CAR_Public/111114.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 14, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 225

                             Headlines

A.C. MOORE: Signs MOU to Resolve Acquisition-Related Matters
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in California Still Pending
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Defective Odyssey Torque Converters
BP AMERICA: 500 Fishermen File Suit Over VoO Program
CABOT OIL: Can Access Medical Records in Penn. Class Action

CALLERID4U: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Telephone Dialers
CARTER'S INC: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
COMPLETE PRODUCTION: Faces Class Suits Over Proposed SES Merger
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Sued in Oklahoma Over Underpaid Royalties
COVENTRY HEALTH: $150-Mil. Released to Deal Administrator in Aug.

COVENTRY HEALTH: Awaits Decision in Consolidated ERISA Suit
COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland
DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 2nd Securities Class Suit in California
DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 3rd Securities Class Suit in California
DIAMOND FOODS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action

DIAMOND FOODS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suits on Cancellation Fees
DRIL-QUIP INC: "Deepwater Horizon" Suits Trial to Start Feb. 2012
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit in Calif.
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Filed Response Brief in "Oughtred" Suit Appeal

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Freudenberg" Suit in New York
EURONET WORLDWIDE: Wage and Hour Class Suit vs. Unit Dismissed
FORTINET INC: Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in California
FTQ: Construction Firms File Class Action Over Walkout
GEEKNET INC: Appeal From Settlement Order in IPO Suit Pending

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA: TIB to File Class Action This Week
HEALTHSPRING INC: Being Sold to Cigna for Too Little, Suit Says
HORIZON LINES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Alaska Tradelane
HORIZON LINES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Affirmed in August
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Appeal in Securities MDL Remains Pending

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery in Gainesville Plant Suit Next Year
MANNKIND CORP: Shareholder Suit Dismissal Hearing Set for Nov. 14
MELA SCIENCES: Withdraws Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued Over Poorly Run Recording System

NATIONAL UNION: Sued Over Non-Payment of Class Action Settlement
NEWS CORP: Intermix to Submit New Allocation Plan in "Brown" Suit
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Has Not Heard From Stockholder Since June
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Files Opposition to Class Certification Motion
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court to Consider MDL Request on Dec. 1

RED ROBIN: Continues to Defend "McConnell" Wage & Hour Class Suit
RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
SLM CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Amended Deal in "Arthur" Suit
SOBER COLLEGE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
SPIRIT AERO: Appeal in Age Discrimination Suit in Kansas Pending

SPIRIT AERO: Discovery in "Harkness" Suit Still Ongoing
STAPLES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Get $11.5MM Fees in Overtime Suit
SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Dismissed
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Continues to Defend "Crenshaw" Suit in Mass.
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Contract Breach Claim

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Unit Continues to Defend Vehicle Owner Suits
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Decertified Wage and Hour Suit Pending
UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Final Approval of "Barber" Suit Settlement
UNITED PARCEL: Hearing on Bid to Certify Quebec Case in Feb. 2012
UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Suit Remains Pending in New York

USEC INC: Faces Class Suit Over Severance Benefits Payments
WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend ACTONEL Suits in Canada
WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend FLSA Suit in Illinois
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Remains Pending
WINDSTREAM CORP: Defends Class Suit Over Gross Receipts Surcharge




                          *********

A.C. MOORE: Signs MOU to Resolve Acquisition-Related Matters
------------------------------------------------------------
A.C. Moore Arts & Crafts, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve lawsuits and demands relating to the
proposed acquisition by Nicole Crafts LLC, according to the
Company's November 4, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 3, 2011, A.C. Moore Arts & Crafts, Inc. ("A.C. Moore"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended as of
October 17, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), with Nicole Crafts LLC
("Parent") and Sbar's Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").  Parent and Merger Sub are
affiliates of Sbar's, Inc. ("Sbar's"), a vendor of A.C. Moore.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the terms and subject to
the conditions thereof, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer (the
"Offer") on October 18, 2011, to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock, no par value, of A.C. Moore at purchase
price of $1.60 per share net to the holders thereof in cash,
without interest, subject to applicable withholding taxes.  As
soon as practicable after the consummation of the Offer and
subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into
A.C. Moore (the "Merger" and, together with the Offer, the
"Transactions") with A.C. Moore continuing as the surviving
corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.  The
Merger Agreement also provides that the Merger may be consummated
regardless of whether the Offer is completed, but if the Offer is
not completed, the Merger will only be able to be consummated
after the shareholders of A.C. Moore have adopted the Merger
Agreement at a meeting of shareholders.

Subsequent to A.C. Moore's announcement of the Merger Agreement,
the board of directors of A.C. Moore (the "Board") received a
demand letter and three lawsuits have been commenced in connection
with the Transactions.

                          Demand Letter

On October 6, 2011, the Board received a letter (the "Demand
Letter") from David Raul ("Raul"), a purported shareholder of A.C.
Moore.  Raul alleged that the members of the Board had breached
their fiduciary duties to A.C. Moore and its shareholders in
connection with the Transactions.  Raul demanded that the Board
remedy the foregoing breaches of fiduciary duties.  On October 12,
2011, the Board appointed a special committee to consider the
allegations set forth in the demand letter.  On October 26, 2011,
Raul filed a putative class and derivative action lawsuit.

                      Shareholder Lawsuits

On October 11, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Provoncha v. A.C. Moore Arts & Crafts, Inc., et al., Docket No. C
147-11, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, Camden County (the "Provoncha Action").  On October 26,
2011, Raul filed a putative class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit captioned Raul v. Joyce, et. al., Case ID
111003505, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
(the "Raul Action").  On October 31, 2011, a putative shareholder
derivative lawsuit captioned Heffernan v. Joyce, et al., Docket
Number C 157-11, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Camden County (the "Heffernan Action" and,
together with the Provoncha Action and the Raul Action, the
"Actions").  The complaints for the Actions name as defendants the
members of the Board, Parent and Merger Sub.  The Provoncha Action
also names A.C. Moore as a defendant and the Raul and Heffernan
Actions name A.C. Moore as a nominal defendant, as these claims
were brought derivatively on behalf of A.C. Moore.

The complaints for the Actions generally allege, among other
things, claims for breaches of fiduciary duties against the Board
in connection with the Transactions and that Parent and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
complaints also allege that the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9, as amended (the "Schedule 14D-9"),
filed by A.C. Moore with the SEC in connection with the Offer
contains materially misleading statements and/or omits material
information.  The complaints generally seek, among other things,
injunctive relief, including enjoining the Board, and anyone
acting in concert with them, from proceeding with the Transactions
and an award of attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, in
addition to other relief.  A.C. Moore believes the plaintiffs'
allegations lack merit.

                   Memorandum of Understanding

On November 3, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation and without admitting the
validity of any allegations made in the Demand Letter or the
Actions, or any liability with respect thereto or that any further
supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule,
statute, regulation or law, the parties to the Actions and the
Demand Letter signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
regarding a proposed settlement of the Actions and the Demand
Letter.  In connection with the MOU, A.C. Moore has agreed to
amend the Schedule 14D-9 to include certain supplemental
disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures"), which A.C. Moore has
included in an amendment to the Schedule 14D-9 filed on November
4, 2011.  The proposed settlement is contingent upon, among other
items, the execution of a formal stipulation of settlement,
confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs, court approval of the
settlement in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and
consummation of the Transactions as set forth in the Merger
Agreement.  Subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth in
the MOU, the stipulation of settlement will provide that, among
other things, the defendants will be released by the plaintiffs,
and all members of any relevant class of A.C. Moore shareholders,
from all claims arising out of the Transactions, the Actions and
the Demand Letter, upon which occurrence the plaintiffs in the New
Jersey Actions will take all necessary steps to terminate those
Actions with prejudice.  The MOU further provides that A.C. Moore,
its successor and/or its insurer will pay to the plaintiffs'
counsel an amount not more than $250,000 as is approved by court
order, in the aggregate, for their services and disbursements in
the Actions and the Demand Letter.

In the event the settlement is not approved or such conditions are
not satisfied, A.C. Moore says it intends to continue to contest
the Actions and the Demand Letter vigorously; however, there can
be no assurance that A.C. Moore will be successful in its defense.
The Company notes that the summary of the MOU does not purport to
be complete, is qualified in its entirety by reference to the MOU,
which is included as Exhibit (a)(21) to the Schedule 14D-9 and is
incorporated by reference.


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in California Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported
securities class action complaint filed in California, according
to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5,
2010 against the Company and certain of its directors and
executives alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  On February 17,
2011, an amended complaint was filed against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers adding alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.  HealthpointCapital, Jefferies &
Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and Company, Inc., and
Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants in this action.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, about
the Company's business, financial condition, operations and
prospects, particularly relating to the Scient'x transaction and
the Company's financial guidance following the closing of the
acquisition.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief.  The Company
believes the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend itself against this complaint; however no assurances can be
given as to the timing or outcome of this lawsuit.


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Defective Odyssey Torque Converters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Honda 2005-2009 Odysseys have defective torque converters
that make the cars "judder" on a grade, and hesitate and then
"violently" accelerate.

A copy of the Complaint in Heintz v. American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-09311 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/09/Honda.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene Williams, Esq.
          David M. Medby, Esq.
          Sue J. Kim, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: gwillians@initiativelegal.com
                  dmedby@initiativelegal.com


BP AMERICA: 500 Fishermen File Suit Over VoO Program
----------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that five
hundred more fishermen say BP owes them money for chartering their
boats for its Vessels of Opportunity oil-spill cleanup, and say BP
responded to their requests for payment "with a campaign of deceit
designed to manipulate the fishermen and deprive them of their
rights."  The complaint comes the week after 71 fishermen in
Mobile claimed BP used the program as a public relations gimmick
and "intended to underpay VoO participants."

In the new federal complaint, 500 fishermen say, "in many
instances, defendants have made it impractical for the fishermen
to use their boats for any purpose other than the VoO program by
failing to decontaminate the boats.  As a result, defendants have
forced fishermen to keep their boats idle at the docks and
available for BP's use at any time.  Yet defendants refuse to pay
for this exercise of control over the fishermen's boats.

"BP has responded to the fishermen's claims for compensation with
a campaign of deceit designed to manipulate the fishermen and
deprive them of their rights.  Among other things, BP has
attempted to induce the fishermen to substitute contracts long
after the fact that change the fishermen's rights under the
original contract.  BP has also misled Vietnamese-speaking
fishermen while failing to provide key legal documents in
Vietnamese, including the contract itself."

The plaintiffs are all commercial fishermen whose boats are used
for shrimping, crabbing, and harvesting oysters.  Many are
Vietnamese immigrants with limited English who cannot read legal
documents in English.

"In a purported attempt to combat the effects of the spill, BP
enlisted local fishing vessels in the VoO program to identify
locations of oil slicks, skim oil from the Gulf, tend and maintain
boom, collect sheen and light oil in shallow waters, find and
remove tar balls from the water, and transport supplies, personnel
and wildlife.

"BP began executing written contracts with fishermen just days
after the Deepwater Horizon explosion.  The contracts were drafted
by BP, and the terms were nonnegotiable for any vessel owner
seeking to participate in the VoO program.  As a result, every
fisherman who participated in the VoO program in 2010 was subject
to the same contract and contractual language," the fishermen say.

"According to the unequivocal terms of the MVCA [Master Vessel
Charter Agreement], the charter term does not terminate until two
events have occurred: 1) BP has issued an 'off-hire dispatch
notification' to the vessel owner; and 2) the vessel has received
'final decontamination.' . . .

"This contractual term recognizes the reality that a vessel cannot
practicably be used for any other purpose until decontamination,
and, in so defining the charter term, BP provided a contractual
assurance to the fishermen that BP would compensate vessel owners
until decontamination is final.

"Additionally, BP routinely and systematically informed fishermen
who signed the MVCA that their boats must remain at the docks and
ready for activation or a return to active participation.  BP
instructed fishermen that, as a condition for participation in the
program, they should not use their boats for fishing and should be
available for immediate activation.  Relying on this instruction,
many fishermen refrained from using their boats for any other
economically useful purpose."

The fishermen add: "Decontamination is a critical component of the
VoO program.  Boats that have participated in an oil spill
response would bear substantial risks of severe regulatory and
marketplace consequences by fishing without having been
decontaminated.  Indeed, boats caught fishing without having been
decontaminated may be subject to fines, forfeitures, and penalties
that can be devastating to fishermen's livelihoods.  Oil
contamination may also result in processors refusing to purchase
shrimp that a fisherman has invested significant time and money to
catch.  . . .

"Unfortunately, BP's decontamination program was a fiasco.  BP did
not commission nearly enough resources to ensure that boats could
be decontaminated in a timely manner.  BP's failure to
decontaminate boats resulted in an enormous backlog of
contaminated boats, leaving hundreds of vessels moored in a
contaminated condition at the docks after returning from active
participation in VoO.

"Many vessel owners spent weeks and months attempting to have BP
decontaminate their boats.  BP has failed to decontaminate some
vessels to this day.  In the meantime, BP enjoys an exclusive and
absolute lease to these vessels, and the vessel owners cannot use
the boats for any other purpose."

Not only that, the fishermen say, but BP put tracking devices on
the contaminated boats to track their whereabouts.

"Plaintiff Justin Lassabe has two vessels that have never been
decontaminated.  While BP has never decontaminated his vessels, it
did place a device on both of his boats that record each time they
leave the dock.  Mr. Lassabe has tried repeatedly to contact BP to
arrange for decontamination, but BP will not return his calls.
The devices remain on Mr. Lassabe's boats, and he continues to be
unable to use them to earn a living by fishing.  BP has placed
similar devices on other VoO boats," the complaint states.

"Under the MVCA, defendants must pay the fishermen the daily rate
specified in the MVCA until the boats have received the Notice of
Non-renewal and have been subject to final decontamination.  In
every case, defendants have breached the MVCA by failing to do so.
. . .

"Rather than pay the promised amounts, BP has hatched various
schemes to manipulate the fishermen.  For example, by early this
year, BP had significantly reduced the vessels actively in the VoO
program.  At the same time, BP was in the process of denying
claims for payment of the daily rate through the end of the
charter term.

"In an attempt to evade the MVCA and its obligation, BP sent
"Transitional Master Vessel Charter Agreement" to VoO participants
in April and May 2011.  . . .

"By its terms, the Transitional MVCA 'supersede[s] all other
Master Vessel Charter Agreements.'  The Transitional MVCA
eliminated reference to decontamination in the definition of
charter term and disavowed payment for so-called 'stand-by days.'
On information and belief, the Transitional MVCA was sent to
hundreds of vessel owners possessing claims under the original
MVCA, despite the fact that BP had no intention of ever activating
these vessels.

"BP has not provided the original MVCA or Transitional MVCA to
Vietnamese VoO participants in any language other than English.
BP notes in the Transitional MVCA that vessel owners should 'read
the terms carefully,' while knowing that a significant percentage
of VoO participants have no ability to do so.

"The Transitional MVCA was a ruse designed to allow BP to avoid
the contractual obligations set forth in the original MVCA.  BP
drafted and delivered the Transitional MVCA because it knows that
the original MVCA unambiguously obligates BP to pay contracted
daily rates through date of decontamination and receipt of the
notice of non-renewal.  BP expected that many vessel owners would
sign the Transitional MVCA hoping to continue work in the VoO
program, the only material source of income for many fishermen
since the Deepwater Horizon spill.

"BP has acted in bad faith.  Knowing that it has assumed control
over the fishermen's vessels and that it owes the fishermen money,
BP has stalled, made false promises, and resorted to deception to
avoid paying the fishermen what it owes them."

The fishermen seek money owed and punitive damages for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, conversion and property damage.

In addition to BP, defendants include United States Maritime
Services, United State Environmental Services, and DRC Emergency
Services.

A copy of the Complaint in Truong, et al. v. BP America Production
Company, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02766 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/09/Fishermen.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Kreller, Esq.
          THE KRELLER LAW FIRM
          4224 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: 504-484-3488
          Facsimile: 504-294-6091
          E-mail: ssk@krellerlaw.com

               - and -

          Gerard M. Nolting, Esq.
          William L. Roberts, Esq.
          Craig S. Coleman, Esq.
          FAEGRE & BENSON
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-766-7000

               - and -

          Duncan Lott, Esq.
          Casey L. Lott, Esq.
          LANGSTON & LOTT, P.A.
          100 South Main Street
          Booneville, MS 38829
          Telephone: 662-728-9733


CABOT OIL: Can Access Medical Records in Penn. Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Dunning, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a group
of Northeast Pennsylvania residents will have to allow a natural
gas drilling company access to their medical records if they wish
to pursue their class action lawsuit against the company, a court-
appointed special master ruled.

More than 60 claimants sued Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. in
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania in Scranton, Pa., demanding medical monitoring for
pollution exposure resulting from the company's regional
"fracking" operation in the Marcellus Shale near Dimock, Pa.  The
company is regionally based in Montrose.

In February, the company's attorneys asked the plaintiffs, who
live in and near Dimock, for access to their medical records in
order to verify claims of personal injury and the need for medical
monitoring.  Thirty-eight of the plaintiffs moved to block the
request in March on the grounds that they claimed no personal
injury as a result of the drilling.

Relevant to medical monitoring

The special master, Jennifer Clark, on Nov. 1 ruled for the
company, finding that the records were relevant to the claims
seeking medical monitoring, regardless of whether any individual
plaintiff had sustained an injury.

The plaintiffs, according to court documents, leased the rights to
the company to drill on their land along a nine-mile stretch of
the Marcellus Shale in Northeast Pennsylvania, and claim the
drilling operations have contaminated drinking water, soil and
air.  The lead plaintiff in the class action suit, Norma
Fiorentino, claims in court documents that her drinking water well
exploded in January 2009.


CALLERID4U: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Telephone Dialers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that ten days after an alleged violation of the Illinois Automatic
Telephone Dialers Act, an Edwardsville law firm has filed a
putative class action suit claiming a telemarketer thwarted a
caller ID system by concealing its true identity.

The Law Office of Shari L. Murphy claims it received one or more
prerecorded phone calls from defendant CallerID4U on Oct. 21.
However, when the defendant called the law office, it failed to
reveal its true identity on the caller ID screen, according to the
complaint filed Oct. 31 in Madison County Circuit Court.

Peter J. Maag and Thomas G. Maag of Maag Law Firm in Wood River
represents the plaintiff.

The action is in violation of a state statute which requires that
all autodialers correctly identify themselves on caller IDs, the
complaint says.

"As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's action, Plaintiff
sustained damages, including but not limited to lost productivity
time and wages paid to financially compensated employees who were
diverted from being gainfully employed, and instead dealing with
robotic telephone calls," the suit states.

In its complaint, the law office seeks a judgment of more than
$50,000, plus treble damages, costs and other relief the court
deems just.

Madison County Circuit Court case number: 11-L-1128.


CARTER'S INC: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carter's, Inc., reached an agreement in principle to settle a
consolidated securities lawsuit pending in Georgia, according to
the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2011.

A shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on September 19,
2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia entitled Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Carter's, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02940-JOF (the "Plymouth Action").
The Amended Complaint filed on May 12, 2009, in the Plymouth
Action asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the
1934 Securities Exchange Act, and alleged that between February 1,
2006, and July 24, 2007, the Company and certain current and
former executives made material misrepresentations to investors
regarding the successful integration of OshKosh into the Company's
business, and that the share price of the Company's stock later
fell when the market learned that the integration had not been as
successful as represented.  Defendants in the Plymouth Action
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim under the federal securities laws on July 17, 2009,
and briefing of that motion was complete on October 22, 2009.

A separate shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on
November 17, 2009, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entitled Mylroie v. Carter's, Inc.,
No. 1:09-CV-3196-JOF (the "Mylroie Action").  The initial
Complaint in the Mylroie Action asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and alleged
that between April 27, 2004, and November 10, 2009, the Company
and certain current and former executives made material
misstatements to investors regarding the Company's accounting for
discounts offered to some wholesale customers.  The Court
consolidated the Plymouth Action and the Mylroie Action on
November 24, 2009 (the "Consolidated Action").  On March 15, 2010,
the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed their amended and
consolidated complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 30, 2010, and briefing of the motion was complete on July
23, 2010.

On March 16, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia granted without prejudice the
Company's motion to dismiss all of the claims in the amended and
consolidated complaint in the Consolidated Action for failure to
state a claim under the federal securities laws.  The plaintiffs
filed a second amended and consolidated complaint on July 20,
2011.

On November 1, 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Consolidated Action for an amount which will be paid
by the Company's insurance providers.  The proposed settlement
provides for a full and complete release of all related claims
that were or could have been brought against the Company, its
subsidiaries, and any and all current and former directors,
officers, and employees of the Company and its subsidiaries.  Both
the terms of the proposed settlement and the plan of distribution
for the settlement fund are subject to execution of definitive
agreements and court approval.


COMPLETE PRODUCTION: Faces Class Suits Over Proposed SES Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Production Services Inc. is facing putative class action
complaints filed by its investors in connection with the proposed
merger between the Company and Superior Energy Services Inc.,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

On October 14, 2011 and October 26, 2011, putative class action
complaints captioned Hetherington v. Winkler, et al., C.A. No.
6935-VCP, and Walsh v. Winkler, et al., C.A. No. 6984-VCP,
respectively, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on behalf of an alleged class of Complete stockholders.
On November 1, 2011, a putative class action complaint captioned
City of Monroe Employees' Retirement System v. Complete Production
Services, Inc. et al., 2011-66385 was filed in the District Court
of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of an alleged class of Complete
Stockholders.  The complaints name as defendants all members of
the Company's board of directors, the Company, Superior Energy
Services, Inc., and SPN Fairway Acquisition, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger, or aided and abetted the other defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The complaints allege that
the proposed merger between the Company and Superior Energy
involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process and
unreasonable deal protection devices.  The Hetherington Complaint
claims that defendants agreed to the transaction to benefit
Superior Energy and that neither the Company, nor its board of
directors, have adequately explained the reason for the proposed
merger.  The Walsh Complaint claims that defendants acted for
their personal interests rather than the interests of the
Company's stockholders.  The City of Monroe complaint claims that
defendants engaged in self-dealing and failed to seek maximum
value for stockholders.  All three complaints seek injunctive
relief including to enjoin the merger, rescissory damages in the
event the merger is completed, and an award of attorneys' and
other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.  The Company
and its board of directors believe that the plaintiffs'
allegations lack merit and intend to contest them vigorously.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Sued in Oklahoma Over Underpaid Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Partners LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
over underpaid royalties in Oklahoma, according to the Company's
November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

On October 28, 2011, Jerry and Betty Wattenbarger and Patricia
Webb, individually and as class representatives on behalf of
similarly situated persons, filed a Class Action petition in the
District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma against the Company, CEP
Mid-Continent, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, and Newfield
Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., alleging Plaintiffs own oil, gas
and mineral interests in lands and wells located in Nowata County,
Oklahoma, subject to oil and gas leases owned and operated by
Defendants and that Defendants have underpaid royalties due and
owing on the true value received or that should have been received
by Defendants for production from Plaintiffs' mineral interests.
The Company was served with the petition on November 2, 2011.
Plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, breach of implied
covenant to market; breach of express and implied lease
obligations; violation of statutory law; breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing and of the duty to act as a reasonably
prudent operator; breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud and
failure to disclose facts surrounding deductions made from royalty
payments.  Plaintiffs seek certification of a statewide class of
plaintiffs, specify that the class claims against the Company and
its subsidiary relate to the proper payment for production
occurring on or after February 1, 2007, and limit damage claims
against all Defendants to no more than $75,000 with respect to
each Plaintiff and no more than $5 million in the aggregate for
the Plaintiffs and the individual putative class members, in each
case exclusive of interest and costs, but inclusive of any
attorneys' fees.


COVENTRY HEALTH: $150-Mil. Released to Deal Administrator in Aug.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The $150.5 million recorded as restricted cash in Coventry Health
Care, Inc.'s balance sheet at June 30, 2011, was released to the
settlement administrator effective as of August 9, 2011, according
to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

First Health Group Corporation ("FHGC"), a subsidiary of the
Company, was a party to various lawsuits filed in the state and
federal courts of Louisiana involving disputes between providers
and workers' compensation payors who access FHGC's contracts with
these providers to reimburse them for services rendered to injured
workers.  FHGC has written contracts with providers in Louisiana
which expressly state that the provider agrees to accept a
specified discount off their billed charges for services rendered
to injured workers.  The discounted rate set forth in the FHGC
provider contract is less than the reimbursement amount set forth
in the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Fee Schedule.  For this
reason, workers' compensation insurers and third-party
administrators ("TPAs") for employers who self insure workers'
compensation benefits contract with FHGC to access the FHGC
provider contracts.  Thus, when a FHGC contracted provider renders
services to an injured worker, the workers' compensation insurer
or the TPA reimburses the provider for those services in
accordance with the discounted rate in the provider's contract
with FHGC.  These workers' compensation insurers and TPAs are
referred to as "payors" in the FHGC provider contract and the
contract expressly states that the discounted rate will apply to
those payors who access the FHGC contract.  Thus, the providers
enter into these contracts with FHGC knowing that they will be
paid the discounted rate by every payor who chooses to access the
FHGC contract.

Four providers who have contracts with FHGC filed a state court
class action lawsuit against FHGC and certain payors alleging that
FHGC violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act (the "Act"),
which requires a payor accessing a preferred provider network
contract to give a one time notice 30 days before that payor uses
the discounted rate in the preferred provider network contract to
pay the provider for services rendered to a member insured under
that payor's health benefit plan.  These provider plaintiffs
alleged that the Act applies to medical bills for treatment
rendered to injured workers and that the Act requires point of
service written notice in the form of a benefit identification
card.  If a payor is found to have violated the Act's notice
provision, the court may assess up to $2,000 in damages for each
instance when the provider was not given proper notice that a
discounted rate would be used to pay for the services rendered.
The provider plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment against FHGC seeking damages of $2,000 for each provider
visit where the provider was not given a benefit identification
card at the time the service was performed.  The state court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in the
amount of $262 million.  FHGC appealed both the partial summary
judgment order and the court's prior order denying the motion by
FHGC to decertify the class to the state's intermediate appellate
court.  Both appeals were denied by the intermediate appellate
court.

As a result of the Louisiana appellate court's decision on
July 1, 2010, to affirm the state trial court's summary judgment
order, the Company recorded a $278 million pre-tax charge to
earnings and a corresponding accrued liability during the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.  This amount represented the $262 million
judgment amount plus post judgment interest and is included in
"accounts payable and other accrued liabilities" in the
accompanying balance sheet at December 31, 2010.  The Company
accrued for legal fees expected to be incurred related to this
case as well as post judgment interest subsequent to the second
quarter charge, which were included in "accounts payable and other
accrued liabilities" in the accompanying balance sheet at December
31, 2010.

On February 2, 2011, FHGC, counsel for the class representatives
and the class representatives executed a definitive settlement
agreement which was acceptable to FHGC.  FHGC would pay $150.5
million to satisfy in full the amount of the partial summary
judgment and to resolve and settle all claims of the class,
including claims for pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys
fees and costs.  In addition, Coventry would assign to the class
certain rights it has to the proceeds of FHGC's insurance policies
relating to the claims asserted by the class.  In exchange for the
settlement payment by FHGC, class members would release FHGC and
all of its affiliates and clients for any claims relating in any
way to re-pricing, payment for, or reimbursement of a workers'
compensation bill, including but not limited to claims under the
Act.  Plaintiffs also agreed to a notice procedure that FHGC may
follow in the future to comply with the Act.  Accordingly, the
Company made a $150.5 million cash payment into escrow.  On May
27, 2011, the court entered an order of final approval of the
settlement and thus all contingencies in the definitive settlement
agreement were satisfied.  As a result of the resolution of the
settlement agreement contingencies, including final court
approval, the Company recorded a non-recurring pre-tax adjustment
to earnings of $159.3 million, or $0.68 per diluted share after
tax, in the second quarter of 2011.  The $150.5 million recorded
as restricted cash in the balance sheet at June 30, 2011, was
released to the Settlement Administrator for the class action
plaintiffs on the settlement effective date of August 9, 2011,
and, accordingly, is no longer included in the accompanying
balance sheet at September 30, 2011.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Awaits Decision in Consolidated ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion for reconsideration and motion to certify an order for
interlocutory appeal in a consolidated class action lawsuit
pending in Maryland, according to the Company's November 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against the Company and several of its
current and former officers, directors and employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.  Plaintiffs allege
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering and maintaining Company stock in the Plan after it
allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly failing to
provide complete and accurate information about the Company's
financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings and public
statements.  Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were
later filed in the same court and were consolidated on December 9,
2009.  An amended consolidated complaint has been filed.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  By Order, dated
March 31, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  The Company has filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's March 31, 2011 Order and has filed
an Alternative Motion to Certify the Court's
March 31, 2011 Order For Interlocutory Appeal to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals.  Both of those motions are still
pending.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against the allegations
in the consolidated lawsuit.  Although it cannot predict the
outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
putative securities class action lawsuit pending in Maryland,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On September 3, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative securities
class action against the Company and three of its current and
former officers in the federal district court of Maryland.
Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three other
shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with the court
for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of
lead and liaison counsel.  By agreement, the four shareholders
submitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of lead
plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel.
In December 2009, the court approved the stipulation and ordered
the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint.
The purported class period is February 9, 2007, to October 22,
2008.  The consolidated and amended complaint alleges that the
Company's public statements contained false, misleading and
incomplete information regarding the Company's profitability,
particularly the profit margins for its Medicare Private-Fee-For-
Service ("Medicare PFFS") products.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  By Order, dated March 31, 2011, the court
granted in part, and denied in part, the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint.

The Company has filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to
that part of the court's March 31, 2011 Order which denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The motion for
reconsideration was denied but the court did rule that the class
period was further restricted to April 25, 2008, to June 18, 2008.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against the allegations
in the lawsuit.  Although it cannot predict the outcome, the
Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial position or results of operations.


DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 2nd Securities Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mitchem, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Michael J. Mendes and
Steven M. Neil, Case No. 3:11-cv-05399 (N.D. Calif., November 7,
2011) is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all persons
or entities, who purchased or acquired the securities of Diamond
during the period from December 9, 2010, through November 4, 2011,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff
tells the Court that the Company overstated its earnings by
improperly accounting for certain crop payments to walnut growers
and that the Company's acquisition of Pringles snack business from
Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") would be delayed.

Mr. Mitchem is a holder of Diamond securities during the Class
Period.

Diamond, a Delaware corporation, is a branded food company
specializing in processing, marketing and distributing culinary,
snack, in-shell and ingredient nuts.  Mr. Mendes is the Company's
chairman, president and chief executive officer.  Mr. Neil is the
Company's executive vice president, chief financial officer and
chief administrative officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel E. Barenbaum, Esq.
          Anthony D. Phillips, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6282
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  dbarenbaum@bermandevalerio.com
                  aphillips@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 3rd Securities Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Woodward, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Michael J. Mendes, and
Steven M. Neil, Case No. 5:11-cv-05409 (N.D. Calif., November 8,
2011) is brought on behalf of all investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Diamond's common stock between April 5, 2011,
and November 1, 2011, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, Diamond
and its most senior officers and directors continuously touted the
Company's internal financial controls and failed to disclose gross
accounting irregularities stemming from payments to crop growers.
As investors began to learn about those false and misleading
statements, Diamond has lost more than $551 million in market
capitalization to date, notes the complaint.

Mr. Woodward is a shareholder of Diamond.

Diamond is a San Francisco-based company focused on the
processing, marketing and distribution of snack products and
culinary, in-shell and ingredient nuts.  Mr. Mendes is the
Company's chairman, president and chief executive officer.  Mr.
Neil is the Company's executive vice president, chief financial
officer and chief administrative officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          William P. Butterfield, Esq.
          Ralph J. Bunche, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com
                  rbunche@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
                  Jason@blockesq.com
                  Whitney@blockesq.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Central Valley Business Times reports that Diamond Foods Inc. is
being sued over its accounting practices on behalf of
stockholders.

The class action suit filed in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco by the law firm of Levi & Korsinsky alleges that the
company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that it was underestimating the ultimate price to be paid
to walnut growers; that it was improperly accounting for its cost
of sales; and as a result, its financial results were overstated.
The suit contends that Diamond's positive statements about its
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.
On Nov. 1 Diamond Foods announced it was launching an internal
investigation into its accounting practices and that due to the
investigation, its acquisition of the Pringles chips brand from
Procter & Gamble Co. is now expected to close in the first half of
2012.

Upon this news, shares of Diamond Foods fell from a closing price
of $65.75 on Oct. 31, to a closing price of $52.79 the following
day, the suit says.

Diamond Foods was once a cooperative owned by Central Valley
farmers and known as Diamond Walnut Growers Inc. until it went
public in 2005, changed its name and relocated its headquarters
from the Central Valley to San Francisco.


DIAMOND FOODS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 7, 2011, the law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a
securities class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods, Inc. and
certain of its officers.  Diamond is a branded food company
specializing in processing, marketing and distributing culinary,
snack, in-shell and ingredient nuts.

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on
behalf of purchasers of Diamond common stock between December 9,
2010 and November 4, 2011.  The complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The case is captioned Mitchem v. Diamond Foods, Inc. and the case
number is 11-CV-5399-RS.  To receive a copy of the complaint,
please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
investors that wish to serve as the lead plaintiff in the case
must file a motion for appointment with the court by no later than
January 6, 2012.

The lawsuit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities
Exchange Commission on behalf of Class Period investors.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made material false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about
Diamond's business. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that
Defendants (1) overstated Diamond's earnings by improperly
accounting for payments to walnut growers; (2) failed to disclose
that the Company's acquisition of another major snack brand would
be delayed; (3) made false statements about the adequacy of
Diamond's internal and financial controls, and (4) made materially
false and misleading statements about the Company's financial
results.

On November 1, 2011, after the stock markets closed, the Company's
Audit Committee announced that it had launched an investigation
into Diamond's accounting for payments to walnut growers.  Upon
this announcement, and subsequent revelations in the press about
problems at Diamond, the Company's share price fell from $64.12 on
November 1, to close at $39.09 on November 7, 2011.  The decline
in Diamond's stock price so far represents a loss of $25.03 per
share, or over 39%.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January
6, 2012, request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff for
the class.  You may contact Berman DeValerio to discuss your
rights and interest in the case.  Please note that you may also
retain counsel of your choice or, alternatively, take no action at
this time, in which case you will still remain a class member.

Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermandevalerio.com-- is a
national law firm representing investors for violations of
securities and antitrust laws.  The firm has 47 lawyers in Boston,
San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Contact: Anthony D. Phillips, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio
         Telephone: 800-516-9926
         E-mail: aphillips@bermandevalerio.com


DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suits on Cancellation Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV Holdings LLC continues to defend itself against class
action complaints relating to early cancellation fees, according
to the Company's Nov. 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2011.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when it does
not fulfill its programming commitments.  Several of these
lawsuits are pending -- some in California state court purporting
to represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts
purporting to represent nationwide classes.  The lawsuits seek
both monetary and injunctive relief.  While the theories of
liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under
state consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately
disclosed to customers.  In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Company
intends to move to compel these cases to arbitration in accordance
with its Customer Agreement.

The Company believes that its early cancellation fees are
adequately disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of the
costs it incurs when customers cancel service before fulfilling
their programming commitments.

No updates were reported in the Company's Nov. 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

DIRECTV Holdings LLC provides direct-to-home digital television
services and multi-channel video programming distribution (MVPD)
services in the United States.  It provides access to various
channels of digital-quality video entertainment and CD-quality
audio programming that are transmitted directly to subscribers'
homes or businesses via geosynchronous satellites.  The Company
offers various collections of programming for the MVPD industry,
including approximately 160 national high-definition television
channels, and 4 dedicated 3D channels.  It also provides DIRECTV
CINEMA, a VOD service, which offers a selection of 6,000 movie and
television programs to its broadband-connected subscribers.  The
Company is based in El Segundo, California.  DIRECTV Holdings LLC
is a subsidiary of DIRECTV Group, Inc.


DRIL-QUIP INC: "Deepwater Horizon" Suits Trial to Start Feb. 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in the multidistrict litigation and limitation action
arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident is scheduled to
commence on February 27, 2012, to determine liability, limitation,
exoneration and fault allocation, according to Dril-Quip, Inc.'s
November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig
known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., sank after an explosion and fire that began on
April 20, 2010.  The Company is a party to an ongoing contract
with an affiliate of BP to supply wellhead systems in connection
with BP's U.S. Gulf of Mexico operations, and the Company's
wellhead and certain of its other equipment were in use on the
Deepwater Horizon at the time of the incident.

The Company has been named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in nine class action lawsuits and ten other lawsuits
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident.  These actions were
filed against the Company between April 28, 2010, and
March 11, 2011.  As of October 24, 2011, all of these lawsuits
remain consolidated, along with hundreds of other lawsuits not
directly naming the Company, in the multi-district proceeding In
Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of
Mexico, on April 20, 2010 ("MDL Proceeding"), and are pending in
the federal court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The
lawsuits generally allege, among other things, violation of state
and federal environmental and other laws and regulations,
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, personal injury
and/or property damages and generally seek awards of unspecified
economic, compensatory and punitive damages and/or declaratory
relief.

The judge presiding over the MDL Proceeding is also presiding over
a separate but related proceeding filed by affiliates of
Transocean Ltd. ("Transocean") under the Limitation of Liability
Act ("Limitation Action") in the federal court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.  In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks
to limit its liability for claims arising out of the Deepwater
Horizon incident to the value of its rig and its freight.  On
February 18, 2011, Transocean filed a Third-Party Complaint,
tendering the Company to the plaintiffs/claimants in the
Limitation Action.  The procedural effect of Transocean's action
is to make the Company a defendant in any of the actions where the
plaintiff has filed a claim in the Limitation Action.  As of
October 24, 2011, over 100,000 claims have been filed in the
Limitation Action using a short-form joinder claim process
implemented by the court.  However, at this time there are no new
allegations against the Company as a result of Transocean's
action, and the Company is entitled to assert all the defenses
available to it in the actions to which it was already a named
party.  In April 2011, the Company moved to dismiss Transocean's
Third-Party Complaint and the consolidated complaints alleging
economic losses from the oil spill and personal injury or property
damage arising from efforts to contain and clean up the oil spill.
The Company contends that those complaints fail to satisfy federal
pleading standards, fail to allege facts necessary to support
their theories of recovery and/or allege claims that are preempted
by The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA").  Also in April 2011, the
Company filed its answer to Transocean's Limitation petition
denying all claims and responsibility for the incident and denying
Transocean's right to limit its liability.  The Company also filed
cross claims against Transocean seeking contribution from
Transocean in the event the Company is found liable for damages
arising from the incident.

In April and May 2011, Transocean, Cameron International
Corporation ("Cameron"), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
("Halliburton"), M-I, LLC ("M-I"), and Weatherford U.S. LP and
Weatherford International, Inc. (collectively, "Weatherford") each
filed cross claims against the Company in the MDL Proceeding
and/or in the Limitation Action, generally seeking subrogation
and/or contribution from the Company and alleging negligence,
comparative fault and strict liability for manufacturing, design
and marketing defects by the Company.  In May 2011, the Company
filed cross claims against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation,
Anadarko E&P Company, LP, BP, BP P.L.C., BP America Production
Company, Cameron, Halliburton, M-I, Weatherford, MOEX Offshore
2007 LLC, MOEX USA Corporation and Mitsui Oil Exploration Co.,
Ltd. in the Limitation Action seeking contribution from the cross
claimants and alleging that the cross claimants are or may be
liable in whole or in part for the claims asserted against the
Company in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident.

In May 2011, Transocean filed a Third-Party Complaint against the
Company, impleading it into an action brought by the United States
in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident against
Transocean, BP and certain of its affiliates, Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation and certain of its affiliates, and MOEX Offshore 2007,
LLC as "Responsible Parties" under OPA and for violations of The
Clean Water Act ("CWA").  Transocean's Third-Party Complaint
alleges comparative fault and strict liability for manufacturing,
design and marketing defects by the Company and generally seeks
subrogation and/or contribution from the Company.

In June 2011, BP and its affiliate BP America Production Company
filed counterclaims against the Company in the MDL Proceeding and
in the Limitation Action generally seeking subrogation and/or
contribution from the Company.

For every complaint, cross claim, third-party complaint and/or
counterclaims alleging fault on the part of the Company for the
Deepwater Horizon incident, the Company has moved to dismiss the
allegations contained in the complaint, cross claim, third-party
complaint, and/or counterclaim because the Company contends that
those complaints fail to satisfy federal pleading standards and
fail to allege facts necessary to support theories of recovery
against the Company.  In August and September 2011, the MDL
Proceeding court granted in part motions to dismiss two of the
master complaints filed by groups of plaintiffs alleging economic
losses from the explosion and spill.  The effect of the court's
order is to limit plaintiffs' claims to general maritime and
federal statutory claims.  Other motions to dismiss filed by the
Company remain pending in the MDL Proceeding.  The judge presiding
over the MDL Proceeding and the Limitation Action has scheduled a
trial to commence on February 27, 2012, to determine liability,
limitation, exoneration and fault allocation.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend any
litigation, fine and/or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon
incident.  Accordingly, no liability has been accrued in
conjunction with these matters.

Additional lawsuits may be filed and additional investigations may
be launched in the future. An adverse outcome with respect to any
of these lawsuits or investigations, or any lawsuits or
investigations that may arise in the future, could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations.

At the time of the Deepwater Horizon incident, the Company had a
general liability insurance program with an aggregate coverage
limit of $100 million for claims with respect to property damage,
injury or death and pollution.  The insurance policies may not
cover all potential claims and expenses relating to the Deepwater
Horizon incident.  In addition, the Company's policies may not
cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to
government-mandated clean up of pollution.  The Company has
received a "reservation of rights" letter from its insurers.  The
incident may also lead to further tightening of the availability
of insurance coverage.  The Company may not be able to obtain
adequate insurance at a reasonable price, thereby making certain
projects unfeasible from an economic standpoint.  If liability
limits are increased or the insurance market becomes more
restricted, the risks and costs of conducting offshore exploration
and development activities may increase, which could materially
impact the Company's results of operations.

The Company says it is continuing to assess its rights to
indemnification from BP's affiliate and other parties for
potential claims and expenses arising from the Deepwater Horizon
incident under the Company's existing contract with the affiliate
of BP.  The Company's indemnity rights under the contract cover
potential claims for personal injury, property damage and the
control and removal of pollution or contamination, except for,
among other things, claims brought by employees of the Company and
claims brought by third parties to the extent the Company is at
fault or as a result of a defect in the Company's products.  Under
the contract, the Company has generally agreed to indemnify BP and
its affiliates for claims for personal injury of the Company's
employees or subcontractors, for claims brought by third parties
to the extent the Company is at fault, and for claims resulting
from pollution or contamination as a result of a defect in the
Company's products.  The Company's indemnification obligation for
pollution or contamination arising from a defect in the Company's
products is limited to $5 million under the contract.  To the
extent that BP's other contractors performing work on the well
agreed in their contracts with BP to indemnify the Company for
claims of personal injury of such contractor's employees or
subcontractors as well as for claims of damages to their property,
the Company has entered into a reciprocal agreement to indemnify
those other contractors.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On February 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against E*TRADE Financial Corporation's subsidiary,
E*TRADE Securities LLC, by Joseph Roling on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.  The lead plaintiff
alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully charged and
collected certain account activity fees from its customers.
Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class, asserts
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of California
Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and injunctive relief
for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent practices under
California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.  The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, certification of the class action on behalf of
alleged similarly situated plaintiffs, unspecified damages and
restitution of amounts allegedly wrongfully collected by E*TRADE
Securities LLC, attorney's fees and expenses and injunctive
relief.  The Company moved to transfer venue on the case to the
Southern District of New York; that motion was denied.  The Court
granted E*TRADE's motion to dismiss in part and denied the motion
to dismiss in part.  The Court bifurcated discovery to permit
initial discovery on individual claims and class certification.
Discovery on the merits will not commence until a class can be
certified; the Court has set a date in 2012 for conclusion of
discovery.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend
itself against the claims raised in this action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Filed Response Brief in "Oughtred" Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation filed its responsive brief on
October 26, 2011, in connection with the appeal from the dismissal
of the securities class action lawsuit commenced by John W.
Oughtred, according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company.  Plaintiff contends, among other things, that
the Company committed various sales practice violations in the
sale of certain auction rate securities to investors between April
2, 2003, and February 13, 2008, by allegedly misrepresenting that
these securities were highly liquid and safe investments for short
term investing.  On December 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed their
first amended class action complaint.  Defendants filed their
pending motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on
February 5, 2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss
was completed on
April 15, 2009.  Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount
to be proven at trial, or, in the alternative, rescission of
auction rate securities purchases, plus interest and attorney's
fees and costs.  On March 18, 2010, the District Court dismissed
the complaint without prejudice.  On April 22, 2010, Plaintiffs
amended their complaint.  The Company has moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  By an Order dated March 31, 2011, the Court
granted E*TRADE's motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On May 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs filed their
brief on August 12, 2011.  The Company's responsive brief was
filed October 26, 2011.  Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Freudenberg" Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
E*TRADE Financial Corporation and its then Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan, and Robert J.
Simmons, by Larry Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated (the "Freudenberg Action").  On July 17,
2008, the trial court consolidated this action with four other
purported class actions, all of which were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
which were based on the same facts and circumstances.  On January
16, 2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended class
action complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the
Company's former Capital Markets Division President, as a
defendant.  Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value
of the Company's stock between April 19, 2006, and
November 9, 2007, was artificially inflated because the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that the Company was experiencing a rise in delinquency
rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios; failed to timely
record an impairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios;
materially overvalued its securities portfolio, which included
assets backed by mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a
reasonable basis for the positive statements made about the
Company's earnings and prospects.  Plaintiffs seek to recover
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.  Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on April 2, 2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to
dismiss was completed on
August 31, 2009.  On May 11, 2010, the Court issued an order
denying defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Company filed an
Answer to the Complaint on June 25, 2010.  Fact discovery and
expert discovery are expected to conclude on May 15, 2012.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


EURONET WORLDWIDE: Wage and Hour Class Suit vs. Unit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of Euronet Worldwide,
Inc., was dismissed for a nominal payment to the plaintiff,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

During 2010, the Company's indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary,
Continental Exchange Solutions, Inc., doing business as Ria
Financial Services ("CES"), CES was served with a class action
lawsuit filed by a former employee for alleged wage and hour
violations related to overtime and meal and rest period
requirements under California law.  This lawsuit was dismissed on
October 12, 2011, in consideration of payment of a nominal amount
to the plaintiff.


FORTINET INC: Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by a former stockholder of Fortinet,
Inc., remains pending in California.

In April 2010, an individual, a former stockholder of Fortinet,
filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
alleging violation of various California Corporations' Code
sections and related tort claims alleging misrepresentation and
breach of fiduciary duty regarding the 2009 repurchase by Fortinet
of shares of its stock while the Company was a privately-held
company. In September 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion
to transfer the case to the California Superior Court for Santa
Clara County and the plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in
the Superior Court to add individual defendants, among other
amendments. The Company cannot currently predict the outcome of
this dispute nor determine the amount or a reasonable range of
potential loss, if any.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


FTQ: Construction Firms File Class Action Over Walkout
------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that several smaller construction firms have
filed a class-action lawsuit against the province's largest
construction union for the wildcat strikes staged in October.

Last month, construction workers belonging to the FTQ-Construction
and the Conseil provincial du Quebec des metiers de la
construction (CPQMCI) walked off the job to protest Bill 33.

Now two companies, namely Turenne Bricks and Stones along with
Magloire Gosselin Masonry have filed action against the FTQ union,
alleging that the so-called 'spontaneous' job action was anything
but.

The motion filed in court on Nov. 8 accuses union management of
organizing the walkout, saying that having tens of thousands of
union members walk off the job at the same time at 200 workplaces
across Quebec was a deliberate act.

In the days before the strike there had been multiple media
reports that a walkout was expected, and the morning of the strike
one 24-hour news network had live TV crews standing by at half-a-
dozen locations across the province.

The lawsuit was filed in the name of the companies, each with more
than 50 employees, and on behalf of the workers who were not paid
for the days they did not work.

The president of the FTQ-Construction, Michel Arsenault, said in
October that since he was in France the weekend before the wildcat
strike it would have been impossible for him to have organized any
union activity.

Workers who walked off the job said they were supporting their
union, which opposes Bill 33, legislation that would place control
of hiring on construction sites in the hands of a government body
called the Construction Commission of Quebec.

The legislation tasks the CCQ with the job of drawing up a list of
eligible workers for each site, then letting employers pick as
many workers as they need, regardless of union affiliation.

The strikes on Oct. 24 and 25 saw several dozen FTQ workers
protest outside every CCQ office, a number of which were
vandalized.

The CCQ responded on Nov. 1 by announcing it had launched multiple
investigations into the strike, and had fined four people from
C$1,000 to C$10,000, while the two unions were fined C$7,000 to
C$80,000.


GEEKNET INC: Appeal From Settlement Order in IPO Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order certifying a class and granting final
approval of a settlement in the shareholder lawsuit over Geeknet,
Inc.'s initial public offering remains pending, according to the
Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In January 2001, the Company, two of its former officers, and
Credit Suisse First Boston, the lead underwriter in the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO"), were named as defendants in a
shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, later consolidated and captioned In
re VA Software Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 01-CV-0242.  The plaintiffs' class action lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from the time of the
Company's initial public offering in December 1999 through
December 2000.

Among other things, this complaint alleged that the prospectus
pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the
Company's initial public offering contained certain false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the practices of the
Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common
stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from
customers related to such allocations.  Various plaintiffs have
filed actions asserting similar allegations concerning the initial
public offerings of approximately 300 other issuers.  These
various cases were coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

In 2008, the parties reached a global settlement of the
litigation.  On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order
certifying a settlement class and granting final approval of the
settlement.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company will bear no financial liability.  The Company, as well as
the officer and director defendants, who were previously dismissed
from the action pursuant to a stipulation, will receive complete
dismissals from the case.  A single objector appealed the Court's
October 5, 2009 order to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

If for any reason the settlement does not become effective and
litigation resumes, the Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the action
vigorously.

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


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA: TIB to File Class Action This Week
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Youds, writing for The Daily News, reports that Tk'emlups
Indian Band hopes to set legal precedent through a class-action
suit to be launched this week with the Sechelt Indian Band on
behalf of residential school day scholars.

"Kamloops and Sechelt are the only ones willing to step up to the
plate," said Jo-Anne Gottfriedson, day-scholar researcher for the
Tk-emlups te Secwepemc.  "This is going to affect everyone across
Canada."

Since a suit against the federal government was first considered
early last winter, four TIB members who were former residential
school day scholars have died, so there is mounting pressure to
pursue justice, Ms. Gottfriedson noted.  There are 290 other
survivors who are members of the TIB.

"In my family, it's four generations," she said, noting the
lingering family and social impacts for younger generations as
well since the Kamloops Indian Residential School closed in 1977.

Day scholars were students who attended the school but didn't live
there.  As a result, they were not included in the 2005 Common
Experience Payment (CEP) tied to the official apology by Prime
Minister Stephen Harper.  The CEP recognizes loss of language and
culture.

"We were considered not to have a winning case," Ms. Gottfriedson
said.  "This is unjust.  We didn't sleep there but were still
subjected to the same devastating impacts."

The two bands will share the legal cost of the suit equally.

"With Sechelt, we're taking this class action to ensure redress,
but more important is the healing process for our people."

Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations,
Grand Chief Stewart Philip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and
Chief Wayne Christian of Shuswap Nation Tribal Council will join
TIB Chief Shane Gottfriedson and Sechelt Chief Gary Feschuck on
Nov. 16 to mark the suit's launch.

The national and provincial organizations are lending support.

"They're willing to morally and politically assist," said
Ms. Gottfriedson.  "They're behind us 100%."


HEALTHSPRING INC: Being Sold to Cigna for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say HealthSpring
is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Cigna,
for $3.8 billion or $55 a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Israni v. HealthSpring, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 40330 (Tenn. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/09/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
          Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
          BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
          2400 Crestmoor Road
          P.O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 248-2828
          E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com
                  robert@bramlettlawoffices.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          431 Montgomery Ave., Suite B
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 660-8000


HORIZON LINES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Alaska Tradelane
-------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit relating to the Alaska tradelane, according to the
Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 25, 2011.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the DOJ into possible
antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business. On
February 23, 2011, the Company entered into a plea agreement with
the DOJ, and on March 22, 2011, the Court entered judgment
accepting the Company's plea agreement and imposed a fine of $45.0
million payable over five years without interest and placed the
Company on probation until the fine payments are completed. On
April 28, 2011, the Court reduced the fine from $45.0 million to
$15.0 million payable over five years without interest. The first
$1.0 million of the fine was paid on April 25, 2011 and the
Company must make payments of $1.0 million on or before the first
anniversary thereof, $2.0 million on or before the second
anniversary, $3.0 million on or before the third anniversary and
$4.0 million on or before each of the fourth and fifth
anniversary. The plea agreement provides that the Company will not
face additional charges relating to the Puerto Rico tradelane. In
addition, the plea agreement provides that the Company will not
face any additional charges in connection with the Alaska trade,
and the DOJ has indicated that the Company is not a target or
subject of any Hawaii or Guam aspects of its investigation.
As part of the court's judgment, the Company was placed on
probation until the fine is fully paid. The terms of the probation
include that the Company: 1) file annual audited financial
reports, 2) not commit a criminal act during the probation period,
3) report any material adverse legal or financial event, and 4)
annually certify that it has an antitrust compliance program in
place that satisfies the federal sentencing guidelines
requirements, including antitrust education to key personnel.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, fifty-
eight purported class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and other domestic shipping carriers. Each of the Class
Action Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals
and entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services
directly from the various domestic ocean carriers. These
complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an
injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

Thirty-two of the Class Action Lawsuits relate to ocean shipping
services in the Puerto Rico tradelane and were consolidated into a
single multidistrict litigation proceeding in the District of
Puerto Rico. On June 11, 2009, the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with the named plaintiff class
representatives in the Puerto Rico MDL. Under the settlement
agreement, as of October 28, 2011, the Company has paid $20.0
million and has agreed to provide a base-rate freeze to resolve
claims for alleged antitrust violations in the Puerto Rico
tradelane.

The base-rate freeze component of the settlement agreement
provides that class members who have contracts in the Puerto Rico
trade with the Company as of the effective date of the settlement
would have the option, in lieu of receiving cash, to have their
"base rates" frozen for a period of two years. The base-rate
freeze would run for two years from the expiration of the contract
in effect on the effective date of the settlement. All class
members would be eligible to share in the $20.0 million cash
component, but only the Company's contract customers would be
eligible to elect the base-rate freeze in lieu of receiving cash.
Some class members have elected to opt-out of the settlement, and
the customers that have elected to opt-out of the settlement and
customers not part of the settlement class may file lawsuits
containing allegations similar to those made in the Puerto Rico
MDL and seek the same type of damages under the Sherman Act as
sought in the Puerto Rico MDL. The Company is not able to
determine whether or not any actions will be brought against it or
whether or not a negative outcome would be probable if brought
against the Company, or a reasonable range for any such outcome,
and has made no provisions for any potential proceedings in the
accompanying financial statements. Given the volume of commerce
involved in the Puerto Rico shipping business, an adverse ruling
in a potential civil antitrust proceeding could subject the
Company to substantial civil damages given the treble damages
provisions of the Sherman Act.

In addition, the Company has actively engaged in discussions with
a number of shippers in the Puerto Rico trade that have opted out
of the MDL settlement. The Company has reached commercial
agreements with several of those shippers, with the condition that
the shipper relinquishes any existing antitrust claims. As of
November 4, 2011, the Company has reached such commercial
agreements with four of its major customers that opted out of the
MDL settlement. In some cases, as part of the agreement, the
Company has agreed to future discounts which will be charged
against operating revenue if and when the discount is earned and
certain other conditions are met. The Company will seek to enter
into similar agreements with certain other shippers in the
ordinary courses.

Twenty-five of the fifty-eight Class Action Lawsuits relate to
ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes and were
consolidated into a MDL proceeding in the Western District of
Washington. On March 20, 2009, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the claims in the Hawaii and Guam MDL. On August 18, 2009,
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, the
Hawaii and Guam MDL. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint on May 28, 2010, and on July 12, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
complaint. The motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted
with prejudice on December 1, 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the
Court's decision to dismiss the amended complaint with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 29,
2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court's decision to
dismiss the amended complaint.

One district court case remains in the District of Alaska,
relating to the Alaska tradelane. The Company and the class
plaintiffs have agreed to stay the Alaska litigation, and the
Company intends to vigorously defend against the purported class
action lawsuit in Alaska.


HORIZON LINES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Affirmed in August
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals affirmed in August the dismissal of the
securities class action lawsuit commenced by the City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System against Horizon Lines, Inc.,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On December 31, 2008, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware. The complaint purported to be on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the Company made material misstatements and omissions
in connection with alleged price-fixing in the Company's shipping
business in Puerto Rico in violation of antitrust laws. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court granted the
motion to dismiss on November 13, 2009 with leave to file an
amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
December 23, 2009, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on February 12, 2010. The Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint was granted with prejudice on
May 18, 2010. On June 15, 2010, the plaintiff appealed the Court's
decision to dismiss the amended complaint, and on August 24, 2011
the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court's decision to dismiss the
amended complaint.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Appeal in Securities MDL Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a ruling stating that the remaining objector in the
global settlement resolving a consolidated securities lawsuit
lacks standing to object remains pending, according to Juniper
Networks, Inc.'s November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In December 2001, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Royal Bank of
Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels), SG Cowen Securities Corporation,
UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC), Chase (Hambrecht &
Quist LLC), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Incorporated (collectively, the "Underwriters"), Juniper Networks
and certain of Juniper Networks' officers.  This action was
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock in
its initial public offering in June 1999 and the Company's
secondary offering in September 1999.  Specifically, among other
things, this complaint alleged that the prospectus pursuant to
which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's initial
public offering and the Company's subsequent secondary offering
contained certain false and misleading statements or omissions
regarding the practices of the Underwriters with respect to their
allocation of shares of common stock in these offerings and their
receipt of commissions from customers related to such allocations.
Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar
allegations concerning the initial public offerings of
approximately 300 other issuers.  These various cases pending in
the Southern District of New York have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92.  In April 2002, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the action against the Company,
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The defendants in the
coordinated proceeding filed motions to dismiss.  On February 19,
2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims against the Company.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will
bear no financial liability.  The Company and other defendants
will receive complete dismissals from the case.  In October 2009,
the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting final approval of
the settlement.  Certain objectors appealed; several of the
appeals were dismissed.  Following remand from the appellate
court, the district court in August 2011 determined that the
remaining appellant was not a class member with standing to object
to the settlement; that August order is now on appeal.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks, Inc., is facing a purported securities class
action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's
November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On August 15, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Juniper Networks,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-04003-LHK, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers and directors as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
practices and financial results.  The complaint is purportedly
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between July 20, 2010, and
July 26, 2011.  The complaint asserts claims for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and violation of Rule 10b-5.  The complaint seeks, among
other relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery in Gainesville Plant Suit Next Year
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville, Florida from 1988 until its closure late in 2009.
The property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was
located was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in the first
quarter of 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Aluchua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in
neighborhoods adjacent to the former utility pole treatment plant
in Gainesville. The complaint named the Company, Koppers Inc.,
Beazer East and several other parties as defendants. The complaint
alleges that chemicals and contaminants from the plant have
contaminated plaintiffs' properties, have caused property damage
and have placed residents and owners of the properties at an
elevated risk of exposure to the alleged chemicals. The complaint
seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages for diminution in
property values and loss of use and enjoyment. The case was
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida in December 2010. Plaintiffs sought to have
the case remanded back to state court. In September, 2011, the
Court ruled that the case properly belonged in Federal Court and
the parties agreed to a schedule for discovery starting in the
first half of 2012. No trials have been scheduled, according to
the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company says it has not provided a reserve for the matter
because, at this time, it cannot reasonably determine the
probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot
be reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending the case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.


MANNKIND CORP: Shareholder Suit Dismissal Hearing Set for Nov. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider MannKind Corporation's motion to dismiss a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit is November 14,
2011, according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Following the Company's receipt of the Complete Response letter
from the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
regarding the new drug application ("NDA") for AFREZZA in January
2011, and the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock,
several complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of its
common stock. The complaints include claims asserted under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and have been brought
as purported shareholder class actions. In general, the complaints
allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors
violated federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business and prospects for
AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common
stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. The complaints have been transferred to a single
court and consolidated for all purposes. The court has appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was
filed on June 27, 2011. On August 12, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The hearing on this
motion is set for November 14, 2011. The Company says it will
vigorously defend against the claims advanced.


MELA SCIENCES: Withdraws Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELA Sciences, Inc., and other defendants withdrew their
outstanding motion to dismiss the current amended complaint in the
consolidated securities class action pending in New York,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On November 19, 2010, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, entitled Randall J. Pederson,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-08774-JFM.  Two similar complaints
were also filed, one on December 2, 2010, and the other on January
20, 2011, in the same District Court, entitled Amy Steigman,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-09024-JFM; and Martin Slove and
Linda Slove, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I.
Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 1:11-cv-00429-JFM.  These
three securities class actions were consolidated into one action
on February 15, 2011, entitled In re MELA Sciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 10-Civ-8774-JFM ("securities class
action").  The securities class action plaintiffs assert
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging, among
other things, that defendants made misstatements and omissions
regarding the Company's product, MelaFind(R), and its prospects
for U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval, on behalf
of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period from February 13, 2009, through November 16, 2010, and
seek unspecified damages.

On May 2, 2011, the securities class action plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint, alleging similar claims to their
prior complaints.  On July 29, 2011, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on
September 23, 2011.  In light of the Company's receipt of the
Approvable Letter from the FDA for the MelaFind(R) PMA Application
on September 22, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation on October
19, 2011, in which Plaintiff stated its intention to file a motion
seeking leave to amend its complaint.  Defendants withdrew the
outstanding motion to dismiss the current Amended Complaint
without prejudice to renew it at a later date.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend against the securities class action; however,
as with any litigation, it cannot predict with certainty the
eventual outcome of this litigation.  The Company says an adverse
outcome could have a material adverse effect on its business and
its business could be materially harmed.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued Over Poorly Run Recording System
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Montgomery County, Pa.,
claims in a federal class action that Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems cost the state $100 million because the
poorly run electronic recording system "vitiated the time honored
public recording system."

A copy of the Complaint in Montgomery County, et al. v. MERSCORP,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-06968 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/09/Mortgages.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
          Jared G. Solomon, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-3304
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  rlarocca@kohnswift.com
                  jsolomon@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Schaffer, Esq.
          COOPER & SCHAFFER, LLC
          815 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 22
          Jenkintown, PA 19046-2800
          Telephone: (215) 887-6850


NATIONAL UNION: Sued Over Non-Payment of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Universal Music Group sued
the National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, which
refused to pay a $15 million settlement of a copyright class
action against Universal, filed by the estate of jazz legend Chet
Baker.


NEWS CORP: Intermix to Submit New Allocation Plan in "Brown" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intermix Media, Inc., has been ordered to submit a new plan of
allocation under a settlement of a class action lawsuit, according
to News Corporation's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange for the quarter ended September 30,
2011.

In November 2005, plaintiff in a derivative action captioned
LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al. pending against various former
Intermix directors and officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California filed a First Amended
Class and Derivative Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The
original derivative action was filed in May 2003 and arose out of
Intermix's restatement of quarterly financial results for its
fiscal year ended March 31, 2003. A substantially similar
derivative action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court was
dismissed based on the inability of the plaintiffs to plead
adequately demand futility. The Amended Complaint added various
allegations and purported class claims arising out of the FIM
Transaction that are substantially similar to those asserted in
the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation. The Amended Complaint
also added as defendants the individuals and entities named in the
Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation that were not already
defendants in the matter. On October 16, 2006, the court dismissed
the fourth through seventh claims for relief, which related to the
2003 restatement, finding that the plaintiff is precluded from
relitigating demand futility. At the same time, the court asked
for further briefing regarding plaintiffs' standing to assert
derivative claims based on the FIM Transaction, including for
alleged violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), the effect of the state
judge's dismissal of the claims in the Greenspan case and the
Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation on the remaining direct
class action claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and other
common law claims leading up to the FIM Transaction. The parties
filed the requested additional briefing in which the defendants
requested that the court stay the direct LeBoyer claims pending
the resolution of any appeal in the Greenspan case and the
Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation. By order dated May 22,
2007, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
derivative claims arising out of the FIM Transaction, and denied
the defendants' request to stay the two remaining direct claims.
As explained in more detail in the next paragraph, the court
subsequently consolidated this case with the Brown v. Brewer
action also pending before the court. On July 11, 2007, plaintiffs
filed the consolidated first amended complaint under the Brown
case title.

On June 14, 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Jim
Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., was filed against certain former
Intermix directors and officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff
asserted claims for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, as well as control person
liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff
alleged that certain defendants disseminated false and misleading
definitive proxy statements on two occasions: one on December 30,
2003 in connection with the stockholder vote on January 29, 2004
on the election of directors and ratification of financing
transactions with certain entities of VantagePoint; and another on
August 25, 2005 in connection with the stockholder vote on the FIM
Transaction. The complaint named as defendants certain
VantagePoint related entities, the former general counsel and the
members of the Intermix Board who were incumbent on the dates of
the respective proxy statements. Intermix was not named as a
defendant, but has certain indemnity obligations to the former
officer and director defendants in connection with these claims
and allegations. On August 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his
complaint to add certain investment banks (the "Investment Banks")
as defendants. Intermix has certain indemnity obligations to the
Investment Banks as well. Plaintiff amended his complaint again
on September 27, 2006, which defendants moved to dismiss. On
February 9, 2007, the case was transferred to Judge George H.
King, the judge assigned to the LeBoyer action, on the grounds
that it raises substantially related questions of law and fact as
LeBoyer, and would entail substantial duplication of labor if
heard by different judges. On June 11, 2007, Judge King ordered
the Brown case be consolidated with the LeBoyer action, ordered
plaintiffs' counsel to file a consolidated first amended
complaint, and further ordered the parties to file a joint brief
on defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
first amended complaint. On July 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed the
consolidated first amended complaint, which defendants moved to
dismiss. By order dated January 17, 2008, Judge King granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the 2003 proxy claims (concerning
VantagePoint transactions) and the 2005 proxy claims (concerning
the FIM Transaction), as well as a claim against the VantagePoint
entities alleging unjust enrichment. The court found it
unnecessary to rule on dismissal of the remaining claims, which
are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction, because the dismissal
disposed of those claims. On February 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated second amended complaint, which defendants moved to
dismiss on February 28, 2008. By order dated July 15, 2008, the
court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
dismiss. The 2003 claims and the claims against the Investment
Banks were dismissed with prejudice. The Section 14(a), Section
20(a) and the breach of fiduciary duty claims related to the FIM
Transaction remain against the officer and director defendants and
the VantagePoint defendants. On November 14, 2008, plaintiff filed
a motion for class certification to which defendants filed their
opposition on January 14, 2009. On June 22, 2009, the court
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a
class of all holders of Intermix common stock from July 18, 2005
through consummation of the FIM Transaction, who were allegedly
harmed by defendants' improper conduct as set forth in the
complaint. The parties have completed fact and expert discovery.
On June 17, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' summary judgment motion filed on October 19, 2009.
Specifically, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary
adjudication of a factual issue and denied defendants' motion to
exclude plaintiff's damages expert, which was filed on
November 30, 2009. In the court's June 17 order, the court found
that plaintiff could not proceed on any fiduciary duty claim based
upon alleged violations of the duty of care, but found material
issues of fact prohibiting summary judgment on alleged violations
of fiduciary duty of loyalty. On plaintiff's Section 14(a) claim,
the court found material issues of fact that prohibited summary
judgment on the entire claim, but granted defendants' motion as to
certain purported omissions, finding the allegedly omitted
information immaterial. Further, the court granted defendants'
motion as to two damage theories for the Section 14(a) claim,
finding benefit of the bargain damages not viable and lost
opportunity damages too speculative, and permitting plaintiff to
proceed only based upon a theory of out-of-pocket damages. No
trial date was set. On October 21, 2010, the parties agreed to a
settlement of the action, which is subject to approval by the
court. A formal stipulation of settlement was submitted to the
court for its approval on December 28, 2010. Accordingly, the
Company has recognized the terms of this settlement, which was
not material to the Company, in its results of operations. On
February 18, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. Plaintiff's counsel supervised notice of the
settlement to the class. The notice provided class members with an
opportunity to object. Two shareholders filed objections to the
settlement with the court in April 2011. Both objectors had
counsel appear on their behalf at a hearing on May 16, 2011 where
the court considered plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
settlement and plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorneys' fees,
which will come out of the settlement funds. At the hearing, the
court did not rule on the motions and instead ordered that
plaintiff, objector Trafelet & Co., and defendants submit joint
briefing with respect to certain of Trafelet's objections. The
joint brief was filed on June 10, 2011. The joint brief narrowed
the objections to allocation of the settlement amount and
sufficiency of the notice as it pertains to how the settlement
funds will be allocated. The joint brief contained no objection to
the settlement itself. On September 29, 2011, the court entered an
order rejecting the settlement in so far as the court found that
the proposed plan of allocation was not fair, adequate and
reasonable because certain members of the certified class are
releasing their claims under the settlement, but under the
proposed plan, they will not be receiving any of the settlement
proceeds. The court ordered the parties to submit a new plan of
allocation within 30 days and stated that it will issue
appropriate orders after reviewing the new plan. The court order
has no effect on the settlement amount.


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Has Not Heard From Stockholder Since June
----------------------------------------------------------
Nutrisystem, Inc., disclosed in its November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011, that it has not received any
further correspondence or communications from a stockholder or his
counsel after the Company delivered to them in early June 2011
copies of certain minutes of the meetings of the Board of
Directors and a special committee.

Commencing on October 9, 2007, several putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania naming Nutrisystem, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors as defendants and alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The complaints purported to bring claims on behalf
of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 14, 2007, and October 3, 2007, or October 4,
2007.  The complaints alleged that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
Company's projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.  These
actions were consolidated in December 2007 under docket number 07-
4215, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on
March 7, 2008, that raised the same claims but alleged a class
period of February 14, 2007, through February 19, 2008.  The
consolidated amended complaint asked the court to (1) certify a
class, (2) award compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses and (3) grant such other and further relief as the court
deemed just and proper. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on May 6, 2008, that was granted by the Court on August 31, 2009.
On September 29, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on
May 19, 2010, upon motion by the plaintiff/appellant, the appeal
was dismissed with prejudice without costs to either party.  The
dismissal is final.

                   Stockholder's First Demand

On April 27, 2010, counsel for a stockholder sent a letter
relating to the same events that formed the bases of the federal
putative class action.  Specifically, the stockholder has
demanded, pursuant to Delaware Chancery Court Rule 23.1, that the
Board of Directors (1) undertake (or cause to be undertaken) an
independent internal investigation into violations of Delaware law
committed by Company management during the time periods, and (2)
commence a civil action against each member of management to
recover for the benefit of the Company the amount of damages
sustained by the Company as a result of their breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The Board of Directors appointed a special
committee consisting of three independent directors to investigate
this demand.  The special committee engaged independent legal
counsel to assist it in this investigation.  In April 2011, the
special committee, with the assistance of independent legal
counsel, completed its investigation and delivered to the Board of
Directors the special committee's recommendation that the Company
refuse the demands made in the stockholder's letter.  At its April
2011 meeting, the Board of Directors, after deliberation and
discussion, unanimously determined to accept the special
committee's recommendation as in the best interests of the Company
and its stockholders.  Promptly thereafter, the special
committee's counsel delivered to the stockholder's counsel a
letter informing counsel of the Board of Directors' actions and
the Company's decision to refuse the stockholder's demands.

                   Stockholder's Second Demand

In May 2011, the stockholder's counsel sent a letter to the
Company's counsel demanding to inspect and make copies of certain
specified books, records, minutes and other documents of the
Company for the purposes set forth in such letter.  Without
waiving any of the rights to challenge the propriety of such
purposes under Delaware law, in early June 2011, the Company
delivered to the stockholder's counsel copies of certain minutes
of the Board of Directors and the special committee according to
the terms of a confidentiality agreement that the Company and the
stockholder had executed. The Company says it has not received any
further correspondence or communications from the stockholder or
his counsel since that time.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Files Opposition to Class Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc., and other defendants of a securities
lawsuit in Nevada filed an objection to a class certification
motion, according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Following the Company's public announcement that it would restate
certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company's
accounting treatment for certain exploration and development
costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on
March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010 and April 7, 2010. These complaints
assert claims against the Company and certain officers and
directors for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).
One complaint also asserts claims for alleged violations ovf
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. All three
complaints allege claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Company common stock between May 6, 2008 or May 7,
2008 and February 23, 2010 or February 24, 2010. These three
lawsuits were consolidated by the court in an order issued on
June 3, 2010 and the court appointed three of the Company's
stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint (CAC) on July 9, 2010 that asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of Company common stock between May 7, 2008 and
February 24, 2010. The CAC alleges that certain of the Company's
public statements were false and misleading for failing to account
properly for the Company's exploration and development costs based
on the Company's announcement on February 24, 2010 that it was
going to restate certain of its financial results to change its
method of accounting for exploration and development costs in
certain respects. The CAC also alleges that certain of the
Company's statements concerning the North Brawley project were
false and misleading. The CAC seeks compensatory damages,
expenses, and such further relief as the court may deem proper.
The Company cannot make an estimate of the possible loss or range
of loss.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on August 13, 2010.
On March 3, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs'
allegations that the Company's statements regarding the North
Brawley project were false or misleading, but did not dismiss
plaintiffs' allegations regarding the restatement. Defendants
answered the remaining allegations in the CAC regarding the
restatement on April 8, 2011 and the case has now entered the
discovery phase. On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Company common stock between February 25, 2009 and
February 24, 2010, and defendants filed an opposition to the
motion for class certification on October 4, 2011.

The Company says it does not believe that the lawsuit has merit
and is defending the action vigorously.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court to Consider MDL Request on Dec. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to consolidate five consumer lawsuits against Portfolio
Recovery Associates, Inc., into one multi-district litigation will
be heard on Dec. 1, 2011, according to the Company's Nov. 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

The Company has been named as defendant in five putative class
action cases, each of which alleges that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular phones without their prior express consent: Allen v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-2658,
instituted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on December 23, 2010; Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, Case No. 37-2011-00083047, instituted in the
Superior Court of California, San Diego County on January 3, 2011;
Frydman v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
11-cv-524, instituted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on January 31, 2011; Bartlett v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-0624, instituted in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
March 1, 2011; and Harvey v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
Case No. 11-cv-00582, instituted in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on April 8, 2011.  Each of the
complaints seeks monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive
relief and other relief, including attorney fees.  On August 19,
2011, the plaintiff in the Frydman case moved for transfer and
consolidation of each of the five pending cases into one multi-
district litigation.  A hearing on this motion, which the Company
does not oppose, is scheduled for December 1, 2011.

Portfolio Recovery Associates -- http://
http://www.portfoliorecovery.com/-- is a specialized financial
and business services company.  It is in the business of
purchasing and collecting defaulted consumer receivables.  Those
finance receivables fall into two general categories: bankruptcy
portfolios and charged-off "Core" portfolios.  Revenue for this
part of the Company's business consists of cash collections
received less amounts applied to principal on the Company's owned
finance receivables.  Through its subsidiaries, the Company
provides a broad range of fee-based business services.  Those
services include collateral location services to credit
originators through the Company's PRA Location Services
subsidiary; revenue administration, discovery, and compliance
services to governmental entities through the Company's Government
Services subsidiaries; and class action claims recovery services
through the Company's CCB subsidiary.
Portfolio Recovery Associates is headquartered in Norfolk,
Virginia, and employs approximately 2,500 team members. The shares
of Portfolio Recovery Associates are traded on the NASDAQ Global
Select Market under the symbol "PRAA."


RED ROBIN: Continues to Defend "McConnell" Wage & Hour Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a wage and hour class action complaint commenced by Kevin
McConnell in California, according to the Company's Nov. 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2011.

On June 20, 2011, the Company was served with a purported wage and
hour class action lawsuit, Kevin McConnell v. Red Robin
International, Inc.  The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California in the San Francisco
division.  Red Robin filed its Answer on July 11, 2011.  The
claims are (1) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (2)
failure to compensate employees for all hours worked; (3) failure
to furnish wage and hour statements; (4) failure to maintain
employee time records; (5) unfair competition; (6) waiting time
penalties and (7) claims under the Private Attorney General Act.
Plaintiff is seeking class certification, general and punitive
damages, restitution for unlawful business practices, waiting time
and other penalties under the Labor Code, pre- and post- judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Although it plans to vigorously defend against the lawsuit, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit or whether it
may be required to pay damages, settlement costs, legal costs or
other amounts that may not be covered by insurance.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- http://www.redrobin.com/-- a
Delaware corporation, together with its subsidiaries, develops and
operates casual-dining restaurants.  At October 2, 2011, the
Company operated 323 company-owned restaurants located in 32
states.  The Company operates its business as one operating and
one reportable segment.  The Company also franchises its
restaurants, of which there were 137 restaurants in 21 states and
two Canadian provinces as of October 2, 2011.


RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit brought by Marcos R. Moreno
against Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc. remains pending in
California.

In December 2009, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno v. Red Robin International, Inc.
The case was filed in Superior Court in Ventura County, California
and has been removed to Federal District Court for the Central
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA").  Red Robin filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on
February 10, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and
overtime, failure to provide rest and meal breaks or to pay
compensation in lieu of such breaks, failure to pay timely wages
on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
unlawful business practices and unfair competition. Plaintiff is
seeking compensatory and special damages, restitution for unfair
competition, premium pay, penalties and wages under the Labor
Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs.   On March 24,
2010, the Court granted a stay of the case pending the outcome of
a California case currently before the California Supreme Court
for review.  That case involves similar allegations regarding rest
and meal breaks.  It is anticipated that the California Supreme
Court will provide useful guidance on rest and meal breaks when
the opinion in that case is issued.

No updates were reported in the Company's Nov. 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 2, 2011.

The Company believes the Moreno suit is without merit.  Although
it plans to vigorously defend against the suit, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of the lawsuit or whether it may be required
to pay damages, settlement costs, legal costs or other amounts
that may not be covered by insurance.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- http://www.redrobin.com/-- a
Delaware corporation, together with its subsidiaries, develops and
operates casual-dining restaurants.  At October 2, 2011, the
Company operated 323 company-owned restaurants located in 32
states.  The Company operates its business as one operating and
one reportable segment.  The Company also franchises its
restaurants, of which there were 137 restaurants in 21 states and
two Canadian provinces as of October 2, 2011.


SLM CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Amended Deal in "Arthur" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation is awaiting court approval of its amended
settlement agreement resolving a class action lawsuit pending in
Washington, according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Mark A. Arthur et al. v. Sallie Mae, Inc., is a class action
lawsuit that involves allegations made in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington that the Company contacted
consumers on their cellular telephones via autodialer without
their consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. ("TCPA").  Each violation under
the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages ($1,500 if a
willful violation is shown).  Plaintiffs are seeking statutory
damages, damages for willful violations, attorneys' fees, costs,
and injunctive relief.  The Company has denied vigorously all
claims asserted against it, but previously agreed to a preliminary
settlement of $19.5 million to avoid the burden and expense of
continued litigation.  Subsequent to reaching this preliminary
settlement, the Company filed submissions with the Court to advise
that additional individuals were omitted from the original notice
list of class members.

On October 7, 2011, the Company entered into an amended settlement
agreement under which it agreed to increase the settlement fund to
$24.15 million and Class Plaintiffs have submitted a motion for
preliminary approval of the amended settlement agreement with the
Court.  At September 30, 2011, the Company has $24.15 million
accrued related to this matter.


SOBER COLLEGE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court
class action claims Sober College stiffs workers for overtime and
violates other labor laws.


SPIRIT AERO: Appeal in Age Discrimination Suit in Kansas Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a district court ruling which blocked a lawsuit
filed against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary from
proceeding as a class action remains pending, according to the
Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 29, 2011.

In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit AeroSystems
Inc., Onex Corporation, and The Boeing Company alleging age
discrimination in the hiring of employees by Spirit when Boeing
sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex. The complaint was
filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas and seeks class-
action status, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and
more than $1.5 billion in punitive damages.

The asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition requires
Spirit to indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from the
employment decisions that were made by the Company with respect to
former employees of Boeing Wichita, which relate or allegedly
relate to the involvement of, or consultation with, employees of
Boeing in such employment decisions.  On June 30, 2010, the U.S.
District Court granted defendants' dispositive motions, finding
that the case should not be allowed to proceed as a class action.
The matter is now on appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which could reverse the District Court's June 30, 2010 ruling. The
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.  Management believes the resolution of this matter will
not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.


SPIRIT AERO: Discovery in "Harkness" Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit filed against
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. in Kansas, according to the
Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 29, 2011.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.  The defendants were served in early July
2007.  The defendants include Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.,
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc.
Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita
Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the
Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities.  The named
plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were
or are employees of Spirit.

The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and general contract law and brought the case
as a class action on behalf of similarly situated individuals.
The putative class consists of approximately 2,500 current or
former employees of Spirit.  The parties agreed to class
certification and are currently in the discovery process.  The
sub-class members who have asserted claims against the Spirit
entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed
by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing
pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service in the
Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were between the
ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work for Spirit on or about
June 17, 2005.  Although there are many claims in the suit, the
plaintiffs' claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under
various theories, are (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed
to determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early
retirement "bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical
benefits that were allegedly triggered by their separation from
employment by Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits
were unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their
claimed early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded
these individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing,
thereby decreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs seek a
declaration that they are entitled to the early retirement pension
benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction ordering that
the defendants provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach of
contract claims and attorney fees.

Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to
indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable damages" it may
incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms of the asset
purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition between Boeing and
Spirit.  Spirit disputes Boeing's position on indemnity.
Management believes the resolution of this matter will not
materially affect the Company's financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.


STAPLES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Get $11.5MM Fees in Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that attorneys who helped Staples managers achieve a $42 million
global settlement last year in a class-action suit charging unpaid
overtime have won $11.5 million in fees.


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings Ltd. on Nov. 9 disclosed that the securities
putative class action against Security Capital Assurance Ltd. (as
the Company was known at the time the class action was initiated)
and several former officers of the Company is now closed.  The
Company's motion for dismissal was successful and the action was
dismissed in its entirety, without the possibility of amended
pleadings, on September 23, 2011.  The ruling will not be appealed
and the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has ordered the case closed.

Syncora Holdings Ltd. (OTC: SYCRF) -- http://www.syncora.com-- is
a Bermuda-domiciled holding company.


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Continues to Defend "Crenshaw" Suit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts over pooled tips,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On January 19, 2011, a civil case styled as a class action
complaint titled Jenna Crenshaw, Andrew Brickley, et al, and all
others similarly situated v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas
Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, Texas Roadhouse of Everett, LLC and Texas
Roadhouse Management Corp., d/b/a Texas Roadhouse ("Crenshaw"),
Superior Court Civil Action Number 11-0157, was filed against the
Company in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The complaint was
subsequently amended to add additional plaintiffs, all of whom
have alleged a failure to comply with Massachusetts labor laws,
specifically that the Company improperly shared pooled tips with
ineligible employees.  The complaint alleges violations in all of
the Company's restaurants in Massachusetts. Currently, the Company
operates nine restaurants in the state.  The Company has removed
the case to federal court, filed an answer denying all material
allegations and are in the early phases of discovery.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Contract Breach Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation is asking a Puerto Rican court to
dismiss a breach of contract claim in a dentists' class action
complaint, according to the Company's Nov. 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ending Sept. 30, 2011.

On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
(Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating
in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.   The
Corporation and two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc.
("TCI"), were included as defendants.  This litigation purports to
be a class action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are
similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render.  The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150 million.  In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.
There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Corporation,
opposed.  Following months of jurisdictional proceedings in the
federal court system, the federal district court in Puerto Rico
decided to retain jurisdiction on February 8, 2011.  The
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the case on the merits,
because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.  On August 31, 2011, the District Court dismissed all
of plaintiffs' claims except for its breach of contract claim, and
ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the court still
has federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.  The parties have briefed the issue.  In addition, the
plaintiffs moved the court to reconsider its August 31, 2011
decision and the defendants moved the court to dismiss the breach
of contract claim.  The parties are awaiting the court's decision
on these issues.

Triple-S Management Corporation --
http://www.triplesmanagement.com/triples-- is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.  It is a
player in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico.  Triple-S
Management also has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross Blue
Shield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.  With more than 50 years of experience in the industry,
Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed care and
related products in the Commercial and Medicare Advantage markets
under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand through its subsidiary
Triple-S Salud, Inc. and effective February 2011, also offers non-
branded Medicare products through American Health Inc.  In
addition to its managed care business, Triple-S Management
provides non-Blue Cross Blue Shield branded life and property and
casualty insurance in Puerto Rico.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Unit Continues to Defend Vehicle Owner Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Triple-S Management Corporation continues to defend
itself against two lawsuits filed by motor vehicle owner groups,
according to the Company's Nov. 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ending
Sept. 30, 2011.

On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a group of motor
vehicle owners, filed a putative class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association ("JUA") and 17 other defendants,
including Triple-S Propiedad, Inc. ("TSP"), alleging violations
under the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
and the local statute against organized crime and money
laundering.  JUA is a private association created by law to
administer a compulsory public liability insurance program for
motor vehicles in Puerto Rico ("CLI").  As required by its
enabling act, JUA is composed of all the insurers that underwrite
private motor vehicle insurance in Puerto Rico and exceed the
minimum underwriting percentage established in such act.  TSP is a
member of JUA.

In this lawsuit entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code.  Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants do not incur in acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums.  Plaintiffs
also claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406.6 million, treble damages under RICO, and equitable
relief, including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment
barring defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along
with costs and attorneys' fees.

The case is in a very early stage, and neither answers nor
dispositive motions have been filed, the Company notes.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously contest the lawsuit on
several grounds.  Among them, based on the opinion of counsel, the
Company believes that the complaint falls short of the pleading
requirements under RICO and is barred by the filed rate doctrine,
because the premiums were established by law and filed with the
Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner.  Furthermore, TSP is obligated
by law to participate in JUA and charge the legislated premiums
for CLI.

A similar case entitled Maria Margarita Collazo Burgos, et al. v.
La Asociacion de Suscripcion Conjunta del Seguro de
Responsabilidad Obligatorio (JUA), et al., was filed against JUA
and its members, including TSP, in the Puerto Rico Court of First
Instance, San Juan Part on January 28, 2010.

The litigation is a putative class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of motor vehicle owners in Puerto Rico.  Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit allege that each of the defendants engaged in similar
activities and conduct as those alleged in the Torres litigation
and claim the recovery of $225 million for the class pertaining to
the acquisition and administration costs of the CLI, allegedly
charged in violation of the Puerto Rico Insurance Code's
provisions prohibiting the illegal traffic of premiums.  TSP is
vigorously contesting this action.

At this early stage of these cases, the Company cannot assess the
probability of an adverse outcome, or the reasonable financial
impact that any such outcome may have on the Company.

Triple-S Management Corporation --
http://www.triplesmanagement.com/triples-- is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.  It is a
player in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico.  Triple-S
Management also has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross Blue
Shield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.  With more than 50 years of experience in the industry,
Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed care and
related products in the Commercial and Medicare Advantage markets
under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand through its subsidiary
Triple-S Salud, Inc. and effective February 2011, also offers non-
branded Medicare products through American Health Inc.  In
addition to its managed care business, Triple-S Management
provides non-Blue Cross Blue Shield branded life and property and
casualty insurance in Puerto Rico.


UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Decertified Wage and Hour Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the decertification of a wage and hour lawsuit
remains pending, according to United Parcel Service, Inc.'s
November 4, 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 number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws.  In one of these cases, Marlo v.
UPS, which was certified as a class action in a California federal
court in September 2004, plaintiffs allege that they improperly
were denied overtime, and seek penalties for missed meal and rest
periods, and interest and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of 1,300 full-time supervisors.  In August 2005,
the court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS on all claims,
and plaintiffs appealed the ruling.  In October 2007, the appeals
court reversed the lower court's ruling.  In April 2008, the court
decertified the class and plaintiffs appealed.  After
decertification of the class, plaintiffs filed 56 individual
lawsuits raising the same allegations as in the underlying class
action.

As of September 30, 2011, 53 of the original 56 lawsuits have been
favorably resolved by dismissal, summary judgment granted to the
Company or trial defense verdict.  Two cases resulted in a
plaintiff's verdict for an immaterial amount, and one case remains
pending.  Of the 56 original lawsuits, plaintiffs have filed
appeals in 7 of those cases.  Accordingly, at this time, the
Company does not believe that any loss associated with these
matters, would have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.


UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Final Approval of "Barber" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its
settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit commenced by Barber
Auto Sales in Alabama, according to the Company's
November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In Barber Auto Sales v. UPS, which a federal court in Alabama
certified as a class action in September 2009, the plaintiff
asserts a breach of contract claim arising from UPS's assessment
of shipping charge corrections when UPS determines that the
"dimensional weight" of packages is greater than reported by the
shipper.  On June 1, 2011, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case for an immaterial amount.  The
settlement has been preliminarily approved, and remains subject to
a final fairness hearing.


UNITED PARCEL: Hearing on Bid to Certify Quebec Case in Feb. 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The request to certify a class in a lawsuit against United Parcel
Service, Inc., in Quebec, Canada, will be heard in February 2012,
the Company disclosed in its November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

In Canada, three purported class-action cases were filed against
the Company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec
(2006).  The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning
the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by the
Company under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada.  The British Columbia class-
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge.  That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
the Company's favor.  The Ontario class action was certified in
September 2011.  Partial summary judgment was granted to the
Company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court.  The
complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed.  No appeal is
being taken from that decision.  The allegations of inadequate
disclosure were granted and the Company is appealing that
decision.  The request to certify the case in Quebec will be heard
in February 2012.

The Company says it denied all liability and is vigorously
defending the two outstanding cases.  The Company says there are
multiple factors that prevent it from being able to estimate the
amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters,
including (1) the Company is vigorously defending itself and
believes that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses, and
(2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be
important to the ultimate resolution of these matters.
Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not able to estimate a
possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters
or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operation or liquidity.


UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Suit Remains Pending in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services.  United Parcel Service, Inc., was not
named in this case.  On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders
as defendants.  UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the
60 defendants named in the amended complaint.  The Company says it
intends to vigorously defend itself in this case. There are
multiple factors that prevent the Company from being able to
estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these
matters including: (1) the magistrate judge recommended that the
district court grant the Company's motion to dismiss, with leave
to amend, and the scope of the plaintiffs' claims is therefore
unclear; (2) the scope and size of the proposed class is ill-
defined; (3) there are significant legal questions about the
adequacy and standing of the putative class representatives; and
(4) the Company believes that it has a number of meritorious legal
defenses. Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not able to
estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from
these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


USEC INC: Faces Class Suit Over Severance Benefits Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------
USEC Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed by an employee
over severance benefits payment, according to the Company's
November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In June 2011, a complaint was filed in Federal court against USEC
by a Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plant ("GDP") employee claiming
that USEC owes or will owe severance benefits to him and other
similarly situated employees that have transitioned or will
transition to the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE")
decontamination and decommissioning ("D&D") contractor.  The
plaintiff amended its complaint in August 2011, among other
things, to limit the purported class of similarly situated
employees to salaried employees at the Portsmouth site.

USEC believes it has meritorious defenses against the lawsuit and
has not accrued any amounts for this matter.  An estimate of the
possible loss or range of loss from the litigation cannot be made
because, among other things, (i) the plaintiff has failed to state
the amount of damages sought, (ii) the plaintiff purports to
represent a class of claimants the size and composition of which
remains unknown and (iii) the certification of the class is
uncertain.  USEC's severance liability could have been up to $25
million if severance was required to be paid to all employees
(both salaried and hourly employees) ceasing employment with USEC
as a result of the transition to the DOE D&D contractor.  In such
an event, DOE would have owed a portion of this amount, estimated
at $18.5 million.  The potential severance liability associated
with the transition of services at the Portsmouth site has
decreased as workers accepted equivalent positions with the D&D
contractor.  Severance liabilities associated with the employee
transition at the Portsmouth site for those workers not offered
employment by the D&D contractor is less than $1 million, with DOE
owing a portion of this amount related to contract closeout, and
is recorded as a current liability as of September 30, 2011.
Severance amounts are expected to be paid in the fourth quarter of
2011.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend ACTONEL Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company continues to defend itself
against four product liability class actions in Canada, according
to the Company's November 4, 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 approximately 120 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 100 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 227 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to the Company's bisphosphonate
prescription drug ACTONEL. The claimants allege, among other
things, that ACTONEL caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw, a rare but serious condition that involves severe loss or
destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the
femur. All of the cases have been filed in either federal or state
courts in the United States. The Company is in the initial stages
of discovery in these litigations. The 100 unfiled claims involve
potential plaintiffs that have agreed, pursuant to a tolling
agreement, to postpone the filing of their claims against the
Company in exchange for the Company's agreement to suspend the
statutes of limitations relating to their potential claims. In
addition, the Company is aware of four purported product liability
class actions that were brought against the Company in provincial
courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that ACTONEL caused
the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested ACTONEL
to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It is expected
that these plaintiffs will seek class certification.

The Company says it is reviewing the lawsuits and potential claims
and intends to defend these claims vigorously.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend FLSA Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

In August 2010, an affiliate of the Company was served with a
complaint in a class and collective action brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by a former pharmaceutical sales
representative of defendant, on behalf of herself and other sales
representatives. The suit alleges that defendant improperly
categorized its pharmaceutical sales representatives as "exempt"
rather than "non-exempt" employees and as a result, wrongfully
denied them overtime compensation. Plaintiff is seeking damages
for unpaid overtime, including back pay, liquidated damages,
penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees. Other pharmaceutical
companies have been the subject of similar lawsuits. Defendant
believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend this
action vigorously. This case is in the early stages of litigation,
and an estimate of the range of potential losses to the Company,
if any, relating to these proceedings is not possible at this
time.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 25, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of
a person alleged to be a participant in Weyerhaeuser Company's
U.S. Retirement Plan for salaried employees.  The complaint
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA)
with respect to the management of the plan's assets and seeks
certification as a class action.  The Company believes that its
pension plans have been consistently managed in full compliance
with established fiduciary standards and is vigorously contesting
the claim.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the claim.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


WINDSTREAM CORP: Defends Class Suit Over Gross Receipts Surcharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Corporation continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit over its collection of a gross receipts surcharge,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On June 22, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
Kentucky federal district court against certain of the Company's
subsidiaries on behalf of current and former customers in
Kentucky. The complaint alleged that the Company overcharged
customers because it collected a gross receipts surcharge in
violation of state and federal statutes and tariffs and common
law. The federal court referred the state tariff issues to the
Kentucky Public Service Commission. The federal court recently
ruled that the GRS was a rate that should have been in the
Company's federal tariffs prior to its collection from customers
and issued an order regarding class certification that, according
to the court, was not final.

The Company says it plans to continue to vigorously defend the
court and administrative proceedings.


                           *********

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  * * *