible participants should be recalculated. The
plaintiff is opposing the Committee's actions and the Court has
not yet decided what deference, if any, to give to the Committee's
decision. In the meantime, the parties have engaged in mediation
and are exploring settlement opportunities. The Company says it is
currently unable to predict the final outcome or impact of this
litigation. While an adverse outcome of this lawsuit could have a
material adverse effect on Plan funding and future expense, the
Company says it does not believe that the resolution of the matter
will cost more than $0.05 per share in 2011.


                           *********

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  * * *