CAR_Public/111109.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 222

                             Headlines

AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
AGL RESOURCES: Hearing on Shareholder Suits Deal Set for Dec. 11
AGL RESOURCES: Unit Continues to Defend Gas Pricing Class Suit
AMERIGROUP CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in New York
ARTHROCARE CORP: Court Certified Class of Shareholders in August

ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend Antitrust "MDL 1950" Suits
AUTOVEST LLC: Accused of Collecting Debts Without License
BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Plasma Therapies Suit Still Ongoing
BAXTER INT'L: Non-Monetary Settlement Reached in ERISA Litigation
BAXTER INT'L: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Illinois

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Ex-Kitchen Manager to Seek Settlement Okay Soon
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Plaintiff to Seek Settlement Approval Soon
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Sanchez" Class Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Stevens" Class Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Still Defends "Moore" Suit in California

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Still Defends "Rosendahl" Suit in Calif.
CC MEDIA: Expert Discovery Still Ongoing in "Live Concerts" Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Ruderman" Suit Pending in Florida
CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Yue" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Rowe" Suit in Illinois

CNO FINANCIAL: Court Okayed Annuity Marketing Suit Deal in August
CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for October 2012
COMMERCIAL METALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend New "Comer" Suit in Miss.
CONSOL ENERGY: Delaware Class Suit May Go to Trial Soon

CONSOL ENERGY: "Hall" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
CONSOL ENERGY: Parties Agree to Stay "Addison" Suit vs. Unit
CONSOL ENERGY: Parties Agree to Stay "Hale" Litigation
CONVERGYS CORP: Gets Final OK of Settlement in Consolidated Suit
DENDREON CORP: Defends Securities Class Suits in Washington

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Delaware Stayed
EME HOMER: Awaiting Appeal by Plaintiffs of Case Dismissal
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Dismisses Homer City-Related Claims
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Pending in Hawaii
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal in Extra Sweet Pineapple Suit Pending

GAMESTOP INC: Sued Over Unpaid Wages & Compensation in Calif.
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Settles Shareholder Class Action
METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Drafting of Consolidated Suit Deal Ongoing
NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Continues to Defend Appliance Warranty Suit

PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Faces Six Jaguar Merger-Related Suits
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
SAIA INC: Court Refused to Okay Dock Workers Suit Deal in August
SCHWEITZER-MAUDUIT: Georgia Court Dismissed Securities Suit
SILICON IMAGE: "Hayes" Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Pending

SILICON LABORATORIES: Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Pending
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeal From Arbitration Award Ruling Pending
SUFFOLK BANCORP: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
THEGLOBE COM INC: Further Appeal in IPO Suit Remains Pending
TREX CO: Continues to Face Suits Over Defective Products

UNION BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $35 Million
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Bid to Toss Class Action Over Royalties Fails
VENOCO INC: Faces Five Class Suits Over Marquez Proposal
VERIZON: Settles Class Action Over "Mobile Web" Buttons
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $314-Mil. Expense for Embraco Matters

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Appeal in Gas Pricing Suits Remains Pending
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Defends Royalty Payments Suit in Colo.
WINN-DIXIE STORES: FRCA Suit Settlement Pending in Florida
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: "Downes" Parties Explore Settlement Options
XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit




                          *********

AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
December 19, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of
AgFeed Industries, Inc.

If you purchased AgFeed securities during the period between
March 16, 2009 and September 29, 2011, visit the Rosen Law Firm's
Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.comto join the case, or call
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653 or
pkim@rosenlegal.com for information.  The action filed by the firm
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.

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.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone:  (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Telephone: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  jhorne@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


AGL RESOURCES: Hearing on Shareholder Suits Deal Set for Dec. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is set for December 11, 2011, in connection
with AGL Resources Inc.'s settlement to resolve merger-related
shareholder lawsuits, 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 December 6, 2010, AGL Resources Inc. entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) with Nicor Inc., which the
Company anticipates completing during the fourth quarter of 2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in several class action
lawsuits brought by purported Nicor shareholders challenging
Nicor's proposed merger with the Company.  The complaints allege
that the Company aided and abetted alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty by Nicor's Board of Directors.  The shareholder lawsuits
seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief,
including orders enjoining the defendants from completing the
proposed merger and, in certain circumstances, damages.  In March
2011, the parties entered into an agreement to resolve all of the
shareholder lawsuits, subject to court approval, based on Nicor
providing certain supplemental disclosures to the Company's joint
proxy statement filed on April 28, 2011.

The court has preliminarily approved the agreement, a fairness
hearing is set for December 11, 2011, and the Company expects the
court to approve the agreement at this hearing.  The Company says
this lawsuit will have no effect on the closing of the merger.


AGL RESOURCES: Unit Continues to Defend Gas Pricing Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AGL Resources Inc.'s non-wholly owned subsidiary, SouthStar Energy
Services LLC, markets natural gas and related services under the
trade name Georgia Natural Gas to retail customers in Georgia.

In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia against Georgia
Natural Gas alleging that it charged its customers on variable
rate plan prices for natural gas that were in excess of the
published price, failed to give proper notice regarding the
availability of potentially lower price plans and that it changed
its methodology for computing variable rates.  This lawsuit was
dismissed in September 2008.  The plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of the lawsuit and, in May 2009, the Georgia Court of
Appeals reversed the lower court's order.  In June 2009, Georgia
Natural Gas filed a petition for reconsideration with the Georgia
Supreme Court.  In October 2009, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed
to review the Court of Appeals' decision and held oral arguments
in January 2010.  In March 2010 the Georgia Supreme Court upheld
the Court of Appeals' decision.  The case has been remanded back
to the Superior Court of Fulton County for further proceedings.

Georgia Natural Gas asserts that no violation of law or Georgia
Commission rules has occurred.  The Company says this case has not
had, and is not expected to have, a material impact on its results
of operation or financial condition.

No further 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.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
AMERIGROUP Corporation continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit pending in New York, 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 November 22, 2010, Hamel Toure, a former AMERIGROUP New York,
LLC marketing representative, filed a putative collective and
class action complaint against AMERIGROUP Corporation and
AMERIGROUP New York, LLC in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York.  Subsequently, another lawsuit,
styled Andrea Burch, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New
York, LLC, was consolidated with the Toure case.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint with respect to these
consolidated cases alleges, inter alia, that the plaintiffs and
certain other employees should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and during
the course of their employment should have received overtime and
other compensation under the FLSA from October 22, 2007, until the
entry of judgment and under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") from
October 22, 2004, until the entry of judgment.  The Complaint
requests certification of the NYLL claims as a class action under
Rule 23, designation of the FLSA claims as a collective action, a
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, an award of unpaid
overtime compensation, an award of liquidated damages under the
FLSA and NYLL, pre-judgment interest, as well as costs, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.

At this early stage of the case, the Company says it is unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable outcome because, among other
things, the scope and size of the potential class has not been
determined and no specific amount of monetary damages has been
alleged.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims against it and intends to defend itself vigorously.


ARTHROCARE CORP: Court Certified Class of Shareholders in August
----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas certified a class of shareholders in the consolidated
securities litigation against ArthroCare Corporation, 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 April 4, 2008, a putative securities class action captioned
McIlvaine v. ArthroCare, et al, was filed in Federal court in the
Southern District of Florida against the Company and certain of
its former executive officers, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading financial
statements and making material misrepresentations regarding the
Company's internal controls, business, and financial results.  On
October 28, 2008, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer this case to the U.S. District Court, Western District of
Texas.

On July 25, 2008, a putative securities class action captioned
Strong v. ArthroCare, et al., was filed in Federal court in the
Western District of Texas against the Company, and certain of its
current and former executive officers, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
financial statements and making material misrepresentations
regarding the Company's internal controls, business, and financial
results.

On August 7, 2008, a derivative action captioned Weil v. Baker, et
al., was filed in Federal court in the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and its then-current directors
alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on the Company's alleged
improper revenue recognition, improper reporting of such revenue
in SEC filings and press releases, failure to maintain adequate
internal controls, and failure to supervise management.  On
October 14, 2008, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer this case to the U.S. District Court, Western District of
Texas.

On March 4, 2009, a derivative action captioned King v. Baker, et
al., was filed in Federal court in the Western District of Texas
against the Company's current directors, a former director,
certain of its current and former executive officers and other
employees and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP alleging (i) disgorgement
under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; (ii) violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; (iii) breach of
fiduciary duty; (iv) abuse of control; (v) gross mismanagement of
the Company; (vi) waste of corporate assets; (vii) insider
trading; and (viii) unjust enrichment.

On April 29, 2009, a derivative action captioned Barron v. Baker,
et al., was filed in Federal court in the Western District of
Texas against the Company's current directors and a former
director alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on the Company's
improper revenue recognition, improper reporting of such revenue
in SEC filings and press releases, failure to maintain adequate
internal controls, and failure to supervise management.

On October 28, 2008, and thereafter, the two putative securities
class actions and the shareholder derivative actions were
consolidated and designated: In Re ArthroCare Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS (consolidated) in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.  On December
10, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' counsel were
appointed in the putative consolidated securities class action.
The Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on December 18, 2009, seeking unspecified monetary
damages and interest.  ArthroCare filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 16, 2010.
On July 20, 2010, the federal court issued a ruling granting in
part and denying in part ArthroCare's Motion to Dismiss,
permitting certain claims related to statements after December 11,
2007, to continue.

On August 30, 2011, the federal court granted Lead Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and entered an order certifying a
class of all persons and entities who purchased common stock in
ArthroCare between December 11, 2007, and February 18, 2009.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend Antitrust "MDL 1950" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. continues to defend antitrust lawsuits filed
against its subsidiaries that were consolidated into the
litigation known as "MDL 1950," according to the Company's October
31, 2011, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts ("GICs").  These cases have been coordinated
and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516
("MDL 1950").

Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings
Inc. ("AGMH") and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp ("AGM"): (a)
Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax
County, Virginia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School
District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e)
Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009,
the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on
the federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint.  In June 2009, interim lead plaintiffs'
counsel filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs.  The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits;
although the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
currently describes some of AGMH's and AGM's activities, it does
not name those entities as defendants.  In March 2010, the MDL
1950 court denied the named defendants' motions to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.  When the four
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the
plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.  However, the
complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities.  The
consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  In April
2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part the
named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated complaint.

In May 2010, AGM and Assured Guaranty US Holdings Inc. ("AGUS"),
among other defendants, were named in five additional non-class
action cases filed in federal court in California: (a) City of
Richmond, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18,
2010, N.D. California); (b) City of Redwood City, California v.
Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California);
(c) Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco,
California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 21, 2010, N.D.
California); (d) East Bay Municipal Utility District, California
v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California);
and (e) City of San Jose and the San Jose Redevelopment Agency,
California v. Bank of America, N.A (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D.
California). These cases have also been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.  In September 2010, AGM and AGUS, among
other defendants, were named in a sixth additional non-class
action filed in federal court in New York, but which alleges
violation of New York's Donnelly Act in addition to federal
antitrust law: Active Retirement Community, Inc. d/b/a Jefferson's
Ferry v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on September 21, 2010, E.D.
New York), which has also been transferred to the Southern
District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial
proceedings.  In late December 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other
defendants, were named in a seventh additional non-class action
filed in federal court in the Central District of California, Los
Angeles Unified School District v. Bank of America, N.A., and in
an eighth additional non-class action filed in federal court in
the Southern District of New York, Kendal on Hudson, Inc. v. Bank
of America, N.A. These cases also have been consolidated with MDL
1950 for pretrial proceedings.  The complaints in these lawsuits
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from these lawsuits.

In January 2011, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in an additional non-class action case filed in federal court in
New York, which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in
addition to federal antitrust law: Peconic Landing at Southold,
Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.  This case has been noticed as a
tag-along action to MDL 1950.  The complaint in this lawsuit
generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.


AUTOVEST LLC: Accused of Collecting Debts Without License
---------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Chappell, individually and on behalf of the class
defined herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel.
Katherine Chappell v. Autovest, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-38464 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., November 4, 2011) seeks redress for the
conduct of the Defendant in taking actions prohibited by the
Illinois Collection Agency Act; seeks relief against void
judgments; alleges violation of the ICAA; and alleges violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Autovest did not obtain a collection
license until October 27, 2009, but during the intervening period,
Autovest collected debts from debtors located in Illinois.

Ms. Chappell is a resident of Glendale Heights, Illinois.

Autovest is a Delaware limited liability company.  Autovest is
engaged in the business of purchasing or claiming to purchase
charged-off consumer debts and enforcing the debts against the
consumers by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Plasma Therapies Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the consolidated lawsuit relating to
Baxter International Inc.'s pricing of plasma-derived therapies,
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.

The Company is a defendant, along with others, in nineteen
lawsuits brought in various U.S. federal courts alleging that
Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output
and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies
since 2003.  The complaints attempt to state a claim for class
action relief and in some cases demand treble damages.  These
cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois.  In February 2011,
the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss certain of the
claims and the parties are proceeding into discovery.

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


BAXTER INT'L: Non-Monetary Settlement Reached in ERISA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 agreed to a non-
monetary settlement ending the litigation, according to Baxter
International Inc.'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 2004, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against Baxter and
its current Chief Executive Officer and then current Chief
Financial Officer and their predecessors for alleged violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.
Plaintiff alleged that these defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants by
offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each of
the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.  In
October 2011, the parties agreed to a non-monetary settlement
ending the litigation.


BAXTER INT'L: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
In September 2010, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against Baxter
International Inc. and certain of its current executive officers.
The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that, from
June 10, 2009, to May 3, 2010, the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's plasma-
based therapies business and the Company's remediation of its
COLLEAGUE infusion pumps causing the Company's common stock to
trade at artificially high levels.  An additional lawsuit has
subsequently been filed against the Company and certain of its
executive officers in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of
Illinois.  These lawsuits seek to recover the lost value of
investors' stock as damages and have been consolidated for further
proceedings.

No further 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.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Ex-Kitchen Manager to Seek Settlement Okay Soon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit alleging misclassification of
kitchen managers will file a motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement within next quarter, according to BJ's Restaurants,
Inc.'s November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 27, 2011.

On August 25, 2009, a former team member filed a putative class
action in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
California, on behalf of himself and other current and former
restaurant managers in California.  The complaint, as amended,
alleged that the Company's California kitchen managers were
misclassified as exempt from overtime and other California law
requirements and alleged causes of action for failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure
to pay wages in a timely manner, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to keep accurate payroll records, penalties
associated with these claims, and failure to reimburse class
members for business expenses in violation of the California Labor
Code and unfair competition in violation of the California
Business and Professions Code.  The complaint sought unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.  In January 2010, on the Company's motion, the Court
ordered the venue of the case transferred to Orange County.  The
Company responded to the third amended complaint, the operative
complaint denying the allegations.

The parties reached a settlement in principle of this action in
July 2011.  The plaintiff will file a motion for preliminary
approval with the court within the next quarter.  The Company says
the terms of this settlement are not considered to be material to
its consolidated financial position.  A legal settlement expense
of approximately $800,000 was recorded in the second quarter of
fiscal 2011 for this matter.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Plaintiff to Seek Settlement Approval Soon
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit accusing BJ's Restaurants Inc.
of failing to pay wages for on-call time will file a motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement within the next quarter, the
Company disclosed in its November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 27, 2011.

On February 4, 2009, a team member filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Fresno,
California, on behalf of himself and other current and former
servers working in the Company's California restaurants.  The
complaint alleged causes of action for failure to pay wages for
on-call time in violation of the California Labor Code, violation
of California Business and Professional Code, and penalties for
failure to pay wages in a timely manner.  The complaint sought
unspecified damages, a constructive trust, restitution, injunctive
relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 14, 2009,
a first amended complaint was filed, in which two other team
members joined the action as plaintiffs.  The Company answered the
operative complaint denying the allegations.

The parties reached a settlement in principle of this action in
September 2011.  The plaintiff will file a motion for preliminary
approval with the court within the next quarter.  The Company says
the terms of this settlement are not considered to be material to
its consolidated financial position.  A legal settlement expense
of approximately $1.0 million was recorded in the third quarter
for fiscal 2011 for this matter.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Sanchez" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2011, Bridgepoint Education Inc. received a copy of a
complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company as a
defendant.  The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California in San Diego on May 6, 2011, and is captioned
Sanchez v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The complaint generally
alleges that the plaintiff and similarly situated employees were
improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under
California law.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against it.

No further updates were reported in 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.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Stevens" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2011, Bridgepoint Education Inc. received a copy of a
complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company,
Ashford University, LLC, and certain employees as defendants.  The
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego on February 17, 2011, and is captioned
Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The complaint generally
alleges that the plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were
improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under
California law.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against it.

No further updates were reported in 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.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Still Defends "Moore" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2011, Bridgepoint Education Inc. received a copy of a
complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company and
Ashford University, LLC, as defendants.  The complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego on
April 25, 2011, and is captioned Moore v. Ashford University, LLC.
The complaint generally alleges that the plaintiff and similarly
situated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour
protections under California law.  The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
it.

No further updates were reported in 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.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Still Defends "Rosendahl" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2011, Bridgepoint Education Inc. received a copy of a
complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company,
Ashford University and University of the Rockies as defendants.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on January 11, 2011, and is
captioned Rosendahl v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The complaint
generally alleges that the Company and the other defendants
engaged in improper, fraudulent and illegal behavior in their
efforts to recruit and retain students.  The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
it.

No further updates were reported in 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.


CC MEDIA: Expert Discovery Still Ongoing in "Live Concerts" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of CC Media Holdings, Inc., are co-defendants
with Live Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in
December 2005) in 22 putative class actions filed by different
named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country
beginning in May 2006.  These actions generally allege that the
defendants monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for
"live rock concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs claim that they paid higher ticket prices for
defendants' "rock concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct.
They seek damages in an undetermined amount.  On
April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation
centralized these class action proceedings in the Central District
of California.  The district court has certified classes in five
"template" cases involving five regional markets: Los Angeles,
Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver.  Fact discovery has closed,
and expert discovery is ongoing.

No further updates were reported in 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.


CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Ruderman" Suit Pending in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit commenced by Sydelle
Ruderman in Florida against a subsidiary of CNO Financial Group,
Inc. remains pending, 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.

On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.  The plaintiff alleges that the
inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care
insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National Insurance Company breached
the contract by stopping her benefits when they reached the
lifetime maximum.  The Company takes the position that the
inflation escalator only affects the per day maximum benefit.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and the
motion has been fully briefed by both sides.  The court has not
yet ruled on the motion or set it for hearing.  Additional parties
have asked the court to allow them to intervene in the action, and
on January 5, 2010, the court granted the motion to intervene and
granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The court
certified a (B) (3) Florida state class alleging damages and a (B)
(2) Florida state class alleging injunctive relief.  The parties
have reached a settlement in principle of the (B) (3) class in
2010.  The amount recognized in 2010 related to the settlement in
principle was not significant to the Company's consolidated
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment as to the (B) (2)
class which was granted by the court on September 8, 2010.  The
Company filed a notice of appeal on October 6, 2010.

The Company believes the action is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.  While the Company expects the (B) (3) class
to settle consistent with the terms of the settlement in
principle, the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit related to the (B)
(2) class cannot be predicted and it is not possible to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could
result from this matter in excess of amounts accrued.

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


CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Yue" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Celedonia
X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance
Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS. Conseco Life is one of CNO
Financial Group, Inc.'s insurance subsidiaries.  Plaintiff in this
putative class action owns a Valulife universal life policy
insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff
is claiming breach of contract on behalf of the proposed national
class and seeks injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and
declaratory relief.  The putative class consists of all owners of
Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies issued by
either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were
later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges
that members of the class will be damaged by increases in the cost
of insurance (a non-guaranteed element) that are set to take place
in the twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies.
No such increases have yet been applied to the subject policies.

During 2010, Conseco Life voluntarily agreed not to implement the
cost of insurance rate increase at issue in this litigation and is
following a process with respect to any future cost of insurance
rate increases as set forth in a regulatory settlement agreement.
Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of a nationwide class
and a California state class.  On December 7, 2009, the court
granted that motion.  On October 8, 2010, the court dismissed the
causes of actions alleged in the California state class.  On
January 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment as to the declaratory relief claim and on
February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory opinion, in the
form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its view, Conseco
Life could consider in implementing future cost of insurance rate
increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm block of policies.
On February 17, 2011, Conseco Life filed notice that it is
appealing the court's January 19, 2011 decision.  On March 3,
2011, the plaintiff filed notice that she is appealing the court's
decision to dismiss the California causes of action.

No further updates were reported in 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.

The Company believes the action is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Rowe" Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend a class action
lawsuit commenced by Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe against its
subsidiaries, 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.

On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life &
Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois,
Case No. 09CV491.  The plaintiffs are alleging violation of
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.
and 17500 et seq., breach of common law fiduciary duty, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf
of the proposed national class and seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants used an improper and
misleading sales and marketing approach to seniors that fails to
disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial
information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials,
promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and
less valuable than readily available alternative investment
products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks
including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other
restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date
beyond the applicants actuarial life expectancy.  Plaintiffs have
amended their complaint attempting to convert this from a
California only class action to a national class action.  In
addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"); aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.
On September 13, 2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff's RICO
claims.  On October 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint re-alleging their RICO claims.  A hearing date
on the motion for class certification has not been set.

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

The Company believes the action is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: Court Okayed Annuity Marketing Suit Deal in August
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in August 2011 final approval of CNO Financial
Group, Inc.'s settlement to resolve the consolidated lawsuit
relating to annuity marketing and sales practices, 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.

On November 17, 2005, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert H.
Hansen, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation
f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C0504726.
Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in
2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national
class for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act; elder abuse; unlawful, deceptive and
unfair business practices; unlawful, deceptive and misleading
advertising; breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of
breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust enrichment and imposition of
constructive trust.  On January 27, 2006, a similar complaint was
filed in the same court entitled Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance
Company, an Illinois company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance
Company, Cause No. C06-00537.  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity
in 2003.  Each case alleged that the annuity sold was
inappropriate and that the annuity products in question are
inherently unsuitable for seniors age 65 and older.  On March 3,
2006, a first amended complaint was filed in the Hansen case
adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment and breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  In an order dated
April 14, 2006, the court consolidated the two cases under the
original Hansen cause number and retitled the consolidated action:
In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices
Litig.  A settlement in principle has been reached in this case in
2010 and a liability was established consistent with such
settlement.

The Company says the amount recognized in 2010 related to the
settlement in principle was not significant to its consolidated
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.  On
August 12, 2011, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.


CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for October 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary and the predecessor of CNO Financial Group, Inc. is set
for October 9, 2012, 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.

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  The plaintiffs allege that
Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and
insurance bad faith and violated various consumer protection
statutes in the administration of various interest sensitive whole
life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by
requiring the payment of additional cash amounts to maintain the
policies in force and by making changes to certain non-guaranteed
elements in their policies.  On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint adding the additional counts of breach
of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion
and declaratory relief.  On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc. and
Conseco Life filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
July 29, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that
Conseco Life violated various consumer protection statutes, the
breach of fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  On October 15, 2009, Conseco Life
filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL"), seeking the establishment of an MDL proceeding
consolidating this case and the McFarland case into a single
action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on MDL ordered
this case be consolidated for pretrial proceedings.  On July 7,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification
of a nationwide class and a California state class.  Conseco Life
filed its motion in opposition on July 21, 2010.  On October 6,
2010, the court granted the motion for certification of a
nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify
the nationwide class on July 1, 2011.  Trial is set for October 9,
2012.  The Company believes the action is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the
action cannot be predicted with certainty.

                         McFarland Case

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain non-guaranteed elements, of various interest sensitive
whole life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend."
The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. As
described in the preceding paragraph, on February 3, 2010, the
Judicial Panel on MDL ordered this case be consolidated with the
Brady case for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of
California Federal Court.  On July 7, 2010, plaintiffs filed an
amended motion for class certification of a nationwide class and a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed its motion in
opposition on July 21, 2010.  On October 6, 2010, the court
granted the motion for certification of a nationwide class and
denied the motion for certification of a California state class.
Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify the nationwide class on
July 1, 2011.  Trial is set for October 9, 2012.

The Company believes the action is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company continues to defend antitrust class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Sherman Act, according
to the Company's October 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 31,
2011.

On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
against nine steel manufacturing companies, including Commercial
Metals Company.  The lawsuit, filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which steel products were sold in the United States by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products.  The
lawsuit, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all purchasers of steel products directly from the
defendants between January 1, 2005, and September 2008, seeks
treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and
pre- and post-judgment interest.  Since the filing of this
lawsuit, additional plaintiffs have filed class action lawsuits
naming the same defendants and containing allegations
substantially identical to those of the Standard Iron Works
complaint.  The Company believes that the lawsuits are entirely
without merit and plans to aggressively defend the actions.

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


CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend New "Comer" Suit in Miss.
------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy Inc.
styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al.  The plaintiffs,
residents and owners of property along the Mississippi Gulf coast,
alleged that the defendants caused the emission of greenhouse
gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn caused a
rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina,
which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' property.  The District
Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed.  The Circuit
Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a rehearing before
the entire court.  A rehearing before the entire court was
granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's reversal,
but before the case could be heard on the merits, a number of
judges recused themselves and there was no longer a quorum.  As a
result, the District Court's dismissal was effectively reinstated.
The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to require the Circuit
Court to address the merits of their appeal.

On January 11, 2011, the Supreme Court denied that request.
Although that should have resulted in the dismissal being a
finality, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the
same jurisdiction against essentially the same defendants making
nearly identical allegations as in the original lawsuit.  The
defendants intend to seek an early dismissal of the case.

No further updates were reported in 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.


CONSOL ENERGY: Delaware Class Suit May Go to Trial Soon
-------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011, that a consolidated shareholder
lawsuit pending in Delaware will likely go to trial soon.

CONSOL Energy has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas Company (CNX
Gas) challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all
of the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not
already own for $38.25 per share.  The two cases filed in
Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court have been stayed and the three
cases filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated
under the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No.
5377-VCL).  With one exception, these cases also name CNX Gas and
certain officers and directors of CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas as
defendants.  All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy
breached and/or aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary
duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders,
essentially alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL
Energy paid to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and
subsequent short-form merger was unfair.  Among other things, the
actions sought a permanent injunction against or rescission of the
tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.  The
Delaware Court of Chancery denied an injunction against the tender
offer and CONSOL Energy completed the acquisition of the
outstanding shares of CNX Gas on June 1, 2010.  The Delaware Court
of Chancery certified to the Delaware Supreme Court the question
of what legal standard should be applied to the tender offer,
which would effectively determine whether the shareholders can
proceed with a damage claim.  The Delaware Supreme Court declined
to accept the appeal pending a final judgment.

Therefore, the Company says the lawsuit will likely go to trial,
possibly later in 2011.  There may be mediation prior to any
trial.  The Company believes that these actions are without merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.  For that reason, the
Company has not accrued a liability for this claim; however, if
liability is ultimately imposed, based on the expert reports that
have been exchanged by the parties, the Company believes the range
of loss would be up to $221,000.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Hall" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010,
styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania
Common Pleas Court.  The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall.  The
purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy Inc.  The complaint alleges
more than 1,000 similarly situated lessors.  The lawsuit alleges
that CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated royalties by (i)
calculating line loss on the basis of allocated volumes rather
than on a well-by-well basis, (ii) possibly calculating the
royalty on the basis of an incorrect price, (iii) possibly taking
unreasonable deductions for post-production costs and costs that
were not arms-length, (iv) not paying royalties on gas lost or
used before the point of sale, and (v) not paying royalties on oil
production.  The complaint also alleges that royalty statements
were false and misleading.  The complaint seeks damages, interest
and an accounting on a well-by-well basis.  The plaintiff amended
the complaint and the Company filed preliminary objections.  In
response to the Company's preliminary objections, the Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for underpayment of royalties on
gas lost or used before the point of sale and allowed the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint to specifically state their
claim on oil production.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to these actions.

No further updates were reported in 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.


CONSOL ENERGY: Parties Agree to Stay "Addison" Suit vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the class action lawsuit styled as Addison v. CNX Gas
Company LLC have agreed to stay this litigation, according to
CONSOL Energy Inc.'s October 31, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010, in
Federal court in Virginia styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company LLC.
The case involves two primary claims: (i) the plaintiff and
similarly situated CNX Gas lessors identified as conflicting
claimants during the force pooling process before the Virginia Gas
and Oil Board are the owners of the coalbed methane (CBM) and,
accordingly, the owners of the escrowed royalty payments being
held by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (ii) CNX Gas failed to
either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or
paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions.  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
regarding ownership and compensatory and punitive damages for
breach of contract; conversion; negligence (voluntary
undertaking), for force pooling coal owners after the Ratliff
decision declared coal owners did not own the CBM; negligent
breach of duties as an operator; breach of fiduciary duties; and
unjust enrichment.  The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in this
case, and the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing some claims
and allowing others to proceed.  Both parties objected to the
portions of the Recommendations which adversely affected their
interests.  Oral argument on the objections occurred on August 2,
2011, before the District Judge, who affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's Recommendations in their entirety.  The plaintiffs and CNX
Gas have agreed to stay this litigation.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to the action.


CONSOL ENERGY: Parties Agree to Stay "Hale" Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the class action lawsuit commenced by oil and gas
owners in Virginia against a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc. have
agreed to stay the case, 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 purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010,
in U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia, styled Hale v. CNX
Gas Company LLC et. al.  The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff
class consists of oil and gas owners, that the Virginia Supreme
Court has decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the owner
of the oil and gas estate, that the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of
1990 unconstitutionally allows force pooling of CBM, that the Act
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 royalty to CBM owners for
gas produced under the force pooling orders, and that the Company
only relied upon control of the coal estate in force pooling the
CBM notwithstanding the Virginia Supreme Court decision holding
that if only the coal estate is controlled, the CBM is not thereby
controlled.  The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership
of the CBM and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production
(that is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since
production began) be distributed to the class members.  The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
recommended that the District Judge decide that the deemed lease
provision of the Gas and Oil Act is constitutional as is the 1/8
royalty, and that CNX Gas need not distribute the net proceeds to
class members.  The Magistrate Judge recommended against the
dismissal of certain other claims, none of which are believed to
have any significance.  Both parties objected to the portions of
the Recommendations which adversely affected their interests.  The
District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations in
their entirety.  The plaintiffs and CNX Gas have agreed to stay
this litigation.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to the action.


CONVERGYS CORP: Gets Final OK of Settlement in Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas granted final approval of the settlement resolving the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit against a unit of
Convergys Corporation, 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.

Several related class action lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in 2001
on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Intervoice, Inc.
(Intervoice) during the period from October 12, 1999, through
June 6, 2000 (the Class Period).  Plaintiffs filed claims, which
were consolidated into one proceeding under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice (a
subsidiary of the Company since 2008) as well as certain named
former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the
alleged class members.  In the complaint, plaintiffs claim that
Intervoice and the named former officers and directors issued
false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning
the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of a merger
with another company and the alleged future business projections
of Intervoice.  Plaintiffs asserted that these alleged statements
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint because it
lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the
pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part.  The
Fifth Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further
proceedings in the District Court.  In 2006, the District Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of purchasers of
Intervoice stock during the Class Period.  Intervoice appealed and
in 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's class-
certification order and remanded the case to the District Court
for further consideration.  In October 2009, the District Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.  In January
2010, the Fifth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for
permission to appeal the denial of class certification.  The
Company and the plaintiffs signed a term sheet to settle and
terminate the lawsuit.  The District Court granted final approval
of the parties' joint stipulation of settlement on September 27,
2011.  The joint stipulation of settlement was not appealed prior
to the deadline for filing an appeal.  The Company says final
settlement did not have a material adverse impact on the Company's
results of operations or financial condition at September 30,
2011.


DENDREON CORP: Defends Securities Class Suits in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corporation is defending securities class action lawsuits
pending in Washington, the Company disclosed in its November 2,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Securities class actions have been filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers.
Plaintiffs, who are purchasers of the Company's stock, purport to
state claims for violations of securities laws during 2010 and
2011.  Plaintiffs purport to represent large groups of persons and
institutions who bought the Company's stock during the same
period.  The Company says that it is possible that additional
lawsuits will be filed with respect to these same matters.  In
addition, shareholder derivative actions have been filed in both
the Western District of Washington and King County Superior Court.
These are actions brought by current shareholders, purportedly on
behalf of the Company.  The Company is not a defendant in these
actions as the defendants are the members of the Company's board
of directors and certain executive officers.  Nevertheless, the
Company explains that it is at risk of incurring significant costs
in connection with these derivative actions.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of any of these
lawsuits or proceedings.  Monitoring and defending against legal
actions, whether or not meritorious, and considering stockholder
demands, is time-consuming for the Company's management and
detracts from its ability to fully focus its internal resources on
its business activities.  In addition, legal fees and costs
incurred in connection with such activities are significant.  The
Company is not currently able to estimate the cost to it from
these matters, and it cannot be certain how long it may take to
resolve these matters.  Nor can the Company predict the outcome of
the matters or the amounts that it may need to pay to settle them
or satisfy an adverse judgment.  The Company has not established
any reserves for any potential liability relating to the lawsuits
or other claims related to the same matters.  It is possible that
the Company could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into
settlements of claims for monetary damages.  A decision adverse to
the Company's interests on these actions or resulting from these
matters could result in the payment of substantial damages and
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's cash flow,
results of operations and financial position.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Delaware Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a consolidated shareholder lawsuit pending in
Delaware have agreed to stay further activity pending the outcome
of the antitrust review process relating to Dollar Thrifty
Automotive Group, Inc.'s now terminated proposed merger
transaction with Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., 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.

Various class action complaints relating to the now terminated
proposed merger transaction with Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
("Hertz") have been filed in Oklahoma state court, Oklahoma
federal court, and Delaware Chancery Court against the Company,
its directors, and Hertz by various plaintiffs, for themselves and
on behalf of the Company's stockholders, excluding defendants and
their affiliates.  These complaints allege that the consideration
the Company's stockholders would have received in connection with
the proposed transaction with Hertz is inadequate and that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement.
These complaints also allege that the proxy materials that were
sent to the Company's stockholders to approve the Merger Agreement
are materially false and misleading.  The cases and their current
status are as follows: 1) Henzel v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., et al. (Consolidated Case No. CJ-2010-02761, Dist.
Ct. Tulsa County, Oklahoma) -- the hearing on the Company's motion
for reconsideration of the Company's motion to dismiss was set for
September 28, 2010, but the parties agreed that it would not go
forward on that day.  This case has not been dismissed but is
currently inactive; 2) In Re: Dollar Thrifty Shareholder
Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 5458-VCS, Delaware Court of
Chancery) -- the Court denied the motion for preliminary
injunction on September 8, 2010.  The plaintiffs served a subpoena
on Avis Budget Group, Inc. ("Avis Budget") on September 27, 2010,
and they have by consent adjourned the time to respond.  While
this case has not been dismissed, there has been no response to
the subpoena to date; and 3) Rice v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., et al. (Consolidated Case No. 10-CV-0294-CVE-FHM,
U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Northern Dist. of Oklahoma) -- the parties
filed a stipulation of dismissal of this action on October 15,
2010, and the court has dismissed the action with prejudice
following the stockholder vote rejecting the proposed Merger
Agreement.

Following the termination of the Merger Agreement, the Company
agreed to cooperate with respect to Avis Budget's efforts to
pursue antitrust clearance in conjunction with a potential
acquisition of the Company.

On October 18, 2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated class action
complaint filed in Delaware Chancery Court, Consolidated Case No.
5458-VCS, sought permission to amend their pleadings to assert
additional claims that members of the Company's board of directors
(the "Board") breached their fiduciary duties concerning the
following matters: (1) the Board's response to a merger proposal
by Avis Budget in September 2010; (2) the Board's use of defensive
measures, including the adoption of a poison pill, in response to
the Exchange Offer made by Hertz; (3) the Board's response to the
failure of Hertz to submit an improved final offer meeting certain
Board criteria by October 10, 2011; and (4) the Board's alleged
failure to make full material disclosures to the Company's
stockholders concerning the Hertz offer, the Company's stand-alone
plan, and the Company's negotiations with Hertz regarding a
business combination.  The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs'
request to amend.  On November 1, 2011, the plaintiffs advised the
court that the parties have agreed to stay further activity
pending the outcome of the Hertz antitrust review process.

Various legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and
proceedings have been in the past, or may be in the future,
asserted or instituted against the Company, including other
purported class actions or proceedings relating to the Hertz
transaction terminated in October 2010 or a potential acquisition
transaction, and some that may demand large monetary damages or
other relief which could result in significant expenditures.
Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of
individual matters is not predictable with assurance.  The Company
is also subject to potential liability related to environmental
matters.  The Company establishes reserves for litigation and
environmental matters when the loss is probable and reasonably
estimable.  It is reasonably possible that the final resolution of
some of these matters may require the Company to make
expenditures, in excess of established reserves, over an extended
period of time and in a range of amounts that cannot be reasonably
estimated.  The term "reasonably possible" is used herein to mean
that the chance of a future transaction or event occurring is more
than remote but less than probable.  Although the final resolution
of any such matters could have a material effect on the Company's
consolidated operating results for the particular reporting period
in which an adjustment of the estimated liability is recorded, the
Company believes that any resulting liability should not
materially affect its business or consolidated financial position.


EME HOMER: Awaiting Appeal by Plaintiffs of Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
EME Homer City Generation L.P. disclosed in its November 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that it does not know
whether the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
plaintiffs in a purported class action will appeal the dismissal
of their cases, or whether the plaintiffs will file a complaint in
state court.

In January 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA) filed a complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania
against EME Homer City Generation L.P. (Homer City), 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 (PSD)
and Title V provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 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 best available control technology (BACT)
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 (PADEP), 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, Edison Mission Energy (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 lawsuit 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.  Homer City
says it 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, the Company says 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.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Dismisses Homer City-Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
dismissed all of the claims relating to the Homer City Plant
against certain defendants, including a subsidiary of FirstEnergy
Corp., 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.

In June 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy
Westside, Inc. ("Mission") alleging that "modifications" at the
coal-fired Homer City Plant occurred from 1988 to the present
without preconstruction New Source Review ("NSR") permitting in
violation of the Clean Air Act's ("CAA") Prevention of Significant
Deterioration ("PSD") program.  In May 2010, the EPA issued a
second NOV to Mission, Pennsylvania Electric Company ("Penelec"),
New York State Electric and Gas ("NYSEG") and others that have had
an ownership interest in Homer City containing in all material
respects allegations identical to those included in the June 2008
NOV.

In January 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint
against Penelec in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief against Penelec
based on alleged "modifications" at Homer City from 1991 to 1994
without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAA's
PSD and Title V permitting programs.  The complaint was also filed
against the former co-owner, NYSEG, and various current owners of
Homer City, including EME Homer City Generation L.P. and
affiliated companies, including Edison International.  In January
2011, another complaint was filed against Penelec and the other
entities in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania seeking damages based on Homer City's air emissions
as well as certification as a class action and to enjoin Homer
City from operating except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and
proper manner."  Penelec believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend itself against the allegations made in the
complaint, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of
this matter or estimate the loss or possible range of loss.

In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of
New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed separate
complaints regarding Homer City seeking injunctive relief and
civil penalties.  Mission is seeking indemnification from Penelec,
the co-owner and operator of Homer City prior to its sale in 1999.
On April 21, 2011, Penelec and all other defendants filed Motions
to Dismiss all of the federal claims and the various state claims.
Responsive and Reply briefs were filed on May 26, 2011, and June
17, 2011, respectively.

On October 12 and 13, 2011, the Court dismissed all of the claims
with prejudice, of the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and the Sates of New Jersey and New York and all of the claims of
the private parties, without prejudice to refile state law claims
in state court, against all of the defendants, including Penelec.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Pending in Hawaii
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries in a purported
class action in Hawaii.  On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action
without ties to Hawaii.  At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining
U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of
the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred.  A final judgment
dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was
entered on July 28, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  The appeal is fully briefed and remains
pending.

No further updates were reported in 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.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal in Extra Sweet Pineapple Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order denying class certification in the
lawsuit commenced by consumers of Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples remains pending, according to Fresh Del Monte Produce
Inc.'s November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On August 2, 2004, a consolidated complaint was filed against two
of the Company's subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  This consolidated action was
brought as a putative class action on behalf of all direct and
indirect purchasers of Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
from March 1, 1996, through the present and merges four actions
brought by fruit wholesalers and two actions brought by individual
consumers.  The consolidated complaint alleges claims for: (i)
monopolization and attempted monopolization; (ii) restraint of
trade; (iii) unfair and deceptive trade practices; and (iv) unjust
enrichment.  On May 27, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a
motion to dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers' claims for
unjust enrichment.  On June 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed a joint
motion for class certification.  On February 20, 2008, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the indirect
purchasers and only granted class certification of the direct
purchasers' claims for monopolization and attempted
monopolization, which was uncontested by the Company's
subsidiaries.  Also on February 20, 2008, the court granted the
motion of the Company's subsidiaries to dismiss the direct
purchasers' claims for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the
motion to dismiss the indirect purchasers' state law claims on the
basis of the court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the indirect purchasers.  On August 13, 2008, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs' remaining claims.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion on October 6, 2008, which the Company's subsidiaries
replied to on December 8, 2008.  On September 30, 2009, the court
granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the Company's
subsidiaries.  On October 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  On November 3, 2010, the appellate court affirmed the
District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of
the Company's subsidiaries.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased
(other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6, 2003.  The complaint
alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  On February 18, 2005, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing
plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.  On
November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.  On
September 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
action.  On August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification.
On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order denying class certification, which appeal remains
pending.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.  The only
surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only
to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000.  The Company's
subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on October 12,
2006.  On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class action.  The Company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on
January 22, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11,
2009.

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


GAMESTOP INC: Sued Over Unpaid Wages & Compensation in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lusby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Gamestop, Inc., Gamestop Corporation, and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-11-513220 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., August 9, 2011) is a class action seeking
unpaid wages, compensation for missed meal and rest periods,
interest thereon, related penalties, injunctive and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the Defendants
had a consistent policy of, among other things, (i) requiring its
non-exempt retail employees, including the Plaintiff and Class
Members, to remain at work after completion of the workers'
ordinary duties, without paying them wages for all compensable
time, and (ii) requiring its nonexempt retail employees to submit
to mandatory security checks of their persons and belongings
without paying them compensation.

During the Class Period, Mr. Lusby was employed by GameStop as a
non-exempt employee at one or more of its California retail
stores.

GameStop is a corporation, duly licensed, located and doing
business in the county of San Francisco, California.  GameStop
operated numerous retail establishments throughout California.
The Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

GameStop removed the lawsuit on November 4, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because the District Court has original subject matter
jurisdiction over the lawsuit for complete diversity exists and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-05361 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Molly A. DeSario, Esq.
          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          Email: scole@scalaw.com
                 mdesario@scalaw.com
                 silg@scalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
          John D. Hayashi, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 399-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 399-7001
          E-mail: cgonell@morganlewis.com
                  jhayashi@morganlewis.com


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action, the City
of Roseville Employees Retirement System, which bought Imperial
Holdings stock at $10.75 at its February IPO, says the share price
sank to $2.19 after a Sept. 27 FBI raid on Imperial's office.

A copy of the Complaint in City of Roseville Employees Retirement
System v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 302011CA016944
(Fla, Cir. Ct., Palm Beach Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/04/Pension.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Link, Esq.
          Dana E. Foster, Esq.
          ACKERMAN, LINK & SARTORY, P.A.
          222 Lakeview Avenue
          Esperante, Suite 1250
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 838-4100
          E-mail: slink@alslaw.com
                  dfoster@alslaw.com

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          James J. Sabella, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Settles Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Levi & Korsinsky LLP announces the proposed
settlement of a class action involving Integral Systems, Inc.

This Notice is given pursuant to an Order of the Howard County
Circuit Court, Maryland, in accordance with Rule 2-231 of the
Maryland Rules, to inform all record and beneficial holders of
Integral Systems, Inc. common stock at any time from and including
July 16, 2010 to July 27, 2011, including any and all of their
respective successors in interest, predecessors, representatives,
trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or
transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting
for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, and each of
them of certain proceedings and the proposed settlement of a class
action captioned In re Integral Systems, Inc. Shareholder and
Derivative Litigation.

A hearing will be held in the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, 7
Church Circle, Annapolis, Maryland 21401 at 9:00 a.m. on
December 19, 2011, to determine whether the proposed settlement of
the Consolidated Action should be approved as fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of the proposed Class and
whether the request by counsel for Plaintiff for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses should be granted.  The Court may
change the date of the hearing without providing additional notice
to the Members of the Class.

On July 16, 2010, Integral and Kratos Defense & Security
Solutions, Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger which
provided, inter alia, that, if the Merger Agreement was approved,
Kratos would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Integral in
a cash-and-stock transaction for approximately $13.00 per share
for a total value of $266 million.  Under the Merger Agreement,
Integral would cease to be a publicly-traded company and would
instead be a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Kratos.  As a
result of this transaction, each share of Integral common stock
was converted into the right to receive $5.00 in cash and 0.588 of
a share of Kratos common stock.  The Action was commenced shortly
after the Merger was announced and alleges breaches of fiduciary
duty on the part of the Integral board of directors and that
Kratos aided and abetted those breaches.

Based on their thorough investigation and discovery taken in this
matter, and upon their consultation with financial experts from
Value, Inc., Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel have determined that a
settlement of the Consolidated Action on the terms reflected in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated as of September
22, 2011 is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of Integral's stockholders.  The proposed Settlement, as set forth
fully in the Stipulation, provides, inter alia, that Integral make
additional disclosures to shareholders, which Integral did prior
to the shareholder vote, for the release of Claims against the
defendants and others, and Integral (or any successor entity) will
cause to be paid to Plaintiffs' counsel the sum of up to $625,000,
as ordered by the Court, in full settlement of Plaintiffs' claim
for attorneys' fees and expenses.

In an order dated October 6, 2011, the Court, for purposes of
effectuating the proposed settlement only, preliminarily certified
the Consolidated Action (including its constituent actions) as a
class action, on behalf of a non-opt-out class consisting of all
common stockholders of Integral at any time during the period from
July 16, 2010 to July 27, 2011, including the legal
representatives, heirs, successors in interest, transferees or
assigns of all such holders, immediate or remote, in each case
solely in their capacities as holders of Integral common stock .
As set forth above, the Court has scheduled a Final Approval
Hearing, which will be held on December 19, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in
the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, 7 Church Circle, Annapolis,
Maryland 21401, to determine whether to approve the Settlement,
certify the class, and award the requested award of attorneys'
fees and expenses.

Additional information is contained in the Notice of Pendency of
Derivative and Class Action, Proposed Settlement, Final Approval
Hearing and Right to Appear which you may obtain by visiting the
Web site: http://www.IntegralShareholdersSettlement.comor
contacting Lead Counsel:

          Levi & Korsinsky LLP
          Donald J. Enright
          1101 30th Street, NW Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290

Any objection to the proposed Settlement or an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel must be filed with the
Court and delivered to Lead Counsel no later than December 9, 2011
at the addresses provided above, and in the manner and form set
forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICEREGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: November 4, 2011

BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND


METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Drafting of Consolidated Suit Deal Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from
Metropolitan Health Networks, Inc.'s acquisition of Continucare
Corporation are currently drafting a settlement that would resolve
the case, 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 4, 2011, the Company completed the previously announced
acquisition of Continucare Corporation.  The acquisition was
structured as a merger of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary,
CAB Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), with and into Continucare
(the "Merger") in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Agreement"), dated June 26, 2011.  As a
result of the Merger, Continucare became a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Metropolitan effective October 4, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida by Kathryn Karnell, Trustee, and the Aaron and
Kathryn Karnell Revocable Trust U/A Dtd 4/9/09 against
Continucare, the members of the Continucare Board, individually,
Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Kathryn Karnell Trustee, etc.
v. Continucare Corporation et al., No. 11-20538 CA40).  Also on
July 1, 2011, a second putative class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida by Steven L. Fuller against Continucare, the
members of the Continucare Board, individually, Metropolitan, and
Merger Sub (styled Steven L. Fuller v. Richard C. Pfenniger et
al., No. 11-20537 GA04).  On July 6, 2011, a third putative class
action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida by Hilary Kramer
against Continucare, the members of the Continucare Board,
individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Hilary Kramer
v. Richard C. Pfenniger Jr. et al., No. 11-20925 CA20).  On
July 12, 2011, a fourth putative class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida by Jamie Suprina against Continucare, the
members of the Continucare board of directors, individually,
Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Jamie Suprina v. Continucare
Corporation et al., No. 11-21522 CA15).  On July 22, 2011, a fifth
putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida by
Kojo Acquaah against Continucare, the members of the Continucare
board of directors, individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub
(styled Kojo Acquaah v. Continucare Corporation et al., No. 11-
22833 CA40).  Also on July 22, 2011, a sixth putative class action
was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida by David DeYoung against
Continucare, the members of the Continucare board of directors,
individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled David DeYoung
v. Continucare Corporation et al., No. 11-22837 CA40).  The
plaintiffs in the Fuller, Karnell, and Acquaah and DeYoung actions
have filed motions seeking appointment of lead counsel and to
expedite discovery and the proceedings.

Each of these lawsuits alleges a claim against the members of the
Continucare Board for breach of fiduciary duty and a claim against
Continucare, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting
the individual defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  The
amended complaints in Karnell, Suprina and Fuller and the
complaints in Acquaah and DeYoung also allege that the disclosure
contained in the Proxy Statement or Registration Statement on Form
S-4 originally filed by the Company on July 11, 2011 regarding the
pending Merger was inadequate.  All of these lawsuits seek to
enjoin the pending transaction between Continucare and
Metropolitan, as well as attorneys' fees. The Acquaah and DeYoung
lawsuits also seek rescission.  The Fuller, Kramer, and Suprina
lawsuits also seek rescission and money damages.

On July 28, 2011, the court entered an order consolidating all six
actions (the "Consolidated Action") arising from the Metropolitan
Health/Continucare proposed transaction, appointed Fuller as Lead
Plaintiff and the law firm of Levi & Korinsky LLP as Plaintiff's
Lead Counsel and Julie Vinale, Esq. as Liaison Counsel.  Following
the consolidation and Lead Plaintiff/Lead Counsel orders the
parties engaged in limited expedited discovery.

The parties engaged in arm's-length negotiations, which resulted
in the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") on
August 12, 2011, with Plaintiff's Lead Counsel regarding the
settlement of the Consolidated Action.  In connection with the
settlement, Continucare agreed to make certain additional
disclosures to its shareholders, which are contained in a Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on August 12, 2011.  Subject to the completion
of certain confirmatory discovery by Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, the
MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement.  The confirmatory discovery has been completed and the
parties are in the process of drafting a stipulation of
settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including consummation of the Merger and court
approval following notice to Continucare's shareholders.  In the
event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a
hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement which, if
finally approved by the court, will resolve and dismiss with
prejudice all of the claims that were or could have been brought
in the Consolidated Action, including all claims relating to the
Merger transaction, the Merger agreement, and any disclosure made
in connection therewith.  In addition, the parties contemplate
that Plaintiff's Lead Counsel will petition the court for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Continucare or its
successor in an amount not to exceed $350,000.  Defendants have
agreed not to oppose the request.  There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

Continucare, the director defendants, and Metropolitan vigorously
deny all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in
the lawsuits, and specifically deny that supplemental disclosure
was required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or
law.  However, solely to avoid the risk of delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger and the related transactions and to minimize
the expense of defending the lawsuits, Continucare, its directors,
and Metropolitan agreed to the potential settlement.


NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Continues to Defend Appliance Warranty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the first quarter of 2011, three putative class actions were
filed against Northern Illinois Gas Company, doing business as
Nicor Gas Company, and its subsidiary, Nicor Energy Services
Company, and in one case against the Company parent, Nicor Inc.
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.

No further updates were reported in 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.


PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Faces Six Jaguar Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc., is facing six putative
shareholder class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger
with a Jaguar Holdings LLC subsidiary, 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 2, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, or Merger Agreement, with Jaguar Holdings, LLC, or
Parent, and Jaguar Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent, providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the
Company.  As a result, the Company will become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent and the Company's common stock will cease to
be publicly traded.  Parent and Merger Sub were formed by
affiliates of The Carlyle Group and affiliates of Hellman &
Friedman LLC.

In connection with the merger, five putative shareholder class
action lawsuits have been filed in The General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division of New Hanover County, in Wilmington,
North Carolina, seeking damages in unspecified amounts and
injunctive relief.  The first, styled Hilary Coyne v.
Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc., et al., No. 11 CVS 4186
was filed on October 5, 2011, against the Company, each member of
the Company's board of directors, Carlyle Partners V, LP and The
Carlyle Group, LP (collectively "Carlyle"), and Hellman & Friedman
LLC and Hellman & Friedman Capital Partners VII, LP (collectively
"H&F"), asserting that the members of the Company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties and asserting that the
Company, Carlyle and H&F aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.  The second lawsuit, styled The Edward J.
Goodman Life Income Trust et al. v. Pharmaceutical Product
Development, Inc., et al., No. 11 CVS 4252, was filed on
October 10, 2011, against the Company, each member of the
Company's board of directors, Carlyle and H&F asserting that the
members of the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties and asserting that the Company, Carlyle and H&F
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
third, fourth and fifth lawsuits, styled York County Employees'
Retirement Board v. Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc., et
al., No. 11 CVS 4331, Harold Litwin v. Pharmaceutical Product
Development, Inc., et al., No. 11 CVS 4333, and Judah Neiditch v.
Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc., et al., No. 11 CVS 4334,
were each filed on October 17, 2011, against the Company, each
member of the Company's board of directors, Carlyle and H&F,
asserting that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and asserting that the Company,
Carlyle and H&F aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.  Certain of these actions also allege that the
disclosures made in the Company's proxy statement are deficient.
These cases have been designated as Mandatory Complex Business
Cases pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 7A-45.4 and transferred
to the North Carolina Business Court, where each is assigned to
North Carolina Business Court Judge James L. Gale.

On October 11, 2011, another putative shareholder class action
lawsuit relating to the merger was filed against the Company and
its board of directors in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, styled Mark Hendriks v.
Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc., et al., Case 4:11-cv-
00176-BO, and alleging that members of the Company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
transaction.  The lawsuit was amended on October 18, 2011, to seek
a preliminary injunction against the merger, add Carlyle and H&F
as defendants, assert claims against the individual defendants and
the Company for violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, add a claim against the Company,
Carlyle and H&F for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, and raise additional allegations purportedly in
support of the breach of fiduciary duty claims.

The Company says additional similar lawsuits might arise.  The
Company and its board of directors believe these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend them.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit remains pending, according to Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for its
February 2008 public offering of common stock (the Stock
Offering).  An additional purported securities class action
lawsuit containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 20, 2009.  By order of the Court dated
March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action.  On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (formerly Coughlin Stoia) as lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
July 24, 2009.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2009.  On December 21, 2009, the Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with
leave to amend.  Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
complaint on January 27, 2010.  The lawsuit alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and
the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the Company related to the results of the Phase
2a clinical trial of the Company's product candidate fostamatinib
(then known as R788).  The plaintiff sought damages, including
rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the Stock
Offering, an award of their costs and injunctive and/or equitable
relief for purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period between December 13, 2007, and February 9, 2009, including
purchasers in the Stock Offering.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on February 16, 2010.
On August 24, 2010, the Court issued an order granting the
Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with
leave to amend.  On September 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice
informing the Court that it will not amend its complaint and
requested that the Court enter a final judgment.  On October 28,
2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment requesting entry
of such judgment in favor of the defendants.  On November 1, 2010,
judgment was entered dismissing the action.  The plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal on November 15, 2010, appealing the district
court's order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiff filed its opening
brief on February 23, 2011.  The Company filed its opposition
brief on April 8, 2011.  On May 9, 2011, the plaintiff filed its
reply brief.

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

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The Company says this lawsuit
and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent
uncertainties, and the actual costs to be incurred relating to the
lawsuit will depend upon many unknown factors.  The outcome of the
litigation is necessarily uncertain, and the Company could be
forced to expend significant resources in the defense of this
lawsuit, and the Company may not prevail.  Monitoring and
defending against legal actions is time-consuming for the
Company's management and detracts from its ability to fully focus
its internal resources on its business activities.  In addition,
the Company may incur substantial legal fees and costs in
connection with the litigation.  The Company is not currently able
to estimate the possible cost to the Company from this matter, and
the Company cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve this
matter or the possible amount of any damages that the Company may
be required to pay.  The Company has not established any reserves
for any potential liability relating to this lawsuit.  It is
possible that the Company could, in the future, incur judgments or
enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages.  A decision
adverse to the Company's interests on this action could result in
the payment of substantial damages, or possibly fines, and could
have a material adverse effect on its cash flows, results of
operations and financial position . In addition, the uncertainty
of the currently pending litigation could lead to increased
volatility in the Company's stock price.


SAIA INC: Court Refused to Okay Dock Workers Suit Deal in August
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California denied in August 2011 a motion for preliminary approval
of the class action settlement and conditional certification of
the settlement class in the lawsuit commenced on behalf of dock
workers, according to Saia, Inc.'s November 1, 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 lawsuit originally filed in July
2007 in California state court on behalf of California dock
workers alleging various violations of state labor laws.  In
August 2007, the case was removed to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The claims include
the alleged failure of the Company to provide rest and meal breaks
and the alleged failure to reimburse the employees for the cost of
work shoes, among other claims.  In January 2008, the parties
negotiated a conditional class-wide settlement -- under which the
Company would pay $0.8 million to settle these claims.  This pre-
certification settlement was subject to court approval.  In March
2008, the District Court denied preliminary approval and the named
Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  On October 8, 2010, the Court of Appeals vacated
the District Court's decision and remanded the matter to the
District Court for reconsideration of the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On August 22, 2011, the District Court again denied the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class action
and conditional certification of the settlement class.  The
proposed settlement is reflected as a liability of $0.8 million at
September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.


SCHWEITZER-MAUDUIT: Georgia Court Dismissed Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia dismissed with prejudice a class action lawsuit commenced
by the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System
against Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc., and its officers,
the Company disclosed in its November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

On September 30, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia dismissed a lawsuit filed on
March 31, 2010, by the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against Schweitzer-Mauduit International,
Inc., its Chief Executive Officer, Frederic P. Villoutreix, and
its Chief Financial Officer, Peter J. Thompson, for alleged
violations of certain sections and rules of the Securities Act of
1934.  The plaintiffs identified a putative class period covering
August 5, 2009, to February 10, 2010.  The primary allegations of
the lawsuit contended that the defendants misrepresented the
strength of the Company's competitive position in the U.S. and its
ability to withstand European competition, particularly in the
area of lower ignition propensity papers.  Further, the complaint
alleged that the defendants concealed threats to the Company's
relationship with Phillip Morris USA, Inc.  As a consequence of
these alleged misrepresentations or omissions, the plaintiffs
contended that the Company's stock price was artificially inflated
causing the plaintiffs to be damaged in an unspecified amount.
The Company did not record any liability associated with this
matter and incurred no expense other than its defense costs to
conclude this matter.


SILICON IMAGE: "Hayes" Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling holding that an objector lacks
standing to oppose a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit over
Silicon Image, Inc.'s initial public offering is pending,
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.

On December 7, 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants, along with the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering, in a securities class
action lawsuit.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants
participated in a scheme to inflate the price of the Company's
stock in its initial public offering and in the aftermarket
through a series of misstatements and omissions associated with
the offering.  The lawsuit is one of several hundred similar cases
pending in the Southern District of New York that have been
consolidated by the court.  In February 2003, the District Court
issued an order denying a motion to dismiss by all defendants on
common issues of law.  In July 2003, the Company, along with over
300 other issuers named as defendants, agreed to a settlement of
this litigation with plaintiffs.  While the parties' request for
court approval of the settlement was pending, in December 2006 the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
District Court's determination that six focus cases could be
certified as class actions.  In April 2007, the Second Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that
the District Court might certify a more limited class.  At a June
26, 2007 status conference, the Court terminated the proposed
settlement as stipulated among the parties.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on August 14, 2007.  On September 27, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the six focus
cases, which was withdrawn on October 10, 2008.  On November 13,
2007, defendants in the six focus cases filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the district
court denied in March 2008.  Plaintiffs, the issuer defendants
(including the Company), the underwriter defendants, and the
insurance carriers for the defendants, have engaged in mediation
and settlement negotiations.  The parties have reached a
settlement agreement, which was submitted to the District Court
for preliminary approval on April 2, 2009.  As part of this
settlement, the Company's insurance carrier has agreed to assume
the Company's entire payment obligation under the terms of the
settlement.  On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement.  After
a September 10, 2009 hearing, the District Court gave final
approval to the settlement on October 5, 2009.  Several objectors
to the settlement have filed notices of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit from the District
Court's order granting final approval of the settlement.  All but
two of the objectors withdrew their appeals, and Plaintiff moved
to dismiss the remaining appeals, one for violation of the Second
Circuit's rules and one for lack of standing.

On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit granted the motion to dismiss
one objector's appeal for violations of the Court's rules and
remanded the other appeal to the District Court to determine
whether objector Hayes was a class member.  On August 25, 2011,
the District Court issued its decision determining that Hayes was
not a class member.  On September 30, 2011, objector Hayes filed a
notice of appeal from the District Court's decision.

Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, the Company says there can be no guarantee
that it will not be reversed on appeal.  The Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses to these claims.  If the settlement is
not implemented and the litigation continues against the Company,
the Company would continue to defend against this action
vigorously.  In light of the uncertainty of the appellate process,
and any subsequent proceedings in the trial court in the event the
settlement is reversed on appeal, the Company is unable to
determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome against them
and is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any.


SILICON LABORATORIES: Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling holding that a certain objector
lacks standing to object to a settlement resolving a consolidated
lawsuit over Silicon Laboratories Inc.'s initial public offering
is pending, according to the Company's October 31, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 1, 2011.

On December 6, 2001, a class action complaint for violations of
U.S. federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, four officers individually and the three investment
banking firms who served as representatives of the underwriters in
connection with the Company's initial public offering of common
stock.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering did not disclose that (1) the underwriters
solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors, and (2) the underwriters had
agreed to allocate shares of the offering in exchange for a
commitment from the customers to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices.  The Complaint
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately 300
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  A
court order dated October 9, 2002, dismissed without prejudice the
four officers of the Company who had been named individually.  On
December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit vacated a decision by the
District Court granting class certification in six of the
coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as test, or "focus"
cases.  The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which do not
include the Company.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied
a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that
the plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify more narrow
classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in the case against the Company, reached a settlement.
The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases
will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers,
including the Company.  On October 5, 2009, the Court granted
final approval of the settlement.  Judgment was entered on January
10, 2010.  The settlement approval was appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was
dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the District Court
to determine if the appellant is a class member with standing to
appeal.  The District Court ruled that the appellant is not a
class member with standing to appeal.  The appellant has filed
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a
notice of appeal of the District Court opinion that he is not a
class member.

As the litigation process is inherently uncertain, the Company
says it is unable to predict the outcome of the matter if the
settlement does not survive appeal.  While the Company does
maintain liability insurance, it could incur losses that are not
covered by its liability insurance or that exceed the limits of
its liability insurance.  Such losses could have a material impact
on the Company's business and its results of operations or
financial position.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeal From Arbitration Award Ruling Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claimants in a consolidated arbitration took an appeal from a
court order granting Sonic Automotive, Inc.'s petition to vacate
an arbitration award on class certification, 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.

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that
purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs
and made allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.  One of these private civil actions was filed on
November 15, 2004, in South Carolina state court, York County
Court of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of
Sonic's South Carolina subsidiaries.  The plaintiffs in that
lawsuit were Misty J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and
Joseph Lee Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class.  The group of
plaintiffs' attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South
Carolina lawsuit also filed another private civil class action
lawsuit against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and three of its
subsidiaries on February 14, 2005, in state court in North
Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court, which similarly sought
certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs and alleged
that certain products sold in the finance and insurance
departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal
manner.  The plaintiffs in this North Carolina lawsuit were Robert
Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappeletti and Kathy Cappeletti, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class.  The South Carolina state court
action and the North Carolina state court action have since been
consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration
before the American Arbitration Association.  On November 12,
2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed a Motion for
Class Certification as a national class action including all of
the states in which Sonic operates dealerships.  Claimants are
seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this
class of customers.  The parties have briefed and argued the issue
of class certification.

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on
Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all
customers who, on or after November 15, 2000, purchased or leased
from a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of
the transaction, but not including customers who purchased or
leased such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida.  The
Partial Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision
on the merits of the action.  The merits of Claimants' assertions
and potential damages will still have to be proven through the
remainder of the arbitration.  The Arbitrator stayed the
Arbitration for thirty days to allow either party to petition a
court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award.
Sonic will seek review of the class certification ruling by a
court of competent jurisdiction and will continue to press its
argument that this action is not suitable for a class-based
arbitration.  On July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this
consolidated arbitration filed a Motion to Confirm the
Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on Class Certification in state
court in North Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court.  On August
17, 2010, Sonic filed to remove this North Carolina state court
action to federal court, and simultaneously filed a Petition to
Vacate the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on Class
Certification, with both filings made in the United Stated
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

On August 12, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina issued an Order granting
Sonic's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award on Class
Certification and denied Claimant's Motion to Dismiss the same.
Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals on September 12, 2011.  The federal
court's stay of the arbitration proceeding remains in force
pending a ruling on Claimants' motion to lift the stay, which
motion Sonic has opposed.

Sonic says it intends to continue its vigorous defense of this
arbitration and to assert all available defenses.  However, an
adverse resolution of this arbitration could result in the payment
of significant costs and damages, which could have a material
adverse effect on Sonic's future results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.  Sonic is currently unable to estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss, or a range of reasonably
possible loss in excess of amount accrued, for this litigation
matter.


SUFFOLK BANCORP: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on Oct. 25 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Suffolk
Bancorp common stock who purchased shares between March 12, 2010
and August 10, 2011, inclusive.  The lawsuit alleges that: (i)
that the Company's financial results were artificially inflated
due to the material understatement of Suffolk's loan loss
reserves; (ii) that the Company's financial results were
artificially inflated due to a failure to recognize its impaired
assets; (iii) that the Company's internal and disclosure controls
were materially deficient; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing,
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the Company, its prospects and growth.

If you purchased Suffolk common stock during the Class Period, you
have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead
plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any
such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later
than December 19, 2011.  Any member of the purported 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.  If you are a Suffolk investor and would like to discuss a
potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests
with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com
          Toll-Free Telephone: (888) 508-6832

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


THEGLOBE COM INC: Further Appeal in IPO Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court decision concluding that an appellant to a
consolidated class action settlement had no standing to object to
the settlement is pending, according to theglobe.com, inc.'s
November 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On and after August 3, 2001, six putative shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"),
and several investment banks that were the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering.  The
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint,
which is now the operative complaint, was filed in the Southern
District of New York on April 19, 2002.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the stock of the Company during the period from
November 12, 1998, through December 6, 2000.  The purported class
action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act") and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act").
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering and its
secondary offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectuses for
the Company's initial public offering and its secondary offering
were false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.  On October 9, 2002, the Court
dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without
prejudice.  This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a)
control person claims without prejudice.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the coordinated cases, including the Company's, reached
a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in the
coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including theglobe.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.  The settlement approval
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  One appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was
remanded to the district court to determine if the appellant is a
class member with standing to appeal.  The District Court ruled
that the appellant lacks standing to appeal.  The appellant has
filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit a notice of appeal of the District Court opinion that he
is not a class member.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.
If the settlement does not survive appeal and the Company is found
liable, the Company is unable to estimate or predict the potential
damages that might be awarded, whether such damages would be
greater than the Company's insurance coverage, and whether such
damages would have a material impact on its results of operations
or financial condition in any future period.


TREX CO: Continues to Face Suits Over Defective Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc., continues to face class action lawsuits over
defective products, 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.

On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms (the "Lieff Cabraser
Group") on behalf of Eric Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly
situated plaintiffs.  These plaintiffs generally allege certain
defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed
to provide adequate remedies for defective products.  On February
13, 2009, the Company removed this case to the United States
District Court, Northern District of California.  On January 21,
2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the
Company in the United States District Court, Western District of
Washington by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (the
"Hagens Berman Firm") on behalf of Mark Okano and similarly
situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain product defects in
the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide
adequate remedies for defective products.  This case was
transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as a
related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on
March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.  On
April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm
dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original
complaint.  In its Final Order approving the surface flaking
settlement, the District Court consolidated the two pending
actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens
Berman Firm as lead counsel in this case.  The Company believes
that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend
this lawsuit.

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP
("Cohen & Malad") on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly
situated plaintiffs, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class
action was commenced against the Company in the Marion
Circuit/Superior Court of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of
Ellen Kopetsky and similarly situated plaintiffs.  On June 28,
2011, the Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States
District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

On August 11, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against
the Company in the 50th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa,
Michigan, on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly
situated plaintiffs.  On August 26, 2011, the Company removed the
Peffers case to the United States District Court, Western District
of Michigan.  The plaintiffs in these purported class actions
generally allege certain defects in the Company's products and
alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will
vigorously defend these lawsuits.


UNION BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $35 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Union Bank,
part of Japan's Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., agreed to pay
$35 million to settle the first class-action lawsuit arising from
nationwide litigation accusing lenders of charging excessive
overdraft fees.

The litigation consolidates lawsuits filed against more than two
dozen U.S., Canadian and European lenders such as JPMorgan Chase &
Co, Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co.

It accuses lenders of routinely processing transactions from
largest to smallest rather than in chronological order.  This can
cause account balances to fall more quickly, and overdraft fees,
typically $25 or $35, to pile up faster.

A notice of the Union Bank settlement was filed on Nov. 2 with the
U.S. District Court in Miami.  The settlement requires approval by
U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King, who oversees the
litigation.

Judge King granted class certification in the Union Bank case in
July.  That meant that customers, estimated in the tens of
thousands, could sue the San Francisco-based bank as a group.

Union Bank spokesman Daniel Weidman declined to comment.

Last year, the Federal Reserve barred banks from charging
overdraft fees on electronic and debit card transactions without
advance customer approval.

Critics have said the fees disproportionately burden customers
with lower incomes or low account balances.

Judge King scheduled a Nov. 7 hearing to consider final approval
of Bank of America Corp's $410 million settlement of similar
charges in a case involving roughly 1 million customers.

Union Bank is part of UnionBanCal, which ended September with $84
billion of assets.  The bank operates more than 400 branches in
California, Oregon, Washington and Texas.

The case is In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 09-md-02036.

For plaintiffs: Various attorneys, including Bruce Rogow of Bruce
S. Rogow, Barry Himmelstein of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
Edward Webb of Webb Law Group, and Arlene Stevens of Trief & Olk.

For Union Bank: Alan Greeg of Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh
Mirabito & Christensen.


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Bid to Toss Class Action Over Royalties Fails
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge rejected Universal Music Group's attempt to toss a class
action over ringtone royalties allegedly owed to musicians led by
the late "Superfreak" star Rick James and heavy metal star Rob
Zombie.

Mr. James' estate sued UMG Recordings on behalf of other similarly
situated recording artists and music producers.

The complaint in California's Northern District Court claims
Universal improperly characterized the agreements to sell
ringtones as "resale" agreements, rather than license agreements.

The resale agreements "entitle the recording artists and music
producers to a much smaller percentage of the income derived
therefrom than does the income derived from a license agreement,"
the complaint says.

Universal moved to dismiss, claiming the plaintiffs are neither
consumers nor competitors, and thus could not state a claim for
unfair competition.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston disagreed.

"Plaintiffs have alleged more than just a breach of contract
because the complaints allege that UMG engaged in a broad scheme
to underpay numerous royalty participants, including formulating
'an opaque and artificial method for accounting for and paying its
royalty participants for income derived from such licenses,'"
Judge Illston wrote.

In the same action, San Francisco rock band The Tubes filed a
motion to intervene, alleging its claims are parallel to those of
Rick James.

Judge Illston agreed with UMG that intervention is not
appropriate, and wrote that the plaintiffs can add The Tubes as
class representatives in an amended complaint.

The order also applies to a related lawsuit led by Rob Zombie,
whose legal name is Robert Cummings.  Their complaints rely on 9th
Circuit precedent that found Universal Music Group's Aftermath
Records had underpaid on music download royalties to Eminem's
producers, a decision effectively affirmed by the Supreme Court,
which refused to let the label appeal.


VENOCO INC: Faces Five Class Suits Over Marquez Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------
Venoco, Inc. is facing five class action lawsuits in connection
with the proposal of Timothy Marquez to acquire all of the Company
shares he does not beneficially own, 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 August 26, 2011, Timothy Marquez, the chairman and chief
executive officer of the Company, submitted a nonbinding proposal
to the board of directors of the Company to acquire all of the
shares of the Company he does not beneficially own for $12.50 per
share in cash (the "Marquez Proposal").  In August and September
of 2011, four lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Company and each of its directors by
shareholders alleging that the Company and directors had breached
their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in connection with the
Marquez Proposal. A fifth lawsuit was filed in September 2011,
also in the Delaware Court of Chancery, naming only Mr. Marquez as
a defendant.  Each action seeks certification as a class action.
In the complaints, the plaintiffs challenge the Marquez Proposal
and allege, among other things, that the consideration to be paid
pursuant to such proposal is inadequate.  The complaints seek,
among other relief, to enjoin defendants from consummating the
Marquez Proposal and to direct defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best
interests of the shareholders.  The Company has reviewed the
allegations contained in the complaints and believes they are
without merit.  The Company intends to defend the litigation
vigorously.  As such, based on the information known to date, the
Company does not believe that it is probable that a material
judgment against the Company will result.  Therefore, no liability
has been accrued.


VERIZON: Settles Class Action Over "Mobile Web" Buttons
-------------------------------------------------------
Ben Popken, writing for Consumerist, reports that if Verizon
"erroneously" charged you for accidentally pressing the "Get it
Now" or "Mobile Web" buttons on your phone, you can file for a
refund, thanks to a recent class action settlement.

The lawsuit is related to the Verizon insider confession New York
Times gadget columnist David Pogue published in 2009 that said the
wireless company had rigged their phones to grab $2 a time
everytime someone accidentally hit the "Get It Now" or "Mobile
Web" buttons on their phone.  It was a fee trap for their
customers, the insider alleged.

At the time of the controversy, Verizon wrote in a letter to the
FCC (PDF) that, ". . . in order to protect customers from minimal,
accidental usage charges, Verizon Wireless does not charge users
when the browser is launched, and opens to the Verizon Wireless
Mobile Web homepage.  If the browsing session ends there without
the customer navigating to another webpage, the customer will not
incur charges for Mobile Web browsing."  However, Mr. Pogue's
readers wrote him to say that's exactly what happened.  That
complaint was also among those in the class action lawsuit.  Some
customers also said they got data charges even when they didn't
access the internet on their phones.

Verizon Wireless denies all wrongdoing and has agreed to settle to
end the litigation.

You're eligible to request a refund for any mistakenly billed
charges that you haven't already gotten a refund for if you are or
were a Verizon Wireless customer who paid pay-as-you-go data
charges between November 2007 and January 31st 2011.

You can submit an online claim form here in order to get your
monies.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $314-Mil. Expense for Embraco Matters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation disclosed in its November 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011, that as of September 30, it has
incurred approximately $314 million in charges due to the Embraco
antitrust matters.

Government authorities in various jurisdictions are conducting
antitrust investigations of the global compressor industry,
including the Company's compressor business headquartered in
Brazil ("Embraco").  In 2010, Embraco sales represented
approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales.

In February 2009, competition authorities in Brazil, the United
States and Europe began to seek documents from the Company in
connection with their investigations.  A grand jury subpoena from
the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") requested
documents for the time period from 2003 to 2009.  Competition
authorities in other jurisdictions have sought similar
information.

In September 2009, the Brazilian competition commission (CADE)
agreed to terminate the administrative investigation of the
Company's compressor business.  Under the terms of the settlement
agreement, Whirlpool affiliates and certain executives located in
Brazil acknowledged a violation of Brazilian antitrust law in the
Brazilian compressor market by some Embraco employees.  The
settlement agreement provides for the affiliates to make
contributions totaling 100 million Brazilian reais to a Brazilian
government fund.  The contributions translated to approximately
$56 million, all of which was recorded within interest and sundry
income (expense) in 2009.  The payments are to be made in twelve
semiannual installments of approximately 8 million Brazilian reais
through 2015.  As of September 30, 2011, approximately $21 million
had been paid.

In September 2010, the DOJ and Embraco entered into a plea
agreement related to the DOJ's investigation which was approved by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in December 2010.  Under the plea agreement, the DOJ
recognized Embraco's substantial assistance in the investigation
and agreed not to bring further charges against Embraco or any
related entities for any conspiracy involving compressor pricing
during the investigation period.  Pursuant to the plea agreement,
Embraco (1) acknowledged that it violated United States antitrust
law with respect to the sale of certain compressors from October
2004 through December 2007 and (2) agreed to pay a fine totaling
$91.8 million to the United States government.  The full amount of
the fine was recorded within interest and sundry income (expense)
in the third quarter of 2010.  Embraco made the first payment of
$16.8 million in January 2011.  The five remaining annual payments
of $15.0 million plus interest will be made during each fourth
quarter through 2015.

Since the government investigations became public in February
2009, the Company has been named as a defendant in related
antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in
connection with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to 2009.
Several other compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the
government investigations have also been named as defendants in
the litigation.  United States federal lawsuits instituted on
behalf of purported purchasers and containing class action
allegations have been combined in one proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The
Company continues to cooperate with ongoing government
investigations in other jurisdictions, to defend the related
antitrust lawsuits and to take other actions to minimize the
Company's potential exposure.

The Company says the final outcome and impact of these matters,
and related claims and investigations that may be brought in the
future are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted.
The Company establishes accruals only for those matters where the
Company determines that a loss is probable and the amount of loss
can be reasonably estimated, which include the investigation by
the European Union and certain other matters.  As of
September 30, 2011, the Company has incurred, in the aggregate,
charges of approximately $314 million due to the Embraco antitrust
matters, including defense costs and other expenses.  These
charges have been recorded within interest and sundry income
(expense) when incurred.  At September 30, 2011, $209 million
remains accrued.  While it is currently not possible to reasonably
estimate the aggregate amount of costs which the Company may incur
in connection with these matters, such costs could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity, or
results of operations.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Appeal in Gas Pricing Suits Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from the order granting The Williams Companies,
Inc.'s joint motions for summary judgment in the lawsuits relating
to gas price indices remains pending in Nevada, according to the
Company's October 31, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Civil lawsuits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the Company and others, in
each case seeking an unspecified amount of damages.  The Company
is currently a defendant in class action litigation and other
litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri and Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of natural gas in those states.  These cases were
transferred to the federal court in Nevada.  In 2008, the court
granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the
Company and most of the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack
of standing.  On January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs'
request for reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered
judgment in the Company's favor.  The Company expects that the
Colorado plaintiffs will appeal now that the court's order became
final on July 18, 2011.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted the Company's joint motions for summary judgment to
preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal
Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues.  The court also
denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.  On
July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with
the Nevada district court.  Because of the uncertainty around
these current pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient
description of the purported classes and other related matters,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential
exposures at this time.  However, it is reasonably possible that
the ultimate resolution of these items could result in future
charges that may be material to the Company's results of
operations.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Defends Royalty Payments Suit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action lawsuit in District Court, Garfield
County Colorado, alleging The Williams Companies, Inc., improperly
calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for the
proceeds that the Company received from the sale of natural gas
and extracted products, improperly charged certain expenses and
failed to refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax
obligations. Plaintiffs sought to certify as a class of royalty
interest owners, recover underpayment of royalties and obtain
corrected payments resulting from calculation errors.  The Company
entered into a final partial settlement agreement.  The partial
settlement agreement defined the class members for class
certification, reserved two claims for court resolution, resolved
all other class claims relating to past calculation of royalty and
overriding royalty payments, and established certain rules to
govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments.  This
settlement resolved all claims relating to past withholding for ad
valorem tax payments and established a procedure for refunds of
any such excess withholding in the future.  The first reserved
claim is whether the Company is entitled to deduct in its
calculation of royalty payments a portion of the costs the Company
incurs beyond the tailgates of the treating or processing plants
for mainline pipeline transportation.  The Company received a
favorable ruling on its motion for summary judgment on the first
reserved claim.  Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and the Colorado
Court of Appeals found in the Company's favor in April 2011.

In June 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
Colorado Supreme Court.  The Company anticipates that Court will
issue a decision on whether to grant further review later in 2011
or early in 2012.  The second reserved claim relates to whether
the Company is required to have proportionately increased the
value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline
transmission lines and, if required, whether the Company did so
and are thus entitled to deduct a proportionate share of
transportation costs in calculating royalty payments.  The Company
anticipates trial on the second reserved claim following
resolution of the first reserved claim.

The Company believes its royalty calculations have been properly
determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and Colorado law.  At this time, the plaintiffs have
not provided the Company a sufficient framework to calculate an
estimated range of exposure related to their claims.  However, it
is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of this item
could result in a future charge that may be material to the
Company's results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 31,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: FRCA Suit Settlement Pending in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2009, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. was served with a
putative class action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
alleging company-wide violations of the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act related to the Company's background check
procedures.  The Company denied all allegations raised in the
lawsuit, answered the complaint and filed motions asserting
various defenses to the claims.  On October 21, 2010, the parties
reached a mutually agreed upon resolution of the case.  The
Company says the resolution of this claim will not result in a
material adverse impact on its financial condition or results of
operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 31,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 21, 2011.


WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: "Downes" Parties Explore Settlement Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Electric Power Company and other parties to the class
action lawsuit commenced by Alan M. Downes have engaged in
mediation and are exploring settlement opportunities, 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.

In June 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Alan M. Downes, a former
employee, against The Wisconsin Energy Corporation Retirement
Account 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 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(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
Corporation 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 does not believe that the resolution of this matter will
cost more than $20 million in 2011.


XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, 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.

A consolidated securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  Defendants are the Company, Barry Romeril, Paul
Allaire and G. Richard Thoman.  The consolidated action is a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Xerox
Corporation common stock during the period October 22, 1998,
through October 7, 1999, inclusive ("Class Period") and who
suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations or omissions by
Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs (the "Class").  The Class
alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("1934 Act"), and SEC
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the Company's operations and revenues.  The complaint further
alleges that the alleged scheme: (i) deceived the investing public
regarding the economic capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth,
operations and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock;
(ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held common
stock of the Company while in possession of materially adverse,
non-public information; and (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs
and the other members of the purported class to purchase common
stock of the Company at inflated prices.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and
the other members of the purported class against all defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.  In 2001, the
Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of the
complaint. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling.

In February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of
Local Union No. 164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius ("Agius") and
Georgia Stanley to appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs.  In
July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court holds
a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the Court
will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion. After that
conference and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff and proposed
class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a second
renewed motion for class certification.  In April 2008, defendants
filed their response and motion to disqualify Milberg LLP as a
lead counsel.  On September 30, 2008, the Court entered an order
certifying the class and denying the appointment of Milberg LLP as
class counsel.  Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied
defendants' motion to disqualify Milberg LLP.  On November 6,
2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
Briefing with respect to the motion is complete.  The Court has
not yet rendered a decision.  The parties also filed motions to
exclude the testimony of certain expert witnesses.  On April 22,
2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions to exclude the
testimony of two of defendants' expert witnesses.  On Sept. 30,
2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony
of another of defendants' expert witnesses.  The Court also
granted defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of one of
plaintiffs' expert witnesses, and granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs'
two remaining expert witnesses.

The individual defendants and the Company deny any wrongdoing and
are vigorously defending the action.  At this time, the Company
says it does not believe it is reasonably possible that the
Company will incur additional material losses in excess of the
amount it has already accrued for this matter.  In the course of
litigation, the Company periodically engages in discussions with
plaintiffs' counsel for possible resolution of this matter.
Should developments cause a change in the Company's determination
as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse
judgment or a settlement for a significant amount, there could be
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and financial position in the period in which such
change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs.

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

                           *********

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  * * *