CAR_Public/111115.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 15, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 226

                             Headlines

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Enters Stipulation to Settle "Bang" Suit
AES CORP: Continues to Defend DPL Merger-Related Suits in Ohio
AES CORP: Moves to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit Over Gas Emissions
ALLY FINANCIAL: Defends 22 Suits Over Private-Label MBS Offerings
AMERICAN NATIONAL: In Process of Administering Suit Settlement

AMGEN INC: Awaits 9th Cir. Ruling in Consolidated Securities Suit
AMGEN INC: Hearing on AWP MDL Settlement Expected Soon
AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Did Not Seek Review of Suit Dismissal
ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in Illinois
AON CORP: Awaits Approval of Deal in Consolidated N.J. Suit

ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 1,384 ATVs Due to Crash Hazard
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit
AUTOMATIC DATA: Final Hearing on Calif. Suit Deal Set for Nov. 28
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Unit Continues to Defend ATM MDL in Florida
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Tenn.

BROOKLYN SLEEP: Gets Injunction Against Products and F. Chavez
CAMBREX CORP: Petition for Certiorari in Lorazepam Suit Denied
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Court Sets Final Approval Hearing for Jan. 12
CHINA EXPERT: Securities Claims Against U.S. Auditor Can Proceed
CITIGROUP INC: Ill. Ct. Dismisses Class Claims in "Disher" Suit

CITIGROUP INC: Counsel Appt. in Consolidated LIBOR Suit Pending
CORELOGIC INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit
CORVEL CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Williams" Suit Settlement
CYNOSURE INC: Plaintiff Seeks Reassignment of Dismissed Class Suit
DAVITA INC: Class Action Lawsuit in California Still Pending

DAVITA INC: Arbitration Panel Dismisses Blue Cross Claims
DAVITA INC: DVA Renal Inks Deal to Settle Class Action Suit
ELSIE MASON: Class Action Over Bedbug Infestation Can Proceed
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery Process in eFunds Suit Continues
FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Court Dismisses Solectron Merger Class Suit

GLOBAL INDUSTRIES: Enters MOU to Settle Merger-Related Lawsuits
GOLDMAN SACHS: Sued in N.Y. by Stockholders of El Paso Corp.
GOV'T OF THAILAND: May Face Class Actions Over Handling of Flood
HALLIBURTON CO: Faces Ammonium Perchlorate-Related Suits in Okla.
HSBC BANK: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations

INTEL CORP: Awaits Ruling on Plaintiffs' Objections in Del. MDL
INTERCLICK INC: Being Sold to Yahoo! For Too Little, Suit Claims
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Conference in Class Suit Set for Nov. 17
M/I HOMES: Remaining Claims in Chinese Drywall Suit Still Pending
MACERICH COMPANY: Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Dec. 9

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Polyurethane Class Suit
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAUGE: Wants Medical Monitoring Suit Dismissed
PENN NATIONAL: High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Suit Dismissal
PITNEY BOWES: Still Awaits Decision in "NECA-IBEW" Class Suit
PITNEY BOWES: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit

PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Remains Named Co-Conspirator in Suits
PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in "Garcia" Suits Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Defends Lawsuits Over Retained Asset Accts.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Huffman" ERISA Suit

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Clark" Lawsuit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal From Schultz Suit Dismissal Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit Pact
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in Class Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion Still Pending

REED ELSEVIER: Motions Challenging Fulton County Deal Filed
SENSA PRODUCTS: Sued Over Deceptive Claims on "Tastant"
SIERRA TRADING: Recalls 1,280 Joss Rock Climbing Cams
STATE STREET CORP: Forex Class Suits in Boston & Baltimore Pending
STATE STREET CORP: Still Faces Shareholder Suits in Boston

SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal From Calif. Suits Dismissal Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeals in ERISA Class Suit Remain Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Decision in Suit Over Overdraft Fees
SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Order on Arbitration Bid in "Krinsk" Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Classic Mutual Funds Suit Pending

SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit Over TRUPs
SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal Bid in Colonial-Related Suit Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Lehman Brothers" MDL Remains Pending in N.Y.
TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC: Mixon Files Notice in Fax Ad Suit
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: U.S. Indirect Purchaser Suits Still Pending

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Faces Canadian Horsepower Label Suits
TEREX CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Class Suits in Connecticut
TIMBERCORP: M+K Appeals Investor Class Action Ruling
TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit in Del.
TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Judge Must Decide on Lakin Chapman Suit

U.S. BANCORP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Debit Transactions
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ingenix-Related Class Suits Remain Pending
USA TRUCK: Obtains Court Approval of "Cerdenia" Suit Settlement
VALEANT PHARMA: Expert Discovery Set to End November 17
VODAFONE: May Face Class Action Over Network Problems

W.P. APPLIANCES: Recalls 27,000 Wolfgang Puck Grills/Griddles
XENOPORT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Horizant" Suit Remains Pending
ZIPCAR INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Late Fees in Mass.




                          *********

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Enters Stipulation to Settle "Bang" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 31, 2011, Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") providing for the
release of all claims against the Company and its named directors
and officers (the "Defendants") in the securities class action
entitled Bang v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-
05757, for a payment of $1.5 million, the Company disclosed in its
November 4, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The class action is pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.  The
Stipulation is subject to final approval by the court.  The
Company and the individual defendants continue to deny all charges
of wrongdoing or liability against them relating to this action
and the Stipulation does not contain or constitute any admission
or finding of wrongful conduct, acts or omissions on the part of
any Defendant.  Acura expects its insurance carrier to pay the
$1.5 million settlement amount.

The amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made false or
misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts in
order to make statements not misleading, relating to the Company's
Acurox(R) with Niacin Tablets product candidate, resulting in
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The class action included
claims for damages on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock (the "Affected Securities")
during the class period of February 21, 2006, to April 22, 2010
(the "Plaintiff Class").

In consideration of the payment of the settlement amount, the
Plaintiff Class has agreed, upon final approval by the court, to
dismiss the class action with prejudice and release all known and
unknown claims arising out of or relating to, or in connection
with the purchase or acquisition of the Affected Securities during
the class period which have been or could have been asserted by
the members of the Plaintiff Class.

All parties have agreed to use their best efforts to finalize the
Stipulation and such other documentation as may be required or
appropriate to obtain final court approval of the settlement upon
the terms set forth in the Stipulation.


AES CORP: Continues to Defend DPL Merger-Related Suits in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The AES Corporation continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits related to its merger with DPL, 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.

Purported stockholders of DPL filed nine putative derivative
and/or class actions in Ohio state court and three such suits in
Ohio federal court against DPL and its board of directors relating
to DPL's agreement to merge with the Company. Most of those
lawsuits name the Company as a defendant. The lawsuits are
substantially similar and allege that the price offered in the
merger is unfair, DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duty by
agreeing to the merger at an unfair price, and the Company aided
and abetted that breach by offering an unfair price. The lawsuits
seek to enjoin the merger and some suits also seek unspecified
damages. Five of the state lawsuits have been voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice. The defendants' motions to dismiss
the remaining four state lawsuits are pending. The three federal
lawsuits were consolidated, and the plaintiffs in those suits
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting state and federal
disclosure claims and moved to enjoin the merger prior to the vote
of DPL's shareholders on the merger. The defendants filed motions
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The federal court
established a briefing schedule on those motions and ordered
limited discovery on certain disclosure claims. Subsequently, in
July 2011, the defendants and the federal plaintiffs executed a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
litigation, subject to certain confirmatory discovery and court
approval, pursuant to which DPL would make certain additional
disclosures to stockholders in its final proxy statement prior to
the shareholder vote on the merger. After execution of the MOU,
the federal court suspended briefing on the motions pending before
it. DPL made the additional disclosures required under the MOU.
The shareholders of DPL later approved the merger in September
2011. The parties to the federal litigation are drafting a
stipulation of settlement that, if filed with and ultimately
approved by the federal court, would dismiss the federal
litigation with prejudice and release all claims by DPL
stockholders concerning the merger. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and will assert them vigorously if the
potential settlement is not consummated; however, there can be no
assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.


AES CORP: Moves to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit Over Gas Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------
The AES Corporation is seeking to dismiss a class action lawsuit
over alleged greenhouse gas emissions which allegedly increased
Hurricane Katrina's destructive power, 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 May 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Mississippi
federal court against the Company and numerous unrelated
companies. The lawsuit alleges that greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly
increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina. The
plaintiffs assert claims for public and private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, and declaratory judgment. The plaintiffs
seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business,
clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify
their alleged damages. These and other plaintiffs previously
brought a substantially similar lawsuit in the federal court but
failed to obtain relief. The Company moved to dismiss the lawsuit
in October 2011. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
and will defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there
can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Defends 22 Suits Over Private-Label MBS Offerings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc., formerly known as GMAC Inc., is defending 22
lawsuits related to its private-label mortgage-backed securities
offerings, according to its November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

There are twenty-two cases relating to various private-label
mortgage-backed securities (MBS) offerings that are currently
pending.  Plaintiffs in these cases include Cambridge Place
Investment Management Inc. (two cases pending in Suffolk County
Superior Court, Massachusetts, filed on July 9, 2010, and February
11, 2011); The Charles Schwab Corporation (case pending in San
Francisco County Superior Court, California, filed on August 2,
2010); Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (case filed in Suffolk
County Superior Court, Massachusetts, on April 20, 2011, and
removed to the District of Massachusetts); Federal Home Loan Bank
of Chicago (case pending in Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois,
filed on October 15, 2010); Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis
(case pending in Marion County Superior Court, Indiana, filed on
October 15, 2010); Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. (case
pending in federal court in the District of Massachusetts, filed
on February 9, 2011); Allstate Insurance Co., et al. (case pending
in Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota, filed on February
18, 2011); New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, et al. (a putative
class action, filed on
September 22, 2008, in which certification has been denied,
pending in federal court in the Southern District of New York);
West Virginia Investment Management Board (case pending in Kanawha
County Circuit Court, West Virginia, filed on March 4, 2010);
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, et al. (case pending in Hennepin
County District Court, Minnesota, filed on March 28, 2011); Union
Central Life Insurance et al. (case pending in federal court in
the Southern District of New York, filed on April 28, 2011);
National Credit Union Administration Board (two cases pending in
federal court: one in the District of Kansas, filed on June 20,
2011, and one in the Central District of California, filed on
August 19, 2011); The Western and Southern Life Insurance Co., et
al. (case pending in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio,
filed on June 29, 2011) ); Federal Housing Finance Agency (case
filed in New York County Supreme Court, New York, on September 2,
2011, and removed to the Southern District of New York); IKB
Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. (four cases pending in New York
County Supreme Court, New York, filed on September 12, 2011,
October 7, 2011, October 13, 2011 and
October 20, 2011); Huntington Bancshares Inc. (case pending in
Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota, filed on October 10,
2011); and Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP (case pending in Hennepin
County District Court, Minnesota, filed on October 11, 2011).

Each of the cases includes as defendants certain of the Company's
mortgage subsidiaries, and the New Jersey Carpenters,
Massachusetts Mutual, Union Central, Western and Southern,
Huntington Bancshares, and Stichting Pensioenfonds cases also
include as defendants certain current and former employees.  The
plaintiffs in all cases have alleged that the various defendant
subsidiaries made misstatements and omissions in registration
statements, prospectuses, prospectus supplements, and other
documents related to MBS offerings.  The alleged misstatements and
omissions typically concern underwriting standards.  Plaintiffs
claim that such misstatements and omissions constitute violations
of state and/or federal securities law and common law including
negligent misrepresentation and fraud.  Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages and rescission.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: In Process of Administering Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
American National Insurance Company is in the process of
completing administration of a settlement of a putative class
action lawsuit, 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.

American National is a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit wherein the Plaintiff proposed to certify a class of
persons who purchased certain American National proprietary
deferred annuity products in the State of California (Rand v.
American National Insurance Company, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, filed February 12, 2009).
Plaintiff alleged that American National violated the California
Insurance, Business and Professions, Welfare and Institutions, and
Civil Codes through its fixed and equity-indexed deferred annuity
sales and marketing practices by not sufficiently providing proper
disclosure notices on the nature of surrender fees, commissions
and bonus features and not considering the suitability of the
product.  Certain claims raised by Plaintiff relate to sales of
annuities to the elderly. Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties,
restitution, interest, penalties, attorneys' fees, punitive
damages and rescissionary and/or injunctive relief in an
unspecified amount.  In September 2010, the Court granted partial
summary judgment for American National due to the nonexistence of
certain California Insurance Code violations, and granted partial
summary judgment against American National as to whether the
Plaintiff received a disclosure notice required by the California
Insurance Code.  Plaintiff contends that the alleged disclosure
violation will support a California Unfair Competition Law claim.

American National negotiated a settlement agreement with Plaintiff
in the class action lawsuit.  During the quarter ended March 31,
2011, American National reserved $12,000,000 for this settlement
agreement.  In September of 2011, the Court entered an Order
approving the Settlement and entered Final Judgment on the case.
American National is in the process of completing administration
of the settlement pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement and anticipates finalizing administration at the
beginning of 2012.


AMGEN INC: Awaits 9th Cir. Ruling in Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. is awaiting a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit on its appeal from an order certifying a
class in the consolidated securities lawsuit pending 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.

The six federal class action stockholder complaints filed against
Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton,
Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V.
Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., (the
"Federal Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (the "California Central District Court")
on April 17, 2007 (Kairalla v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 1, 2007
(Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al., & Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.),
May 11, 2007 (Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 21, 2007
(Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.) and June 18, 2007 (Public
Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc., et
al.) were consolidated by the California Central District Court
into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation.
The consolidated complaint was filed with the California Central
District Court on October 2, 2007.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices.  The
complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations that,
throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly
marketed Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) for off-label uses while aware
that there were alleged safety signals with these products.  The
plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, legal
fees and other relief deemed proper.  The Federal Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss on November 8, 2007.  On February 4, 2008, the
California Central District Court granted in part, and denied in
part, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  Specifically, the California Central District
Court granted the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
individual defendants Fritzky, Omenn, Johnson, Fenton and McNamee,
but denied the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
individual defendants Sharer, Nanula, Perlmutter and Morrow.

A class certification hearing before the California Central
District Court, was held on July 17, 2009, and on August 12, 2009,
the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On August 28, 2009, Amgen filed a
petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") under Rule 23(f),
regarding the Order on Class Certification and the Ninth Circuit
granted Amgen's appeal on December 11, 2009.  Amgen filed its
brief on March 29, 2010, and plaintiff filed its brief on April
27, 2010.  No date has been set for oral argument before the Ninth
Circuit.  On February 2, 2010, the lower court granted Amgen's
motion to stay the underlying action pending the outcome of the
Ninth Circuit 23(f) appeal.

On October 14, 2011, the appeal under Rule 23(f) was argued before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit
Court).  No decision has been issued by the Ninth Circuit Court.


AMGEN INC: Hearing on AWP MDL Settlement Expected Soon
------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is expected sometime near the end of November or early
December 2011 with respect to the proposed settlement in the
average wholesale price multidistrict litigation pending in
Massachusetts, according to Amgen Inc.'s November 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Amgen and its wholly-owned subsidiary Immunex Inc. are named as
defendants, either separately or together, in numerous civil
actions broadly alleging that they, together with many other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, reported prices for certain products
in a manner that allegedly inflated reimbursement under Medicare
and/or Medicaid programs and commercial insurance plans, including
co-payments paid to providers who prescribe and administer the
products.  The complaints generally assert varying claims under
the Medicare and Medicaid statutes, as well as state law claims
for deceptive trade practices, common law fraud and various
related state law claims.  The complaints seek an undetermined
amount of damages, as well as other relief, including declaratory
and injunctive relief.

The AWP litigation was commenced against Amgen and Immunex on
December 19, 2001, with the filing of Citizens for Consumer
Justice, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.  Additional
cases have been filed since that time.  Most of these actions have
been consolidated, or are in the process of being consolidated, in
a federal Multi-District Litigation proceeding (the "MDL
Proceeding"), captioned In Re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average
Wholesale Price Litigation MDL No. 1456 and pending in the
Massachusetts District Court.

These cases have been consolidated into the MDL Proceeding, and
include cases brought by consumer classes and certain state and
local governmental entities:

   * Citizens for Consumer Justice, et al., v. Abbott
     Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

   * Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia, et al., v.
     Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

   * Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia
     v. Immunex Corporation;

   * Constance Thompson, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
     al.;

   * Ronald Turner, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;
     and

   * Congress of California Seniors v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.,
     et al.

In the MDL Proceeding, the Massachusetts District Court has set
various deadlines relating to motions to dismiss the complaints,
discovery, class certification, summary judgment and other pre-
trial issues.  For the private class action cases, the
Massachusetts District Court has divided the defendant companies
into a Track I group and a Track II group.  Both Amgen and Immunex
are in the Track II group.  On March 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed a
fourth amended master consolidated complaint, which did not
include their motion for class certification as to the Track II
group.  On September 12, 2006, a hearing before the Massachusetts
District Court was held on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as to the Track II group defendants, which include
Amgen and Immunex.  On March 7, 2008, the Track II defendants
reached a tentative class settlement of the MDL Proceeding, which
was subsequently amended on April 3, 2008.  The tentative Track II
settlement relates to claims against numerous defendants,
including Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Amgen Inc., Aventis
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Baxter
Healthcare Corporation, Baxter International Inc., Bayer
Corporation, Dey, Inc., Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc., Fujisawa USA,
Inc., Immunex Corporation, Pharmacia Corporation, Pharmacia &
Upjohn LLC (f/k/a Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc.), Sicor, Inc., Gensia,
Inc., Gensia Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and ZLB Behring, L.L.C.  Plaintiffs continue to file for
extensions for the final approval hearing of the Track II
settlement due to continued deficiencies in executing notices.

Following further approval hearings on the proposed settlement,
the Massachusetts District Court again required more work by the
parties prior to final approval.  Another hearing is expected
sometime near the end of November or early December 2011.


AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Did Not Seek Review of Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said 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 plaintiffs did not seek further review
from the order affirming the dismissal of the lawsuit captioned
Warren General Hospital v. Amgen within the permitted timeframe.

On September 25, 2009, Warren General Hospital of Warren,
Pennsylvania (on its behalf and all others similarly situated)
filed a class action in the New Jersey District Court against
Amgen alleging federal antitrust violations under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act based on Amgen's
contracting practices.  The complaint seeks damages including
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Amgen filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on December 9, 2009.  Following briefing
by the parties, Amgen's motion to dismiss was granted by the New
Jersey District Court on June 7, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their
notice of appeal to the motion to dismiss on June 14, 2010, with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third
Circuit").  Plaintiff filed their opening brief on August 23, 2010
and Amgen's response brief was filed on September 22, 2010.
Plaintiff filed its reply brief on October 6, 2010.  Oral argument
before the Third Circuit was held on January 25, 2011.

On June 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
(the Third Circuit Court) affirmed the decision by the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to grant Amgen's
motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs had until September 12, 2011,
to appeal the Third Circuit Court's decision, but did not seek
review within the permitted timeframe.


ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2009, the Garden City Employees' Retirement System
filed a purported class action under the federal securities laws
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Anixter International Inc., its current and
former chief executive officers and its former chief financial
officer.  In November 2009, the Court entered an order appointing
the Indiana Laborers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointing
lead plaintiff's counsel.  In January 2010, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint principally
alleges that the Company made misleading statements during 2008
regarding certain aspects of its financial performance and
outlook.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of persons who purchased the common stock of the Company
between January 29 and October 20, 2008.  In March 2011, the Court
dismissed the complaint but allowed the lead plaintiff the
opportunity to re-plead its complaint.  The plaintiff did so in
April 2011.

The Company and the other defendants intend to continue to defend
themselves vigorously against the allegations.  Based on facts
known to management at this time, the Company says it cannot
estimate the amount of loss, if any, and, therefore, has not made
any accrual for this matter in these financial statements.

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.


AON CORP: Awaits Approval of Deal in Consolidated N.J. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation is awaiting court approval of its agreement to
settle a consolidated lawsuit in New Jersey, 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.

Aon and its subsidiaries are subject to numerous claims, tax
assessments, lawsuits and proceedings that arise in the ordinary
course of business, which frequently include errors and omissions
("E&O") claims.  The damages claimed in these matters are or may
be substantial, including, in many instances, claims for punitive,
treble or extraordinary damages.  Aon has historically purchased
E&O insurance and other insurance to provide protection against
certain losses that arise in such matters.  Aon has exhausted or
materially depleted its coverage under some of the policies that
protect the Company and, consequently, is self-insured or
materially self-insured for some historical claims.  Accruals for
these exposures, and related insurance receivables, when
applicable, have been provided to the extent that losses are
deemed probable and are reasonably estimable.  These accruals and
receivables are adjusted from time to time as developments
warrant.  Amounts related to settlement provisions are recorded in
Other general expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Income.

At the time of the 2004-05 investigation of the insurance industry
by the Attorney General of New York and other regulators,
purported classes of clients filed civil litigation against Aon
and other companies under a variety of legal theories, including
state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, antitrust and statutory
theories and federal antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") theories.  The federal actions
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, and a state court collective action was filed in
California.  In the New Jersey actions, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs' federal antitrust and RICO claims in separate orders
in August and October 2007, respectively.  In August 2010, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
dismissals of most, but not all, of the claims.

In March 2011, Aon entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
documenting a settlement of the civil cases consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Under that
agreement, Aon will pay $550,000 in exchange for dismissal of the
class claims.  This agreement remains subject to court approval.

Several non-class claims brought by individual plaintiffs who
opted out of the class action proceeding will remain pending, but
the Company does not believe these present material exposure to
the Company individually or in the aggregate.  The Company says
the outcome of these lawsuits, and any losses or other payments
that may result, cannot be predicted at this time.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 1,384 ATVs Due to Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
About 1,384 units of Arctic Cat All-Terrain Vehicle were
voluntarily recalled by Arctic Cat Inc., of Thief River Falls,
Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The ATV's steering tie-rod can bend, causing loss of control which
poses a crash hazard.

Arctic Cat has received three reports of bent tie-rods.  No
reports of injuries have been received.

The recall includes all 2011 Arctic Cat XC 450 ATVs and some 2012
Arctic Cat XC 450 ATVs.  Recalled 2012 model year ATVs can be
identified by the last six numerals of the Vehicle Identification
Number (VIN) in the following ranges: 6V0101 through 6V0178 and
700101 through 700230.  The VIN is located on the lower front
frame tube below the front bumper.  The recalled ATVs are black
and orange or black and lime green and display the words "Arctic
Cat" on each side of the cowl ahead of the handlebars.  The model
number "450 XC" is on the front center of the cowl.  Picture of
the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12704.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Arctic Cat dealerships nationwide since February 2011 for between
$6,500 and $6,900.

Consumers should immediately stop using these ATVs and contact
their local Arctic Cat ATV dealer to schedule a free repair.
Registered owners have been directly notified about this recall by
mail.  For additional information, call Arctic Cat at (800) 279-
6851 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.arctic-cat.com/


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Banc-Corp continues to defend a multidistrict
litigation involving its subsidiary relating to overdraft fees,
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.

A lawsuit, Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin in April 2010.  The lawsuit alleges that the Bank
unfairly assesses and collects overdraft fees and seeks
restitution of the overdraft fees, compensatory, consequential and
punitive damages, and costs.  The lawsuit asserts claims for a
multi-year period (as limited by the applicable state's statute of
limitations, generally six years) and is styled as a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of consumer banking customers of
the Bank with the certification of the class pending.  In April
2010, a Multi District Judicial Panel issued a conditional
transfer order to consolidate this case into the Multi District
Litigation ("MDL"), In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation
MDL No. 2036 pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division for coordinated pre-
trial proceedings.  The Bank is a member, along with many other
banking institutions, of the Fourth Tranche of defendants in this
case.

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

The Corporation denies all alleged claims and intends to
vigorously defend itself.  The Corporation says the amount claimed
by the plaintiffs has not been determined, but could be material.
Several banks which are also party to the Multi District
Litigation have announced settlements of similar claims for what
the Company believes to be a small fraction of their aggregate
total service charge income on deposit accounts over the
applicable claim period.  Based upon currently available
information including recent settlement announcements, management
believes a loss is probable and has established an accrual within
a range of possible settlement outcomes.  The amount accrued is
not considered to be material to the Corporation's consolidated
financial statements.  Further, based on the range of announced
settlements, management anticipates that these claims may be
settled without any additional material loss to the Corporation's
consolidated financial statements.  Management will continue to
monitor the progress of these claims and in the event of
unexpected future developments or as defendants in earlier
tranches in the Multi District Litigation reach settlements or
proceed to trial, the Corporation will assess its estimate of
possible losses and make appropriate adjustments to the accrual
accordingly as and when new information becomes available.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Final Hearing on Calif. Suit Deal Set for Nov. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of Automatic Data Processing,
Inc.'s settlement to resolve a purported class action lawsuit
pending in California is scheduled for November 28, 2011.

In September 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. The lawsuit was subsequently
removed to the United States District Court, Central District of
California, Western Division. The complaint alleges that the
Company unlawfully handled certain client calls and seeks
statutory damages. The services at issue were performed by an
independent third-party vendor, and the Company believes that it
has the contractual right to full indemnification from this vendor
for any potential losses it might incur with respect to the
matter. In April 2011, the Company and the third-party vendor
entered into a class action settlement agreement with the
plaintiff to settle the matter subject to court approval. As part
of the settlement, the Company was to be dismissed from the
action, and the third-party vendor will pay all settlement
amounts. The third-party vendor is also paying all of the
Company's legal fees and costs associated with the defense of the
matter. The Company was dismissed from the action on May 2, 2011.
On July 20, 2011 the court granted preliminary approval to the
class action settlement and provisionally certified the settlement
class. A hearing on final approval is scheduled for November 28,
2011.

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.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Unit Continues to Defend ATM MDL in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 18, 2010, BancorpSouth, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary,
BancorpSouth Bank (the "Bank") was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by two Arkansas customers of
the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida.  The lawsuit challenges the manner in which overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to posting order of
debit card and ATM transactions.  The lawsuit also makes a claim
under Arkansas' consumer protection statute.  The case was
transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  No class has
been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management of
the Company cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable
outcome to the Company.  There are significant uncertainties
involved in any purported class action litigation.  Although it is
not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial
liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently
of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated
financial position or results of operations.  However, there can
be no assurance that an adverse outcome or settlement would not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
results of operations for a given fiscal period.

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.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc. continues to defend a securities class action
lawsuit pending in Tennessee, 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 May 12, 2010, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of
the Company's common stock.  On September 17, 2010, an Executive
Vice President of the Company was added as a party to the lawsuit.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results.  The plaintiff seeks class
certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of
costs and attorneys' fees and such other equitable relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.  No class has been certified and,
at this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine the
probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company.  The Company
says there are significant uncertainties involved in any purported
class action litigation.  Although it is not possible to predict
the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to
this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the
outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results
of operations.


BROOKLYN SLEEP: Gets Injunction Against Products and F. Chavez
--------------------------------------------------------------

              Firm Sold Mattresses in Violation of
              Lifesaving Federal Flammability Laws

A federal judge granted a default judgment and a permanent
injunction [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12039.pdf]
ordering Brooklyn Sleep Products Inc., of Brooklyn, New York, and
its president Francisco Chavez, to stop manufacturing, importing,
renovating and selling mattresses until they provide evidence that
their mattresses comply with federal flammability laws.

Additionally, United States District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf of
the Eastern District of New York ordered Brooklyn Sleep Products
and Mr. Chavez to recall all mattresses, mattress sets or mattress
pads sold to consumers that failed federal flammability tests.  If
the firm fails to comply with the judge's order, it can face fines
of $1,000 per day.

The judgment is a victory for the safety of consumers and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which filed lawsuit
against Brooklyn Sleep Products and Mr. Chavez after discovering
that the firm was selling mattresses that did not comply with the
Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) and the Consumer Product Safety Act
(CPSA).  The firm committed violations even after it had been
preliminarily enjoined from selling violative mattresses.

In 2008, CPSC conducted inspections and collected mattress samples
at Brooklyn Sleep Products' facility in Brooklyn, N.Y., and at
retail stores selling the firm's mattresses in Fall River, Mass.,
and Providence, R.I.  CPSC collected a non-compliant mattress made
by Brooklyn Sleep products at a Newark N.J. store in 2010.  The
mattresses failed flammability tests conducted by CPSC for open
flames.

Mr. Chavez admitted to CPSC inspectors that neither he nor
Brooklyn Sleep Products tested their mattresses and mattress sets
as required by law.

Mr. Chavez failed to respond to numerous court filings against
him.

In September 2008, January 2009 and again in March 2010, CPSC
requested that Brooklyn Sleep Products stop selling and
distributing mattresses that failed to comply with federal laws.
But the firm continued to manufacture, renovate, sell, offer for
sale and introduce into commerce mattresses in violation of the
federal mattress flammability requirements putting consumers at
risk.

Mattresses and mattress sets sold in the United States are
required to comply with federal mattress flammability requirements
including for open flame and for cigarette ignition.  CPSC
estimates there was an annual average of more than 300 deaths
associated with mattress fires from 2006 through 2008.  The intent
of the mandatory standards is to slow the spread of a mattress
fire to give consumers more escape time.

The U.S. Attorneys Office in the Eastern District of New York and
the Office of Consumer Protection Litigation in the Justice
Department prosecuted the case on behalf of CPSC.


CAMBREX CORP: Petition for Certiorari in Lorazepam Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in the
lawsuit against Cambrex Corporation on the use of Lorazepam and
Clorazepate, 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 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. and Gyma Laboratories, Inc. in
a proceeding instituted by the Federal Trade Commission in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Suits
were also commenced by several State Attorneys' General and class
action complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts.
The suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two active pharmaceutical ingredients, Lorazepam
and Clorazepate.

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health
care insurers.  In the remaining case, the District Court entered
judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in
the amount of $19,200,000, payable jointly and severally, and also
a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount of
$16,709,000.  In addition, the District Court ruled that the
defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,500,000 in
prejudgment interest.  In January 2011, the Court of Appeals
remanded the case to the district court to determine which parties
were properly before the court and to what extent the removal of
certain parties from the case that do not meet jurisdictional
requirements may affect damages.  The Court of Appeals further
declined to issue an opinion with respect to the merits of Mylan,
Gyma and Cambrex's objections to the jury's damage award until
such time as the jurisdiction issue is resolved by the district
court.  In June 2011, the defendants filed a petition for
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court asking the Court to
hold that because of the lack of diversity jurisdiction, the case
should have been dismissed in its entirety by the Court of
Appeals.  In October 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415,000 to Mylan in exchange for a
release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in
related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and
Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the
ongoing matter.  In the event of a final settlement or final
judgment, Cambrex expects any payment required by the Company to
be made by Mylan under the indemnity described.

Cambrex Corporation -- http://www.cambrex.com/-- is an innovative
life sciences company providing products, services and
technologies to accelerate the development and commercialization
of small molecule therapeutics.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Court Sets Final Approval Hearing for Jan. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing date of a class settlement entered in
Guardado v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al., is
January 12, 2012, according to The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated'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 9, 2007, two former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure to
pay proper wages, improper payroll deductions, and violations of
the California meal and break period laws, among other claims
(Guardado v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case
No. BC360426).  This case was previously stayed by the parties
through December 2008, pending the California Supreme Court's
decision to review Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of
San Diego County (No. S166350, 2008).  On July 6, 2010, the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  A notice
of appeal was subsequently filed by the plaintiffs on August 3,
2010.  On June 20, 2011, the parties reached a negotiated
settlement agreement in Case No. BC360426.  The settlement in Case
No. BC360426 is subject to preliminary and final approval by the
Court. Based on the current status of Case No. BC360426, the
Company has reserved an immaterial amount for potential future
payments.

On May 10, 2010, three hourly restaurant employees in the State of
California filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior
Court, Placer County, against the Company alleging violations of
the California Labor Code by requiring employees to purchase
uniforms and other work tools to perform their jobs, among other
claims (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al;
Case No. S CV 27073).  In October 2010, the Company gave notice to
the respective courts in Case No. S CV 27073 and Case No. BC360426
that such cases may be related.  On July 28, 2010, a lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the Santa Clara County Superior Court
(Rusteen v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case
No. 1-10-CV-178233) claiming similar and additional allegations to
those asserted in Case No. BC360426 including, among other things,
violations of California's wage and hour laws with respect to
alleged failure to pay the plaintiff overtime, reporting time pay
and minimum wages, allow proper meal breaks or rest periods, and
provide adequate pay statements.  In October 2010, the Company
gave notice to the respective courts in Case No. 1-10-CV-178233
and Case No. BC360426 that such cases may be related.  The
plaintiff in Case No. 1-10-CV-178233 seeks unspecified amounts of
penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of himself and
other purported class members.  On April 6, 2011, a Class Action
Complaint in Intervention was filed by a former staff member from
the Company's Irvine, California restaurant seeking to join Case
No. S CV 27073.  The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend against these
actions.  On October 5, 2011, the Court in Case No. BC360426
issued its Order of Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and
Preliminary Injunction.  The Court's Order in Case No. BC360426
stays all similar claims asserted against the Company in related
cases including Case No. S CV 27073 and Case No. 1-10-CV-178233.
The Court scheduled the final approval hearing on Case No.
BC360426 for January 12, 2012. Based on the current status of this
matter, the Company has not reserved for potential future
payments.


CHINA EXPERT: Securities Claims Against U.S. Auditor Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that
lawyers for auditor PKF New York hoped to use the U.S. Supreme
Court's Janus ruling to evade securities claims in a four-year-old
class action targeting China Expert Technology, but a Manhattan
federal judge wasn't persuaded.  Separately, the judge refused to
limit the plaintiffs' discovery efforts in China, rejecting the
arguments of two Hong Kong-based auditor defendants that
permitting widespread discovery would leave them vulnerable to
Chinese government sanctions.


CITIGROUP INC: Ill. Ct. Dismisses Class Claims in "Disher" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois court dismissed class action claims against Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., according to Citigroup, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

On October 13, 2011, the court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice all class action claims asserted in DISHER v. CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC., holding that the claims were precluded under
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.  The
court granted leave for lead plaintiff to file an amended
complaint asserting only his individual state-law claims within 21
days.  Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available under docket number 04-L-265 (Ill. Cir.) (Hylla, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Counsel Appt. in Consolidated LIBOR Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An interim lead counsel in the consolidated LIBOR-related suit in
New York has yet to be appointed, Citigroup, Inc., disclosed in
its Nov. 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011.

A number of additional class and individual actions against banks
that served on the London interbank offered rate panel and their
affiliates, including certain Citigroup subsidiaries, have been
filed in various courts.  On August 2, 2011, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating and
transferring all of the LIBOR-related actions pending before it at
the time to Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York.
Motions for appointment of interim lead counsel are pending before
Judge Buchwald.  Additional information relating to these actions
is publicly available in court filings under docket numbers 1:11
md-2262-NRBS (S.D.N.Y.) and 1:11-cv-6120-GBD (S.D.N.Y.).


CORELOGIC INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary,
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 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Teletrack, Inc. ("Teletrack"), one of the Company's
subsidiaries.  The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been
furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a
permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., and seeks to
recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as
attorneys fees, litigation expenses and cost of lawsuit.  On
September 20, 2011, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.

The Company says it intends to defend against this claim
vigorously; however, the Company may not be successful.  At this
time, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this
claim or the potential range of damages, if any.


CORVEL CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Williams" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD. ("Williams"), as
plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
filed a First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class
Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St.
Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation ("CorVel") and its
insurance carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and
Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other
unrelated parties. Williams alleges that CorVel violated
Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act (the "AWPA"), which requires
a payor accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days'
advance written notice or point of service notice in the form of a
benefit card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the
contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured
under that payor's health benefit plan.

On March 31, 2011, CorVel entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the
class setting forth the terms of settlement of this class action
lawsuit. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to
the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
final non-appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana
state court, CorVel will pay $9 million to resolve claims for
which CorVel recorded a $9 million pre-tax charge to earnings
during the March 2011 quarter. In addition, CorVel will assign to
the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of CorVel's
insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the class.
The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration
Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana
Hospital Association dba Lake Charles Memorial Hospital as
previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within the
settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed to
request that the appropriate courts stay all related proceedings
in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana Office of
Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding before the
American Arbitration Association in which the parties are named,
until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and receives
final court approval. The settlement does not constitute an
admission of liability.

On June 23, 2011, CorVel and class counsel executed a definitive
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contains the same
terms and conditions as were set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding. Accordingly, CorVel made a $9 million cash payment
into escrow on July 6, 2011. As set forth in the settlement
agreement, certain contingencies such as preliminary court
approval, resolutions of objections filed by class members
challenging the fairness of the settlement, class members excluded
from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold, and
final court approval, must be satisfied before the settlement
become final.

On June 23, 2011, the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of St. Landry, Louisiana granted preliminary approval of
settlement. Notice of the settlement is being given to Class
Members. The Court has set a deadline of October 16, 2011 for
parties to opt out of or object to the proposed settlement. The
Court has set the hearing for final approval on November 4, 2011.

In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members
will release CorVel 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 AWPA. Plaintiffs have also agreed to a
notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply
with the AWPA. As noted, the Memorandum of Understanding is
contingent upon the execution of a mutually acceptable definitive
settlement agreement. Under Louisiana law, once the parties have
executed such a settlement agreement, they must apply to the court
for approval of the settlement following a court-supervised
process of notice to the class and an opportunity for the class to
be heard about the fairness of the settlement or to be excluded
from the settlement. CorVel expects to be able to arrive at such a
definitive settlement agreement by the end of June 2011, but there
can be no assurance that the parties will be able to reach a
definitive settlement agreement within that timeframe or at all,
that the court will approve the settlement or that a large number
of class members will not opt out of the settlement. If a
definitive settlement agreement is not reached or is not approved
by the court, all related proceedings in State and Federal Court,
as well as the Louisiana Office of Workers Compensation and the
arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association
that have been stayed pending settlement will resume.

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.


CYNOSURE INC: Plaintiff Seeks Reassignment of Dismissed Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff is currently seeking reassignment of a dismissed class
action lawsuit against Cynosure, Inc., and reargument of his class
certification motion, according to Cynosure's November 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against
Cynosure under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees. The
complaint alleges that Cynosure violated the TCPA by sending
unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff and other
recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of
the recipients. Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited
facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per
facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per
facsimile for knowing or willful violations. Based on discovery in
this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately three
million facsimiles were sent on Cynosure's behalf by a third party
to approximately 100,000 individuals. In February 2008, several
months after the close of discovery, the plaintiff served a motion
for class certification, which Cynosure opposed on numerous
factual and legal grounds, including that a nationwide class
action may not be maintained in a Massachusetts state court by Dr.
Weitzner, a New York resident; individual issues predominate over
common issues; a class action is not superior to other methods of
resolving TCPA claims; and Dr. Weitzner is an inadequate class
representative. Cynosure also believes it has many merits
defenses, including that the faxes in question do not constitute
"advertising" within the meaning of the TCPA and many recipients
had an established business relationship with Cynosure and are
thereby deemed to have consented to the receipt of facsimile
communications. The Court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class
certification motion in June 2008, but no decision on the motion
was rendered. In July 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing
this matter without prejudice for Dr. Weitzner's failure to
prosecute the case. In August 2010, Dr. Weitzner filed a motion
for relief from the dismissal order, which the Court allowed. At a
status conference held in November 2010, the Court confirmed that
the class certification motion was still under advisement. In
October 2011, Dr. Weitzner's counsel sent a letter to the Court
seeking reassignment of the case and reargument of the class
certification motion. Cynosure has opposed this request. Cynosure
is not currently able to estimate the amount or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable outcome of this lawsuit.


DAVITA INC: Class Action Lawsuit in California Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Davita Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit
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.

A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time.  The lawsuit, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements.  In September 2011, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs have appealed that decision.  The Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend against these claims.  Any potential
settlement of these claims is not anticipated to be material to
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.


DAVITA INC: Arbitration Panel Dismisses Blue Cross Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
An arbitration panel entered a final award dismissing all claims
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana brought against a subsidiary
of Davita 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.

In August 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana against Gambro AB, the Company's subsidiary,
DVA Renal Healthcare (formerly known as Gambro Healthcare) and
related entities.  The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a
class action on behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of
the defendants for health care goods and services from on or about
January 1991 through at least December 2004.  The complaint
alleged, among other things, damages resulting from facts and
circumstances underlying Gambro Healthcare's 2004 settlement
agreement with the Department of Justice and certain agencies of
the U.S. government.  In March 2006, the case was dismissed and
the plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the
matter.  In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class
arbitration against the Company and DVA Renal Healthcare.  In
February 2011, the arbitration panel denied plaintiff's request to
certify a class.  On September 11, 2011, the arbitration panel
entered a final award dismissing all claims with prejudice.


DAVITA INC: DVA Renal Inks Deal to Settle Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare entered into an agreement to settle a class
action lawsuit filed by a former employee in California, according
to Davita Inc.'s November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

In June 2004, DVA Renal Healthcare, a subsidiary of the Company,
was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of
California by one of its former employees who worked for its
California acute services program.  The complaint, which is styled
as a class action, alleges, among other things, that DVA Renal
Healthcare failed to provide overtime wages, defined rest periods
and meal periods, or compensation in lieu of such provisions and
failed to comply with certain other California Labor Code
requirements.  The parties have reached an agreement, subject to
approval by the court, which fully resolves this matter for an
amount that did not materially impact the Company's financial
results.


ELSIE MASON: Class Action Over Bedbug Infestation Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Eckhoff, writing for DesMoinesRegister.com, reports that a
lawsuit alleging that managers of two Des Moines apartment
buildings for the elderly and disabled turned a blind eye to a
growing bedbug infestation for more than two years will now be
allowed to proceed as a class action, a Polk County judge ruled on
Nov. 10.

Polk County Senior Judge Joel Novak certified the class in a 27-
page ruling that's expected to spark new settlement talks between
residents and the owners of Elsie Mason Manor and Ligutti Towers.

Lawyers for roughly 300 current and former residents of the
low-income apartment buildings first filed the lawsuit in
March 2010 seeking money for back rent, lost property and other
hardships because of a bedbug problem stretching back to late
2007.

Residents at the time complained that they'd been repeatedly
bitten, forced to discard infested furniture and shunned both by
relatives and other landlords now too afraid to rent to them.
While some residents are believed to have escaped with only
emotional damage and laundry bills, others suffered repeated
property losses and medical costs.

"Everybody sleeps on the floor," Elsie Mason resident Robert Hobbs
said in an interview last year describing infested furniture.
"You have to."

Court papers say the bedbugs eventually were brought under control
after building officials last year hired a new exterminating
company that treated both facilities with 120-degree heat.

The head of American Baptist Homes of the Midwest, a Minnesota
agency that manages the buildings for the First Baptist Elderly
Housing Foundation in Johnston, previously has acknowledged
mistakes by on-site managers -- including failures to aggressively
treat the infestation or to deal appropriately with resident
complaints.

American Baptist President Dave Zwickey could not be reached for
comment on Nov. 10.  He previously has said the organization
intends to settle with residents eventually, once court
proceedings sort out who is owed money and how much.

According to Judge Novak's ruling, evidence presented so far
indicates that several hundred possible plaintiffs share common
complaints involving personal injury and misrepresentation by
building management.  Iowa law allows such cases to be handled
together when they share common legal issues and when it would be
impractical for each individual person to bring their own lawsuit.

"This case, in fact, seems to be the paradigm for when a class
action is appropriate; a case attempting to vindicate the rights
of a group of people who individually would be without effective
strength to bring their opponents into court at all," the judge
ruled.

Plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Lipman on Nov. 10 described class
certification as the case's first major hurdle for residents
attempting to show that their claim should be taken seriously.

"Conventional wisdom is that that's your fight is class
certification," the lawyer said.  "It's a class action now."


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery Process in eFunds Suit Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., disclosed in its
Nov. 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2011, that
that the discovery process in a class action lawsuit against
eFunds Corporation continue.

Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds Corporation is a nationwide putative
class action that was filed against eFunds and its affiliate
Deposit Payment Protection Services, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois during the first
quarter of 2008.  The complaint seeks damages for an alleged
willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") in
connection with the operation of the Shared Check Authorization
Network.  Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did
not receive appropriate disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of
the FCRA because the disclosures did not include: (i) all
information in the consumer's file at the time of the request;
(ii) the source of the information in the consumer's file; and/or
(iii) the names of any persons who requested information related
to the consumer's check writing history during the prior year.
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification which was granted
with respect to two subclasses during the first quarter of 2010.
The motion was denied with respect to all other subclasses.  The
Company filed a motion for reconsideration.  The motion was
granted and the two subclasses were decertified.  The plaintiff
also filed motions to amend her complaint to add two additional
plaintiffs to the lawsuit.  The court granted the motions.  During
the second quarter of 2010, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment as to the original plaintiff and a motion for sanctions
against the plaintiff and her counsel based on plaintiff's alleged
false statements that were filed in support of the motion for
class certification.  In the third quarter of 2010, the court
denied the motion for summary judgment and granted in part and
denied in part the motion for sanctions. The Company filed a
motion requesting the court to allow it to file an interlocutory
appeal on the order denying the motion for summary judgment. The
court granted the motion; however, in the first quarter of 2011,
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Company's petition
for interlocutory appeal.  Discovery regarding the new plaintiffs
and other matters is ongoing.

An estimate of a possible loss or range of loss, if any, for this
action cannot be made at this time, the Company relates.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. --
http://www.fisglobal.com/-- also known as FIS, is a publicly
traded corporation and is a global provider of banking and
payments technology solutions, processing services and
information-based services.  It offers financial institution core
processing, card issuer and transaction processing services,
including the NYCE Network, a US national electronic funds
transfer (EFT) network.  The Company operates in four business
segments: Financial Solutions Group (FSG), Payment Solutions Group
(PSG), International Solutions Group (ISG), and Corporate and
other.


FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Court Dismisses Solectron Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court dismissed a shareholder
class action lawsuit filed against Flextronics International Ltd.,
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 4, 2007, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in
Santa Clara County Superior Court. The lawsuit arose out of the
merger with Solectron Corp. in 2007 and other defendants included
selected officers of the Company, Solectron and Solectron's former
directors and officers. On behalf of the class, the plaintiff
sought compensatory, rescissory, and other forms of damages, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs..  On August 12, 2010, the Court
certified a class of all former Solectron shareholders that were
entitled to vote and receive cash or shares of the Company's stock
in exchange for their shares of Solectron stock following the
merger. On April 21, 2011, the Court granted a request by the
plaintiff's counsel to withdraw as class counsel, and ordered the
plaintiff to retain new counsel by June 24, 2011. The plaintiff
failed to do so, thus on June 28, 2011, the Court issued an order
to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.  On August 12,
2011, the plaintiff failed to obtain new class counsel and the
Court granted a one month extension to obtain new class counsel.
On September 26, 2011, plaintiff failed to obtain new class
counsel and the Court dismissed the case without prejudice.
Plaintiff has 60 days to appeal the Court's decision. The Company
believes that the claims are without merit and any losses
resulting from such claims would not be remote and not be material
to the financial statements as a whole.


GLOBAL INDUSTRIES: Enters MOU to Settle Merger-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Industries, Ltd., and other parties of class action
lawsuits related to a merger agreement entered into a memorandum
of understanding, 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 11, 2011, Global, Technip S.A. ("Technip"), and
Apollon Merger Sub B, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Technip,
("Apollon") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject
to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Apollon will
merge with and into Global (the "Merger") with Global surviving
the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Technip.

Shortly after the announcement of the Merger, several putative
class action lawsuits challenging the Merger were filed in the
District Courts of Harris County, Texas, the District Court in the
Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, and the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against various
combinations of Global, Technip, Apollon, and the individual
members of the Company's board of directors. The complaints filed
in those lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the
members of the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to its public shareholders and Global by
entering into the Merger Agreement, approving the Merger, failing
to take steps to maximize the Company's value to its public
shareholders, ignoring alleged conflicts of interest, and issuing
a preliminary proxy statement that omitted material information,
and that Global and Technip aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties. In addition, the complaints allege that the
Merger improperly favors Technip and that certain provisions of
the Merger Agreement unduly restrict the Company's ability to
negotiate with other potential bidders. The complaints generally
seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting the defendants from consummating the Merger and other
forms of equitable relief.

On October 27, 2011, the parties to all of these actions entered
into a memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms and
conditions of an agreement in principle to resolve all of the
claims relating to the merger in exchange for the inclusion of
certain supplemental disclosures in the definitive proxy statement
which was filed by Global on October 28, 2011. The memorandum of
understanding provides, among other things, that the parties will
execute and submit to the District Court of Harris County, Texas
for review and approval a stipulation of settlement, that the
actions will be dismissed with prejudice on the merits, that
defendants will receive a general release from any and all claims
relating to, among other things, the Merger, the Merger Agreement
and any disclosures made in connection therewith, and that the
settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation of
the Merger, completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class
certification and final approval by the District Court of Harris
County, Texas following notice to the shareholders of Global
Industries. In connection with the settlement, Global Industries
or its successor-in-interest has agreed to pay, subject to court
approval, an award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in
an amount of $837,500.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Sued in N.Y. by Stockholders of El Paso Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard L. Grossman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Case No.
112770/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 9, 2011) is brought on behalf
of the public stockholders of El Paso Corporation.  The complaint
asserts a claim against Goldman Sachs for aiding and abetting a
breach of fiduciary duty against the members of El Paso's board of
directors in connection with the sale of El Paso and its assets to
Kinder Morgan, Inc. pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of October 16, 2011.

The Merger delivers El Paso into the hands of KMI and Goldman
Sachs at a bargain basement price and results in a fleecing of the
El Paso stockholders, the Plaintiff alleges.  Mr. Grossman adds
that El Paso's stockholders are receiving inadequate consideration
in connection with the Merger.

Mr. Grossman is a stockholder of El Paso.

Goldman Sachs is a Delaware corporation and one of the controlling
stockholders of KMI.  Goldman Sachs provided advisory services to
El Paso in connection with its cancelled spin-off and in
connection with the Merger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jules Brody, Esq.
          Mark Levine, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 1001
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022


GOV'T OF THAILAND: May Face Class Actions Over Handling of Flood
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bangkok Post reports that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has
pledged to stay on and tackle the floods, despite mounting
criticism of the government's handling of the disaster.

Pressure is opening on a new front as academics and activists
threaten class action suits against the government and state
agencies for their "mismanagement" of the floods.

An economist said on Nov. 10 he could launch a class action
lawsuit which will seek compensation for people who lost their
homes and income in the crisis.

However, Ms. Yingluck said stepping down has never crossed her
mind because she was given a mandate to run the country.

She dismissed speculation the flood problem was getting the better
of her and shrugged off the legal threats.

The prime minister was on the verge of tears at times when prodded
about the floods.  She said crying was not a gesture of weakness
or hopelessness, or she would have called it quits long ago.

"People pin their hopes on us.  I would be dressed down thoroughly
if I quit because of this problem.

"I might have cried but it isn't weakness.  It could be hard to
understand unless you're there.  It's a surge of sympathy when
seeing others' suffering," she said.

The prime minister on Nov. 10 took a bus ride to visit a flood
shelter in Chatuchak district.

She cooked phad wun sen for flood evacuees before heading back to
Parliament to attend the budget bill debate.

Ms. Yingluck played down reports about lawsuits which will be
lodged against the government for its handling of the floods.  She
said all parties concerned have made concerted efforts to tackle
the crisis.

She was not interested in being part of a political game and hoped
her sincerity in working for the country would be returned in
kind.

"I am the prime minister but I don't know everything about water.
But I am not left to handle this on my own.

"Why don't we help build confidence and overcome the crisis?" she
said.

Among those who are exploring the feasibility of holding the
government responsible for the crisis is Assoc Prof Narong
Phetprasert, a Chulalongkorn University economist.

Mr. Narong said he has discussed the matter with lawyers and found
a couple of legal points that can be pursued.

He plans to make it a class action suit which will cover not only
those who are directly affected by the flood, but those who lost
income as well.

"The lawsuit is not limited to people whose houses are submerged.
It will also include those whose houses aren't flooded but who
lost income due to the flood," he said.  He insisted he is not
after the government alone, but every agency which should be held
responsible.

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, the Agriculture Ministry,
the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry and Egat Plc could
also be targeted by the suit.

He had yet to decide how much compensation to demand for flood-
affected people.

He said the plight of the public should also be taken into
consideration to determine if state compensation of 5,000 baht for
each household, as proposed by the government, is justified.

Srisuwan Janya, president of Stop Global Warming Association
Thailand, is also gearing up for a class action.

He said people who are considering taking action should join a
flood forum on Dec 15.  "Those who want to share, discuss or
criticize are welcome.  And those who want to sue the government
cannot miss this," he said.  Mr. Srisuwan is an environmental
activist who took a lawsuit against the Industry Ministry in 2009
for approving the building of 76 factories in Map Ta Phut
Industrial Estate in Rayong province.

Kriangsak Woramongkolchai, a spokesman for the Lawyers Association
of Thailand, said a lawsuit can be lodged against the government
if it can be established the flood was caused by mismanagement.

Meanwhile, Democrat MP Niphit Intharasombat traded barbs with
Agriculture and Cooperatives Minister Theera Wongsamut over water
management during the budget bill debate on Nov. 10.

Mr. Niphit said the Agriculture Ministry had fallen down on
managing risk, which resulted in heavy flooding.

Water should have been released from the Bhumibhol dam earlier.

Mr. Theera replied the ministry's water management was based on
its assessment of the situation at the time.

He admitted he had asked Bhumibhol dam not to release water
because rice farmers downstream were about to harvest.  "They were
harvesting their crops.  I had to do as the situation required,"
he said.


HALLIBURTON CO: Faces Ammonium Perchlorate-Related Suits in Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company is facing numerous lawsuits in Oklahoma due to
the presence of ammonium perchlorate in its former facility, the
Company disclosed in its November 4, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Between 1965 and 1991 a former Halliburton unit known as the
Halliburton Industrial Services Division (HISD) performed work for
the U.S. Department of Defense, cleaning solid fuel from missile
casings at a semi-rural facility on the north side of Duncan,
Oklahoma.  The Company closed its site in coordination with the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in the mid-
1990s but the Company continued to monitor the groundwater at
DEQ's request.  A principal component of the missile fuel was
ammonium perchlorate (a salt that is highly soluble in water),
which has been discovered in the soil and groundwater on the
Company's site and in certain residential water wells near the
Company's property.

Commencing in late October 2011, a number of lawsuits were filed
against the Company, including a putative class action case in
federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma and other
lawsuits filed in Oklahoma state courts.  The lawsuits generally
allege, among other things, that operations at the Company's
Duncan facility caused releases of pollutants, including ammonium
perchlorate and, in the case of the federal lawsuit, nuclear or
radioactive waste, into the groundwater, and that the Company knew
about those releases and did not take corrective actions to
address them.  The lawsuits allege that the plaintiffs have
suffered from certain health conditions, including hypothyroidism
(a condition that has been associated with exposure to perchlorate
at sufficiently high doses over time), as a result of the
releases.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, damages,
including punitive damages, and the establishment of a fund for
future medical monitoring.  The lawsuits, among other things,
allege strict liability, trespass, private nuisance, public
nuisance, and negligence and, in the case of the federal lawsuit,
violations of the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
resulting in personal injuries, property damage, and diminution of
property value.

The lawsuits generally allege that the cleaning of the missile
casings at the Duncan facility contaminated the surrounding soils
and groundwater, including certain water wells used in a number of
residential homes, through the migration of, among other things,
ammonium perchlorate.  The federal lawsuit also alleges that the
Company's processing of radioactive waste from a nuclear power
plant over 25 years ago resulted in the release of
"nuclear/radioactive" waste into the environment.

The Company and the DEQ have recently conducted soil and
groundwater sampling relating to the allegations that have
confirmed that the alleged nuclear or radioactive material is
confined to the soil in a discrete area of the onsite operations
and is not present in the groundwater onsite or in any areas
offsite.  The radiological impacts from this discrete area are not
believed to present any health risk for offsite exposure. With
respect to ammonium perchlorate, the Company is in the process of
defining the specific area of the contamination and the associated
concentrations.  The Company has made arrangements to supply
affected residents with bottled drinking water and, if needed,
with a temporary water supply system, at no cost to the residents.
The Company has worked with the City of Duncan and the DEQ to
expedite expansion of the city water supply to the relevant areas.

The Company says the lawsuits are in a preliminary stage, and
additional lawsuits and proceedings may be brought against the
Company.  As of September 30, 2011, the Company accrued a
liability relating to the Company's initial estimate of response
efforts and third-party property damage related to this matter.
With respect to the lawsuits, however, because they are in an
early stage the Company says it cannot predict the timing or
probability of a loss, or reasonably estimate a possible loss or
range of loss, if any.  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend these lawsuits and does not believe that these lawsuits
will have a material adverse effect on its liquidity, consolidated
results of operation, or consolidated financial condition.


HSBC BANK: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP on Nov. 10 disclosed that a fund
accountant employed by HSBC Bank USA, N.A. has filed a class and
collective action lawsuit for wage and hour violations against
HSBC.  The case was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Case No. 11-Civ-7887) on behalf
of former and current employees of HSBC who worked as Fund
Accountants for the Alternative Fund Services group alleging that
HSBC failed to pay them for the overtime they worked.

The AFS group provides administration services to various
alternative funds of clients such as hedge funds, funds of funds
and private equity funds.  Among the various services AFS provides
to its funds is fund accounting.

The plaintiff claims that HSBC improperly misclassified Fund
Accountants as exempt salaried employees who were ineligible to
receive overtime pay.  Plaintiff alleges that Fund Accountants
customarily worked more than 40 hours per week and that it was
HSBC policy and practice to treat them as "exempt" so as to avoid
paying them overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

As Co-Counsel Mitchell Schley noted, "This is another example of
one of the largest employers in the financial services industry
choosing to ignore federal and state wage and hour law.  HSBC's
Fund Accountants work long hours maintaining accounting records
for prosperous hedge fund clients, but are denied overtime pay
lawfully due them.  HSBC is undoubtedly aware of its obligations,
but as is often the case, it does not comply unless forced to do
so by legal action."

Judith L. Spanier of Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, and the Law
Offices of Mitchell Schley, LLC, represent the plaintiffs.  The
lawsuit seeks collective and class action status, and monetary
damages.


INTEL CORP: Awaits Ruling on Plaintiffs' Objections in Del. MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs'
objections to a Special Master's Class Report, which recommends
the denial of their motion to certify a class in the multidistrict
litigation pending in Delaware, 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.

At least 82 separate class actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern
District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska,
District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee
state courts.  These actions generally repeat the allegations made
in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel by Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. (AMD) in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware (AMD litigation).  Like the AMD
litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that Intel engaged
in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws
by, among other things, providing discounts and rebates to the
Company's manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on
exclusive or near exclusive dealings that allegedly unfairly
interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors,
interfering with certain AMD product launches, and interfering
with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting
groups.  The class actions allege various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for computers containing the Company's
microprocessors.  The Company disputes the class-action claims and
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been transferred by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in
Delaware for all pretrial proceedings and discovery (MDL
proceedings).  The Delaware district court has appointed a Special
Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by
the court.  In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
filed a motion for sanctions for the Company's alleged failure to
preserve evidence.  This motion largely copies a motion previously
filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled.  The
plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of
a class of members who purchased certain personal computers
containing products sold by Intel.  In July 2010, the Special
Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Class Report) denying
the motion to certify a class.  The MDL plaintiffs filed
objections to the Special Master's Class Report, and a hearing on
these objections was held in March 2011. The Delaware district
court has not yet ruled on those objections.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.  The
plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class
certification, which the Company is in the process of opposing.
At the Company's request, the court in the California actions has
agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware
district court rules on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings.

Based on the procedural posture and the nature of the cases,
including, but not limited to, the fact that the Special Master's
Class Report is on review in the Delaware district court, the
Company says it is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these
matters.


INTERCLICK INC: Being Sold to Yahoo! For Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Elghanian, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. interclick, Inc., Michael Brauser, Michael Katz, Frank
Cotroneo, Brett Cravatt, Dave Hills, Barry Honig, Michael Mathews
and Bill Wise, Case No. 653101/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 8,
2011) is brought on behalf of interclick's public shareholders.
The lawsuit was filed over interclick's Board's decision to
support a tender offer pursuant to which Yahoo! Inc. will offer to
acquire each share of interclick common stock for $9 in cash in a
transaction having an aggregate equity value of $270 million.

The Plaintiff alleges that in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, the Board locked up a sale of the Company to Yahoo!
by agreeing to various deal protection provisions, which could
preclude the emergence of a competing offer to acquire the
Company.  Consequently, interclick's public shareholders may not
receive maximum value for their shares, because an alternate
acquirer may never have the opportunity to engage in open
negotiations with the Board in the interest of acquiring the
Company at a higher price, the Plaintiff points out.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of interclick.

Defendant interclick, a Delaware corporation, is a technology
company that provides solutions for data-driven advertising in the
U.S.  The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of
interclick.

A copy of the Complaint in Elghanian v. Interclick, Inc., et al.,
Index No. 653101/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/10/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  jrussello@rgrdlaw.com


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Conference in Class Suit Set for Nov. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference will be held on November 17, 2011, in the
consolidated class action lawsuit relating to the proposed
acquisition of International Rectifier Corporation by Vishay
Intertechnology, 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 25, 2011.

In August 2008, shortly after the Company's disclosure that Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc. ("Vishay") had made an unsolicited, non-
binding proposal to acquire all outstanding shares of the Company,
a purported class action complaint captioned Hui Zhao v.
International Rectifier Corp., No. BC396461, was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.  The complaint named as defendants the Company and all of
its directors and alleged that the Vishay proposal was unfair and
that acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach of
fiduciary duty by the Board.  In October 2008, the case was
consolidated with five other substantially similar complaints
seeking the same relief.  Later in October 2008, plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint purporting to allege claims for
breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of
investors based on the theory that the Board breached its
fiduciary duty by rejecting the Vishay proposal.  In April 2009,
the Superior Court sustained the Company's demurrer to the amended
complaint on the ground that the action should have been brought
not as a class action but as a shareholder derivative action, and
ordered the action to be dismissed with prejudice.  In June 2009,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment of
dismissal.

On June 20, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior
Court's order sustaining the demurrer, but reversed the portion of
the order that dismissed the action with prejudice.  The Court of
Appeal remanded the case to the Superior Court with directions to
permit plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint to
attempt to plead a shareholder derivative action.  Pursuant to
Section 472b of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
plaintiffs' amended complaint was due to be filed on or about
September 26, 2011.  Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint
by that time.  On October 27, 2011, a status conference was held
in the matter.  The Court took no action, and set a further status
conference for November 17, 2011.


M/I HOMES: Remaining Claims in Chinese Drywall Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes, Inc., continues to defend itself against remaining
claims related to the Company's use of defective drywall in
certain customers' homes, 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.

On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the
Company's homes filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the United
States or alternatively in Florida, against the Company and
certain other identified and unidentified parties -- the Initial
Action.  The plaintiff alleged that the Company built his home
with defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain of
the defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compounds
capable of harming the health of individuals and damaging
property.  The plaintiff alleged physical and economic damages and
sought legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and
attorney's fees.  The Company filed a responsive pleading on or
about April 30, 2009.  This case was consolidated with other
similar actions not involving the Company and transferred to the
Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings (collectively, the "In Re: Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation").  In
connection with the administration of the In Re: Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, the same
homeowner and eight other homeowners were named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints filed in and after December 2009
against certain identified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company), including one homeowner named as a
plaintiff in an omnibus class action complaint filed in March 2010
against various unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company) (collectively, the "MDL Omnibus Actions").
As they relate to the Company, the Initial Action and the MDL
Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seek
substantially the same relief.  The Company has entered into
agreements with several of the homeowners named as plaintiffs
pursuant to which the Company agreed to make repairs to their
homes consistent with repairs made to the homes of other
homeowners.  As a result of these agreements, the Initial Action
has been resolved and dismissed, and five of the eight other
homeowners named as plaintiffs in omnibus class action complaints
have dismissed their claims against the Company.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend against the claims of the remaining
plaintiffs.

Given the inherent uncertainties in the litigation, as of
September 30, 2011, no accrual has been recorded, other than
accrual for certain repairs, because the Company cannot make a
determination as to the probability of a loss resulting from this
matter or estimate the range of possible loss, if any.  There can
be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of the MDL Omnibus
Actions, or any other actions or claims relating to defective
drywall that may be asserted in the future, will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
financial condition, and cash flows.

M/I Homes, Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/-- and its subsidiaries
are builders of single-family homes.  The Company was
incorporated, through predecessor entities, in 1973 and commenced
homebuilding activities in 1976.  Since that time, the Company has
delivered over 78,000 homes.


MACERICH COMPANY: Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Dec. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the final settlement of a putative class action
complaint against The Macerich Company is scheduled for
December 9, 2011, 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.

A putative class action complaint was filed on September 1, 2010
involving a single plaintiff based on alleged wage and hour
violations.  The parties have reached a settlement that is subject
to court approval.  The court hearing to approve the final
settlement is scheduled for December 9, 2011.  The Company has
accrued an estimate for the amount of the settlement, which is not
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Polyurethane Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated antitrust lawsuit brought by purchasers of
polyurethane foam products, 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. 1, 2011.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated
in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers
of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company's
carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation
of U.S. antitrust laws.  Mohawk has been named as a defendant in
seven of the 43 cases filed (the first on August 26, 2010), as
well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints, the
first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a class of all
direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products, and the second
filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of indirect
purchasers.  All pending cases in which the Company has been named
as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated
pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present.  Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief
against future violations.  In April 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct
purchasers, and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the
claims brought by the indirect purchasers.  On July 19, 2011, the
Court issued a written opinion denying all defendants' motions to
dismiss.  The Company denies all of the allegations in these
actions and will vigorously defend itself.

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of
all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made
for probable losses and that the ultimate outcome of these actions
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition
but could have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations in a given quarter or year.

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

Mohawk Industries, Inc. -- http://www.mohawkind.com/-- is a
supplier of flooring for both residential and commercial
applications.  Mohawk offers a complete selection of carpet,
ceramic tile, laminate, wood, stone, vinyl, and rugs.  These
products are marketed under the premier brands in the industry,
which include Mohawk, Karastan, Lees, Bigelow, Dal-Tile, American
Olean, Unilin and Quick Step.  Mohawk's unique merchandising and
marketing assist the Company's customers in creating the
consumers' dream.  Mohawk provides a premium level of service with
its own trucking fleet and local distribution.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAUGE: Wants Medical Monitoring Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that the National
Football League asked a federal judge on Nov. 9 to dismiss a class
action seeking medical monitoring for all current and former NFL
players.

The suit, first reported by Courthouse News in August, says the
league "turned a blind eye" for four decades as coaches encouraged
players to keep fans charged up by using helmets as on-field
weapons.

Seven former players, including Super Bowl-winning quarterback
Jim McMahon, say the NFL conspired with team staffers to conceal
the long-term brain-injury risk to which players were being
exposed by the league's lax head-safety approach.

Retired players want the NFL to bankroll a medical-monitoring
regime for all current and former players in light of their
alleged increased risk for brain disorders like Alzheimer's.

The league fired back on Nov. 9, citing multiple alleged grounds
to dismiss the entire case.

"Medical monitoring claims must be premised on exposure to 'proven
hazardous substances' that invade the body; 'a greater risk of
concussions' -- the supposed 'substance' alleged by plaintiffs
here -- is no such thing," the league argued in a 49-page motion.

Furthermore the named retirees do not have standing to demand
medical monitoring for current NFL players, according to the NFL.

Characterizing the suit as "a workplace grievance improperly (and
insufficiently) pleaded in tort," the NFL said that the players'
claims hinge on the interpretation of various collective
bargaining agreements and are therefore preempted by the Labor
Management Relations Act.

Citing "a long line of NFL preemption precedent," the NFL said
those agreements squarely address the player-safety issues raised
in the suit, so the claims must be arbitrated under the NFL's
already established grievance protocol.

A scheduling conference is slated for Nov. 21.

A copy of the Memorandum of Law in Support of the National
Football League's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in
Easterling, et al. v. National Football League, Case No. 11-cv-
05209 (E.D. Pa.), is available at http://is.gd/OgNnAF

National Football League is represented by:

          Brad S. Karp, Esq.
          Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Esq.
          Bruce Birenboim, Esq.
          Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          Lynn B. Bayard, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000

               - and -

          John J. Soroko, Esq.
          Dana B. Klinges, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
          Telephone: (215) 979-1000


PENN NATIONAL: High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied an application to appeal a lower
court's decision dismissing a purported class action lawsuit filed
against Penn National Gaming 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 July 16, 2008, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class
of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock
between March 20, 2008 and July 2, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges that
the Company's disclosure practices relative to the proposed
transaction with Fortress Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge
Partners, L.P. and the eventual termination of that transaction
were misleading and deficient in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint, which seeks class
certification and unspecified damages, was filed in federal court
in Maryland.  The complaint was amended, among other things, to
add three new named plaintiffs and to name Peter M. Carlino,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and William J. Clifford,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as additional
defendants.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in November 2008, and the court granted the motion and dismissed
the complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied on October 21, 2009.  The
plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals and an oral argument was heard on
October 26, 2010. On March 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.  The plaintiffs
have requested the U.S. Supreme Court to consider an appeal of the
decision.  In October 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
application for an appeal.


PITNEY BOWES: Still Awaits Decision in "NECA-IBEW" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2009, Pitney Bowes Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health &
Welfare Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the
company during the period between July 30, 2007, and October 29,
2007, alleging that the Company, in essence, missed two financial
projections.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September
20, 2010.  On December 3, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the
complaint.  The parties have completed briefing on this motion and
the motion is now pending before the court.  Based upon the
Company's current understanding of the facts and applicable laws,
the Company does not believe there is a reasonable possibility
that any loss has been incurred.

The Company says it expects to prevail in the legal action;
however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be
no assurance in this regard.  If the plaintiffs do prevail, the
results may have a material effect on the Company's financial
position, future results of operations or cash flows, including,
for example, the Company's ability to offer certain types of goods
or services in the future.

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.


PITNEY BOWES: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., is a
defendant in several purported class actions.  These lawsuits were
originally filed in six different states and later coordinated in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, In re:
Imagitas, Driver's Privacy Protection Act Litigation (Coordinated,
May 28, 2007).  Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas
DriverSource program violated the federal Drivers Privacy
Protection Act (DPPA).  Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas
entered into contracts with state governments to mail out
automobile registration renewal materials along with third party
advertisements, without revealing the personal information of any
state resident to any advertiser.  The DriverSource program
assisted the state in performing its governmental function of
delivering these mailings and funding the costs of them.  The
plaintiffs in these actions were seeking statutory damages under
the DPPA.  On December 21, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit Court
affirmed the District Court's summary judgment decision in Rine,
et al. v. Imagitas, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida, filed August 1, 2006), which ruled in Imagitas' favor and
dismissed that litigation.  That decision is now final, with no
further appeals available.  With respect to the remaining state
cases, Imagitas filed its motion to dismiss these cases on October
8, 2010.  Plaintiff's opposition brief was filed on December 6,
2010, and Imagitas filed its reply brief on December 22, 2010.
Although the plaintiffs are still contending that the cases filed
in Massachusetts, Ohio and Missouri can proceed, they have
admitted in their response that the reasoning in the Rine decision
does require that actions based on Minnesota and New York laws be
dismissed.  The Company is awaiting a decision by the District
Court on the motion to dismiss.  Based upon the Company's current
understanding of the facts and applicable laws, the Company does
not believe there is a reasonable possibility that any loss has
been incurred.

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.


PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Remains Named Co-Conspirator in Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2006, First Southwest Company -- an indirect
subsidiary of PlainsCapital Corporation -- received subpoenas from
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of
Justice in connection with an investigation of possible antitrust
and securities law violations, including bid-rigging, in the
procurement of guaranteed investment contracts and other
investment products for the reinvestment of bond proceeds by
municipalities.  The investigation is industry-wide and includes
approximately 30 or more firms, including some of the largest U.S.
investment firms.

As a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into industry-wide
practices, FSC was initially named as a co-defendant in cases
filed in several different federal courts by various state and
local governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities and a
similar set of lawsuits filed by various California local
governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities. All
claims asserted against FSC in these purported class actions were
subsequently dismissed. However, the plaintiffs in these purported
class actions have filed amended complaints against other
entities, and FSC is identified in these complaints not as a
defendant, but as an alleged co-conspirator with the named
defendants.

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

Dallas-based PlainsCapital Corporation --
http://plainscapital.com/-- is founded by Chairman and CEO Alan
B. White, whose family of companies includes PlainsCapital Bank,
PrimeLending and FirstSouthwest.  It offers a diverse range of
financial services.


PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against PNM
Resources, Inc., captioned Begay v. PNM et al., remains pending,
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.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
on February 11, 2009, in the United States District Court in
Albuquerque. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the
Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation.
Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general
assertions that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way
grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are
either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of
rights-of-way or both.  The plaintiffs, who have sued the
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive
trust. They have also included a breach of trust claim against the
United States and its Secretary of the Interior.  PNM and
the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action.  On
March 31, 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") and are attempting to perfect
such appeal through the BIA's administrative process. PNM is
participating in order to preserve its interests regarding any
PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in the appeal.

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

PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the range of
potential outcomes at this time.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in "Garcia" Suits Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging trial court orders dismissing two class action
complaints against Prudential Financial, Inc., remain pending,
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 January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
complaint is brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of life
insurance policies sold by the Company for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts that earn interest and are
subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time by the
beneficiaries. The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose
material information about the accounts, the Company wrongfully
delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and
seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
and post-judgment interest.  In February 2011, plaintiff appealed
the dismissal.  In December 2009, an earlier purported nationwide
class action raising substantially similar allegations brought by
the same plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was dismissed.  In February 2011, the dismissal was
appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.  Principal products and services provided include life
insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension- and retirement-
related investments, administration and asset management,
securities brokerage services, and commercial and residential real
estate in many states of the U.S.  It provides these products and
services to individual and institutional customers through
distribution networks in the financial services industry.
Prudential has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and
Latin America and has organized its principal operations into the
Financial Services Businesses and the Closed Block Business.
Prudential is composed of hundreds of subsidiaries and holds more
than $2 trillion of life insurance.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Defends Lawsuits Over Retained Asset Accts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., continues to defend itself against
lawsuits challenging its use of retained asset accounts to settle
death benefit claims, 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 December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois.
The complaint makes allegations under Illinois law, substantially
similar to the "Garcia" cases, on behalf of a class of Illinois
residents whose death benefits were settled by retained assets
accounts.  In January 2011, the case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  In
March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop the Company as a
defendant and add Pruco Life Insurance Company as a defendant.
The matter is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and
Pruco Life Insurance Company.  In April 2011, a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint was filed.

The "Garcia cases" refer to (1) Garcia v. The Prudential Insurance
Company of America, which was filed in January 2011 in the Second
Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada, and (2) Garcia v.
Prudential Insurance Company of America, which was filed in
December 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  The cases allege that the Company wrongfully delayed
payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits in life
insurance policies the Company sold.

In July 2010, a purported nationwide class action that makes
allegations similar to those in the Garcia and Phillips actions
relating to retained asset accounts of beneficiaries of a group
life insurance contract owned by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs ("VA Contract") that covers the lives of members
and veterans of the U.S. armed forces, Lucey et al. v. Prudential
Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The complaint
challenges the use of retained asset accounts to settle death
benefit claims, asserting violations of federal and state law,
breach of contract and fraud and seeking compensatory and treble
damages and equitable relief.  In October 2010, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In November 2010, a second
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of the same
beneficiaries of the VA Contract, Phillips v. Prudential Insurance
Company of America and Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
and makes substantially the same claims.  In November and December
2010, two additional actions brought on behalf of the same
putative class, alleging substantially the same claims and the
same relief, Garrett v. The Prudential Insurance Company of
America and Prudential Financial, Inc. and Witt v. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  In February 2011,
Phillips, Garrett and Witt were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Massachusetts by the
Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation and consolidated with
the Lucey matter as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America
SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation.  In March 2011, the motion to
dismiss was denied.

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

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.  Principal products and services provided include life
insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension- and retirement-
related investments, administration and asset management,
securities brokerage services, and commercial and residential real
estate in many states of the U.S.  It provides these products and
services to individual and institutional customers through
distribution networks in the financial services industry.
Prudential has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and
Latin America and has organized its principal operations into the
Financial Services Businesses and the Closed Block Business.
Prudential is composed of hundreds of subsidiaries and holds more
than $2 trillion of life insurance.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Huffman" ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action complaint in Pennsylvania relating to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 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 September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging that using retained asset accounts in employee welfare
benefit plans to settle death benefit claims violates ERISA and
seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.  The
Company moved to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2011, the
Company withdrew its motion to dismiss the complaint.  In May
2011, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In
July 2011, the court denied the motion.

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

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.  Principal products and services provided include life
insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension- and retirement-
related investments, administration and asset management,
securities brokerage services, and commercial and residential real
estate in many states of the U.S.  It provides these products and
services to individual and institutional customers through
distribution networks in the financial services industry.
Prudential has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and
Latin America and has organized its principal operations into the
Financial Services Businesses and the Closed Block Business.
Prudential is composed of hundreds of subsidiaries and holds more
than $2 trillion of life insurance.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Clark" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action complaint in New Jersey commenced by purchasers of
health insurance policies, 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 February 2011, a fifth amended complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in
Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company.  The complaint brought on
behalf of a purported class of California, Illinois, Ohio and
Texas residents who purchased individual health insurance policies
alleges that Prudential failed to disclose that it had ceased
selling this type of policy in 1981 and that, as a result,
premiums would increase significantly.  The complaint alleges
claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and omission, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and California's Unfair
Competition Law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  The
matter was originally filed in 2008 and certain of the claims in
the first four complaints were dismissed.

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

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.  Principal products and services provided include life
insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension- and retirement-
related investments, administration and asset management,
securities brokerage services, and commercial and residential real
estate in many states of the U.S.  It provides these products and
services to individual and institutional customers through
distribution networks in the financial services industry.
Prudential has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and
Latin America and has organized its principal operations into the
Financial Services Businesses and the Closed Block Business.
Prudential is composed of hundreds of subsidiaries and holds more
than $2 trillion of life insurance.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal From Schultz Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a class action complaint
against Prudential Financial, Inc., will be heard in early 2012,
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 April 2009, Schultz v. The Prudential Insurance Company of
America, a purported nationwide class action on behalf of
participants claiming disability benefits under certain employee
benefit plans insured by Prudential, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  As
amended, the complaint alleges that Prudential Insurance and the
defendant plans violated ERISA by characterizing family Social
Security benefits as "loss of time" benefits that were offset
against Prudential contract benefits.  The complaint seeks a
declaratory judgment that the offsets were improper, damages and
other relief.  The Company has agreed to indemnify the named
defendant plans.  In April 2011, Schultz was dismissed with
prejudice, and Plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The appeal is expected to be heard in early 2012.

In December 2010, an action alleging substantially similar ERISA
violations as in the Schultz action, Koehn v. Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company Long Term Disability Plan, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  As in Schultz, Prudential agreed to indemnify the
named defendant plan.  In April 2011, a final order approving a
settlement was entered in Koehn on a non-class basis.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.  Principal products and services provided include life
insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension- and retirement-
related investments, administration and asset management,
securities brokerage services, and commercial and residential real
estate in many states of the U.S.  It provides these products and
services to individual and institutional customers through
distribution networks in the financial services industry.
Prudential has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and
Latin America and has organized its principal operations into the
Financial Services Businesses and the Closed Block Business.
Prudential is composed of hundreds of subsidiaries and holds more
than $2 trillion of life insurance.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial Inc. is awaiting final approval of a
settlement resolving a consolidated class complaint over mortgage-
backed securities.

In March 2009, a purported class action, Bauer v. Prudential
Financial, et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  The case names as defendants, the
Company, certain Company Directors, the Chief Financial Officer,
Controller and former Chief Executive Officer and former Principal
Accounting Officer, underwriters and the Company's independent
auditors.  The complaint, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's 9% Junior Subordinated Notes (retail hybrid subordinated
debt), alleges that the Company's March 2006 Form S-3 Registration
Statement and Prospectus and the June 2008 Prospectus Supplement,
both of which incorporated other public filings, contained
material misstatements or omissions.
In light of the Company's disclosures in connection with its 2008
financial results, plaintiffs contend that the earlier offering
documents failed to disclose impairments in the Company's asset-
backed securities collateralized with sub-prime mortgages and
goodwill associated with certain subsidiaries and other assets,
and that the Company had inadequate controls relating to such
reporting.  The complaint asserts violations of the Securities Act
of 1933, alleging Section 11 claims against all defendants,
Section 12(a)(2) claims against the Company and underwriters and
Section 15 claims against the individual defendants, and seeks
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, interest, costs,
fees, expenses and such injunctive relief as may be deemed
appropriate by the court.  In April 2009, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the same court, Haddock v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. et al. and Pinchuk v. Prudential
Financial, Inc. et al.  The complaints essentially allege the same
claims and seek the same relief as Bauer. In June 2009, Pinchuk
was voluntarily dismissed and the Haddock and Bauer matters were
consolidated.  In July 2009, an amended consolidated complaint was
filed that added claims regarding contingent liability relating to
the auction rate securities markets and reserves relating to
annuity contract holders.  The complaint restates the claims
regarding impairments related to mortgage-backed securities, but
does not include prior claims regarding goodwill impairments.  The
complaint names all of the same defendants as the prior
complaints, with the exception of the Company's independent
auditors.  In September 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint.  In June 2010, the court dismissed without
prejudice the claim relating to contingent liability in connection
with auction rate securities and denied the motion with respect to
the other claims.  In July 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint restating their contingent liability claim and, in
September 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the restated claim.
In April 2011, the matter settled in principle.  In August
2011, the court preliminarily approved the class settlement, the
Company disclosed in its Nov. 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2011.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.  Principal products and services provided include life
insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension- and retirement-
related investments, administration and asset management,
securities brokerage services, and commercial and residential real
estate in many states of the U.S.  It provides these products and
services to individual and institutional customers through
distribution networks in the financial services industry.
Prudential has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and
Latin America and has organized its principal operations into the
Financial Services Businesses and the Closed Block Business.
Prudential is composed of hundreds of subsidiaries and holds more
than $2 trillion of life insurance.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in Class Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the settlement order in a securities underwriting
lawsuit against Prudential Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary remains
pending, 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.

Prudential Securities Group LLC was a defendant in a number of
industry-wide purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to
its former securities underwriting business, captioned In re:
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, alleging, among
other things, that the underwriters engaged in a scheme involving
tying agreements, undisclosed compensation arrangements and
research analyst conflicts to manipulate and inflate the prices of
shares sold in initial public offerings in violation of the
federal securities laws.  In September 2009, the court entered a
final order approving settlement of the litigation.  In October
2009, an appeal of the settlement was filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.  Principal products and services provided include life
insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension- and retirement-
related investments, administration and asset management,
securities brokerage services, and commercial and residential real
estate in many states of the U.S.  It provides these products and
services to individual and institutional customers through
distribution networks in the financial services industry.
Prudential has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and
Latin America and has organized its principal operations into the
Financial Services Businesses and the Closed Block Business.
Prudential is composed of hundreds of subsidiaries and holds more
than $2 trillion of life insurance.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification remains pending in the
consolidated lawsuit that accuses Prudential Financial, Inc., of
failing to pay overtime to insurance agents.

In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and
Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from
these agents' wages in violation of state law.  The complaint
seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of
improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.  In March
2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the
federal overtime claim. Separately, in March 2008, a purported
nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, Wang v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that
the Company failed to pay its agents overtime and provide other
benefits in violation of California and federal law and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. In
September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the
Bouder matter.  Subsequent amendments to the complaint have
resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations
of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment laws.  In
February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime
class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008 and
moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of the
named plaintiffs.  In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification of the state law claims.  In August 2010, the
district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the federal overtime claims.  The motion for class
certification of the state law claims is pending.

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.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.  Principal products and services provided include life
insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension- and retirement-
related investments, administration and asset management,
securities brokerage services, and commercial and residential real
estate in many states of the U.S.  It provides these products and
services to individual and institutional customers through
distribution networks in the financial services industry.
Prudential has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and
Latin America and has organized its principal operations into the
Financial Services Businesses and the Closed Block Business.
Prudential is composed of hundreds of subsidiaries and holds more
than $2 trillion of life insurance.


REED ELSEVIER: Motions Challenging Fulton County Deal Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah L. Balter at Courthouse News Service reports that new
motions have been filed by both sides of the class action that
challenges Fulton County's deal with English media giant Reed
Elsevier and its division LexisNexis to make electronic filing of
lawsuits mandatory.  A ruling on class certification is expected
early next year.

Fulton County's attorney, William Miles, has filed a motion for
summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the claims based on
sovereign immunity, and what he claims are procedural defects in
the case.

For the plaintiff class, Steve Newton replied earlier this month
that the county's immunity is waived by Georgia statute.  He
argued that the public is entitled to a refund of any amount that
exceeds filing fees approved by statute by $15 or more.

"Lexis' fees are in excess of the statutory fees approved by the
Georgia Legislature," said Mr. Newton in his papers.

Mr. Newton has also made a second attempt to add present and
former court clerks Mark Harper, Cathelene "Tina" Robinson,
Juanita Hicks, and Stefani Lacour as defendants.

Mr. Newton argued that an earlier attempt to add the clerks as
defendants failed based on the court's finding that, "All parties
acknowledge that [they] are acting on behalf of Fulton County, and
that any order which [the] court issues would be fully binding on
the county."

But Mr. Newton now questions whether all parties do agree about
the county's liability.  He says the county's sovereign immunity
claim raises again the issue of the clerks' individual liability.

The plaintiffs in the case have until Dec. 1 to file a motion for
class certification and submit discovery requests.  The parties
then have until Feb. 1 to complete the class certification
discovery process, after which the certification hearing will be
scheduled.


SENSA PRODUCTS: Sued Over Deceptive Claims on "Tastant"
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Sensa
Products' claim, that its Sensa "tastant" is "clinically proven"
to help you lose weight if you sprinkle it on food, is eyewash.

A copy of the Complaint in Cruz v. Sensa Products, LLC, Case No.
2011-68055 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/10/Tastant.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          MOWER, CARREON & DESAI, LLP
          701 Brazos St., Suite 500
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 716-8930
          E-mail: desai@mocalaw.com


SIERRA TRADING: Recalls 1,280 Joss Rock Climbing Cams
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Sierra Trading Post, of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and
manufacturer, Cassin Sri, of Italy, announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,280 units of Joss rock climbing cams.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The recalled cams can fail unexpectedly after being set, posing a
fall hazard.

One incident reported in Europe.  No deaths or injuries reported
in the U.S.

The Joss Cam is a mechanical device placed in the crack of a rock
to support a climber's weight.  The Cam is operated by a trigger
that retracts the aluminum lobes, allowing the device to be placed
and secured in the crack of a rock.  A cable is attached to the
device with a heavy duty nylon sling attached to the end of the
cable.  Joss Cams come in eight sizes and each Cam is marked with
the size (.5 to 4).  The sling on the end features solid
horizontal blocks of color (yellow, orange, purple, red, green and
blue) indicating size.  The "Cassin" logo is also printed on a tag
attached to the sling.  The Sierra Trading Post item numbers
associated with this recall are #69277 and #69278.  These numbers
can be found on the original packaging label or order invoice.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12038.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at
Sierra Trading Post nationwide from August 2003 through March 2006
for $3 to $32.

Consumers should stop using the product and return it to Sierra
Trading Post for a full refund including shipping.  For additional
information contact Sierra Trading Post at (800) 713-4534 between
5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday, or e-
mail the company at customerservice@sierratradingpost.com


STATE STREET CORP: Forex Class Suits in Boston & Baltimore Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits filed in Boston and Baltimore, 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.

In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble
damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain
foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009.
The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the
rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades
constituted an unfair and deceptive practice and a breach of the
duty of loyalty.  In October 2011, a second putative class action
was filed in federal court in Baltimore alleging various
violations of ERISA on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with
State Street that executed indirect foreign exchange transactions
with the Company between 2005 and 2009.


STATE STREET CORP: Still Faces Shareholder Suits in Boston
----------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to defend itself from
shareholder-related class action complaints filed in Boston,
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.

Three shareholder-related class action complaints are currently
pending in federal court in Boston.  One complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of State Street shareholders.  The two other
complaints purport to be brought on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries in the State Street Salary Savings Program who
invested in the program's State Street common stock investment
option.  The complaints variously allege violations of the federal
securities laws and ERISA in connection with State Street's
foreign exchange trading business, the Company's investment
securities portfolio and its asset-backed commercial paper conduit
program.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal From Calif. Suits Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of all claims in two class action
lawsuits pending in California remains pending, according to
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s November 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company by former customers of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services,
Inc, ("LES"), a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.
("LFG").  The first of these actions, Arthur et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al., was filed on January 14, 2009, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
second of these cases, Terry et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et
al., was filed on February 2, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas,
Tenth Judicial Circuit, County of Anderson, South Carolina, and
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina.  On June 12, 2009, the Multi-District
Litigation ("MDL") Panel issued a transfer order designating the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Anderson
Division, as MDL Court for IRS Section 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange
Litigation (MDL 2054).  Plaintiffs' allegations in these cases are
that LES and certain of its officers caused them to suffer damages
in connection with potential 1031 exchange transactions that were
pending at the time that LES filed for bankruptcy.  Essentially,
Plaintiffs' core allegation is that their damages are the result
of breaches of fiduciary and other duties owed to them by LES and
others, fraud, and other improper acts committed by LES and
certain of its officers, and that the Company is partially or
entirely responsible for such damages because it knew or should
have known about the alleged wrongdoing and failed to take
appropriate steps to stop the same.  The Company believes that the
allegations and claims made against it in these actions are both
factually and legally unsupported and has filed a motion to
dismiss all claims.  The Court granted this motion to dismiss with
prejudice on
June 15, 2011.  Plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Additionally, the Company was threatened with litigation by the
bankruptcy trustee representing the estates of LFG and LES related
to the purchase of auction rate securities ("ARS") by LES through
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH").  The total par amount
of ARS bought through STRH and held by LES at the time of the
collapse of the auction rate market in February 2008 was
approximately $152 million.  The parties settled this dispute for
$14 million, which has been paid to the claimant.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeals in ERISA Class Suit Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the partial dismissal of a class action lawsuit
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
remain pending, according to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s November 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company, officers and directors of the
Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a
putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by offering the Company's common stock as an investment
option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan").  The
plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts
from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses
these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, but was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in
November 2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed.  On
December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for
the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for
immediate interlocutory appeal.  On January 3, 2011, the District
Court granted both motions.

On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate
petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit
Court").  On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants
and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in
separate appeals.

On September 6, 2011, briefing in the separate appeals concluded.
The Circuit Court has not set a date for oral arguments.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Decision in Suit Over Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to compel arbitration in one of the two class action lawsuits
filed in connection with the imposition of overdraft fees,
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 has been named as a defendant in two putative class
actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer
accounts.  The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al. was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on
May 6, 2009.  This action was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on
June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District
Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009.  Plaintiffs assert
claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and
unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result
of the method of posting order used by the Company, which
allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint
checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a
putative class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred
an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient
balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been
submitted to the bank for payment, "as well as" all SunTrust
account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based
on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges."  Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and
other relief deemed equitable by the Court.  The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both
motions were denied.  The denial of the motion to compel
arbitration was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Eleventh Circuit remanded this matter back to the District
Court with instructions to the District Court to review its prior
ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion.  The District Court has since denied SunTrust's
motion to compel arbitration for different reasons and SunTrust is
in the process of appealing this decision to the Eleventh Circuit.

The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed
in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended
complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.  Plaintiff asserts that all
overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card
and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore
subject to the usury laws of Georgia.  Plaintiff has brought
claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws,
conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the
action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such
overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee
resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury
rate.  SunTrust has filed a motion to compel arbitration and that
motion is pending.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Order on Arbitration Bid in "Krinsk" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a
subsidiary's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit captioned
Krinsk v. SunTrust Bank, 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.

Krinsk v. SunTrust Bank is a lender liability action in which the
borrower claims that the Company has taken actions in violation of
her home equity line of credit agreement and in violation of the
Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").  Plaintiff filed this action in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida as a
putative class action.  The Court dismissed portions of
Plaintiff's first complaint, and she subsequently filed an amended
complaint asserting breach of contract, breach of implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of TILA.  Plaintiff
has filed a motion seeking to certify a class of all Florida
borrowers.  The Company filed its answer to the complaint, has
opposed class certification, and has filed a motion to compel
arbitration.  The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration
and this decision was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's
ruling that SunTrust had waived its right to compel arbitration
and remanded the case back to the District Court to decide the
merits of SunTrust's motion to compel arbitration.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Classic Mutual Funds Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit relating to its Classic Mutual
Funds, 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 March 11, 2011, the Company, officers and directors of the
Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a
putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by offering certain SunTrust Banks, Inc. ("STI") Classic
Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan.  The plaintiff
purports to represent all current and former Plan participants who
held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from
April 2002 through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged
losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of
their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds.

The Affiliated Funds Class Action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division (the "District Court").  On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed
an amended complaint.  On June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 25, 2011, briefing on
the motion to dismiss concluded, and the motion remains pending.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit Over TRUPs
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit arising out of the offer and sale of SunTrust
Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities, 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.

Beginning in May 2009, the Company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc. ("STRH"), SunTrust Capital IX, officers and directors of the
Company, and others were named in three putative class actions
arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of
SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities ("TRUPs") of
SunTrust Banks, Inc.  The complaints alleged, among other things,
that the relevant registration statement and accompanying
prospectus misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the
Company's allowance for loan and lease loss reserves, the
Company's capital position and its internal risk controls.
Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with their
investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the
TRUPs.  These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont
Holdings Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and on November 30, 2009, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed.  On January 29, 2010, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  This motion
was granted, with leave to amend, on September 10, 2010.  On
October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
an attempt to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the
Court's dismissal decision.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on
March 21, 2011.  The District Court denied the motion to dismiss
as to Plaintiff's claims that the Company misrepresented the
adequacy of its loan loss reserves for 2007 but dismissed all
other claims against the Company and limited discovery in the
initial stages of the case to the question of SunTrust's
subjective belief as to the adequacy of those reserves at the time
of the offering.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal Bid in Colonial-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss remains pending in the class action lawsuit
brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of The
Colonial BancGroup, Inc. against a unit of SunTrust Banks, 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.

Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH"),
certain other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of
Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern District, entitled In re Colonial BancGroup,
Inc. Securities Litigation.  The complaint was brought by
purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial
BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages.  Plaintiffs allege
violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due
to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant
registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial
BancGroup's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards
and credit quality.  On August 28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup
filed for bankruptcy.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently has ordered
Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  This amended complaint
has been filed and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Lehman Brothers" MDL Remains Pending in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The multidistrict litigation over debt and preferred stock
offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., remains pending in
New York, according to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s November 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.
("STRH"), along with other underwriters and individuals, were
named as defendants in several individual and putative class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Texas and Washington.  Plaintiffs allege
violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for
allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with
various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. and seek unspecified damages.  All cases have now
been transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation
captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
asserted.

On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH and the other
underwriter defendants.


TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC: Mixon Files Notice in Fax Ad Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that class action plaintiff Mixon Insurance Agency filed
its class notice in a St. Clair County case against Taylorville
Chiropractic Clinic and Philip S. Dudak over unsolicited faxes.

The notice reads that "anyone who was sent one or more faxes on
Sept. 25, 2006 or Oct. 31, 2006, offering a 'free lunch while you
learn seminar series' about spinal decompression treatment at the
Spinal Care Center in Granite City" are potential class members.

Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto, who certified the class action, had
approved sending the class notice by fax.

Mixon filed declarations that notices would be sent by mail to 823
names and addresses and to 2,778 fax numbers.

In its lawsuit, Mixon claimed that by sending unsolicited fax
messages to its office and to at least 39 other businesses,
Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic and its director Philip S. Dudak
forced the companies to pay the clinic's advertising campaign.

Mixon filed the case in 2009, saying the defendants violated the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Because they received the faxes unwillingly, Mixon and the other
companies lost the use of their fax machine momentarily and used
ink toner and paper, the complaint says.  In addition, employees
wasted time to get the fax when they could have been doing
something else, the suit said.

In Mixon's case, it received the unsolicited faxed advertisement
on Sept. 25, 2006, according to the complaint.

Robert J. Sprague of Sprague and Urban in Belleville, Brian J.
Wanca of Anderson and Wanca in Rolling Meadows and Phillip A. Bock
of Bock and Hatch in Chicago represent the plaintiffs.

The case is St. Clair County Circuit Court Case number: 09-L-509.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: U.S. Indirect Purchaser Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself from indirect
purchaser class actions consolidated in Michigan, 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 February 17, 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division and a
formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic
Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil (SDE) related to
investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive
pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor
industry.  The European Commission began an investigation of the
industry on the same day.

The Company is cooperating fully with these investigations.  In
addition, it has entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with
the DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy.
Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any
criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to
the investigation against the Company as long as the Company,
among other things, continue its full cooperation in the
investigation.  The Company has received similar conditional
immunity from the European Commission and the SDE, and has
received or requested immunity or leniency from competition
authorities in other jurisdictions.

While the Company has taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and
other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs.  The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups.
All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation
procedures.

On June 24, 2010, Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor
Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A.
LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the direct-purchaser
plaintiffs to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid the
costs and distraction of this ongoing class action litigation. The
Settlement Agreement was made by and between the Company and its
subsidiaries and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased in the United
States, its territories and possessions, directly from a defendant
during the period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2008:
(a) compressors of less than one horsepower used for
refrigeration, freezing or cooling purposes, and/or (b)
refrigeration products, including condensers, containing
compressors of less than one horsepower used for refrigeration,
freezing or cooling purposes.  Compressors used for air-
conditioning applications are specifically excluded from both the
scope of the case and the Settlement Agreement.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for
plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser claims
against the Company relating to the Covered Products, the Company
agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in
addition, agreed to pay up to $250,000 for notice and
administrative costs associated with administering the settlement.
These costs were accrued as an expense in the second quarter of
2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010) in the line item
captioned "Impairments, restructuring charges, and other items".

On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of Tecumseh's proposed
settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because the time
frame and products covered by the proposed settlement class were
inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same day, granting in
part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss claims by the
direct purchaser plaintiffs.  The Court also denied the direct
purchaser plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's
ruling dismissing these claims.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint to reflect the Court's rulings on the
motion to dismiss, and also have requested leave to further amend
that complaint to cover a broader scope of products.  As a result
of these Court rulings, both Tecumseh and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs have the option to rescind the Settlement Agreement, in
which case the settlement amount will be returned to Tecumseh.
Alternatively, Tecumseh and the direct purchaser plaintiffs may
agree to amend the Settlement Agreement to be consistent with the
Court's rulings on the motion to dismiss, in which case the
amended Settlement Agreement would be subject to court approval.
Even if the court approves an amended Settlement Agreement, under
its current terms, if the Company's customers representing a
significant percentage of purchases of Covered Products choose not
to participate in the settlement (opt-out), the Company has the
right under certain circumstances to withdraw from the Settlement
Agreement and have the settlement funds returned.

The remaining indirect purchaser class actions in the United
States are in a preliminary stage.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on June 30, 2010.  Tecumseh filed a motion to
dismiss the indirect purchaser class action on August 30, 2010. In
Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Faces Canadian Horsepower Label Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits in Canada over mislabeled lawnmowers, 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 March 19, 2010 Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the Company and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of
lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition
in lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel
the horsepower of lawnmower engines and lawnmowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for
their own use and not for resale, a lawnmower containing a gas
combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either
the lawnmower or the engine contained within the lawnmower was
manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors
between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek
undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and
equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation
and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company
and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have
notified the Company that they claim indemnification with respect
to this lawsuit under its Stock Purchase Agreement with them.

On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against the Company and several other defendants advancing
allegations similar to those outlined in the Ontario suit.
Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages,
interest, costs, and equitable relief.  Snowstorm Acquisition
Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh
Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November
2007, have notified the Company that they claim indemnification
with respect to this lawsuit under the Company's Stock Purchase
Agreement with them.

At this time, the Company does not have a reasonable estimate of
the amount of its ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any
potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to
its financial position, consolidated results of operations and
cash flows.


TEREX CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Class Suits in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action complaint filed in Connecticut, 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.

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of a
class in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a stockholder
derivative lawsuit:

   * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in
     the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
     Litigation.

   * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
     securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the
     United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local
     32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension
     Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
     situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

   * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
     Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary
     duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was
     filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court,
     District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer,
     derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M.
     DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris
     Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike,
     Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley,
     Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and
     Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors.  The
complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to
estimate a loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits.  The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them.  The Company believes
that it has acted, and continue to act, in compliance with federal
securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these matters.
Accordingly, on November 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and on January 18, 2011, it filed a
motion to dismiss the securities lawsuit.  These motions are
currently in the briefing stage and pending before the court.  The
plaintiff in the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with
the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the
motion to dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit.


TIMBERCORP: M+K Appeals Investor Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily, reports that M+K has filed
an appeal on behalf of investors in its Timbercorp class action.

Lawyers behind a Timbercorp class action will fight a court
decision that denies compensation payments to investors of the
failed agribusiness group.

In a statement from law firm Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers (M+K), an
appeal was filed in the Victorian Court of Appeal on Nov. 10.

M+K managing director Victoria James Sturgess said the decision by
Justice James Judd in September to dismiss the class action was
"very disappointing" for the thousands of Timbercorp investors.

"The decision denied damages to investors in the Timbercorp
schemes and disallowed investors' relief from having to pay out
loans arranged through Timbercorp to fund their investments,"
Ms. Sturgess said.

"The grounds of appeal fundamentally rest on Timbercorp's failure
to disclose to investors information about such key risks as the
company's possible running out of cash needed to keep the projects
alive for their intended long-term duration.

"The grounds of appeal essentially invite the Appeal Court to
overturn Justice Judd's interpretation of key sections of the
Corporations Act dealing with disclosure obligations placed on
responsible entities of managed investment schemes and conclude
that those obligations were not properly discharged by Timbercorp
Securities Ltd."

M+K has consulted with the more than 2000 former Timbercorp
investors who are members of the class action and there is strong
support for the appeal.

"Many of our clients now face considerable ongoing loan
obligations for worthless forestry and horticulture investments,"
he said.

"In aggregate, Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd says it is owed
approximately $448 million under loans made to those investors in
the projects who are members of the class action."

Ms. Sturgess said the appeal is not only important for the
Timbercorp investors but is an important area of law that has
potential implications for investors within Australia's multi-
billion dollar managed investment sector.


TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit in Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated lawsuit in Delaware challenging its proposed merger
with Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG, 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 connection with the Allied World Merger Agreement, five
putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed against
the Company and the members of the Board challenging the merger
contemplated by the Allied World Merger Agreement.  Each lawsuit
names the Company, the members of the Board, and Allied World as
defendants.  Four of the lawsuits also name GO Sub as a defendant,
and one of the lawsuits names a former director of the Company as
a defendant.  Each of the lawsuits asserts that the members of the
Board breached a fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of
the Merger and that Allied World and its subsidiaries aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of a fiduciary duty.  One lawsuit
also alleges that the Company aided and abetted its directors'
alleged breach of a fiduciary duty.  The lawsuits seek to enjoin
the Merger, among other relief.

On June 29, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss or stay the three
New York actions in favor of the virtually identical proceedings
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  On July 25, 2011, the
plaintiffs in the three New York actions moved to consolidate
those actions into a single action.  On October 18, 2011, the
parties stipulated that each of these actions would be
discontinued without prejudice.  The Court entered the parties'
stipulation the following day.

On July 21, 2011, Vice Chancellor Parsons of the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware entered an order consolidating the two
Delaware actions.  Under that order, the Delaware plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint on August 1, 2011 alleging that
the Board breached a fiduciary duty by approving certain deal
measures that purportedly privileged the Merger over other
potential proposals, including a proposal from Validus, and by
allegedly failing to include material information in the Company's
proxy materials, and that Allied World and GO Sub aided and
abetted such breaches.  Additionally, on August 1, 2011, the
Delaware plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite proceedings and a
motion for a preliminary injunction, both of which the Company
opposed.  At a conference held on August 22, 2011, the court
declined to set a hearing date on the Delaware plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction and, except for a very narrow issue,
denied the Delaware plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery.

On October 10, 2011, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Board breached a
fiduciary duty (and that Allied World and GO Sub aided and abetted
such breach) by, among other things, adopting and refusing to
rescind a shareholder rights plan, approving certain payments to
Allied World in conjunction with the Termination Agreement, and
approving a share repurchase program.  The second amended
complaint also asserts derivative claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Board, Allied World and GO Sub, a claim for
unjust enrichment against Allied World and GO Sub, and a
derivative claim for declaratory relief that the Termination
Agreement is null and void.  The lawsuit seeks the return of any
payments from the Company to Allied World pursuant to the
Termination Agreement, among other relief.  On October 24, 2011,
defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended
complaint.

The Company and the Board believe these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously.

Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.transre.com/-- through
its subsidiaries, offers reinsurance capacity for a range of
property and casualty products directly and through brokers to
insurance and reinsurance companies in the domestic and
international markets on a treaty and facultative basis.  The
Company's casualty business line includes directors' and officers'
liability, errors and omissions liability, and general casualty;
medical malpractice, ocean marine, and aviation liability; auto
liability for non-standard risks; and accident and health, and
surety and credit liabilities.  Its property business line
consists of fire, allied lines, auto physical damage, and
homeowners multiple perils.  Transatlantic Holdings operates as a
reinsurer in 50 states and the District of Columbia in the United
States, Puerto Rico, and Guam; and Bermuda, Canada, 7 locations in
Europe, 3 locations in Central and South America, and 2 locations
in Asia, as well as 1 location in Japan, Australia, and Africa.
The Company was formerly known as PREINCO Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. in April 1990.
Transatlantic Holdings was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
New York.


TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Judge Must Decide on Lakin Chapman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge must decide
whether Fifth District appellate judges who stopped a Lakin
Chapman class action against Travelers Insurance also stopped one
against Employers Mutual Casualty.

Judge Mudge took it under advisement on Sept. 30, after a hearing
where Employers lawyer Thomas Pender compared the Fifth District
decision for Travelers to a torpedo.

In both cases, former circuit judge Daniel Stack certified class
actions and appointed local chiropractor Frank Bemis as class
representative.

Judge Mudge asked Mr. Pender, "So you think this is the death
knell in the kind of cases of this nature?"

Mr. Pender said, "Based on this provider agreement, which is the
same provider agreement, yes."

"Based on the payor agreements which are virtually identical,
yes," Mr. Pender said.

"It's the same class representative, Dr. Frank Bemis.  It's the
same complaint with the same four theories of recovery."

Robert Schmieder of Lakin Chapman answered, "The Travelers opinion
was anything but a torpedo."

He said plaintiffs in the Travelers case would amend the
complaint.

"That case is still alive," he said.  We're going to be back."

Mr. Pender replied, "That further action is going to be Dr. Coy's
and Dr. Bemis's single stand alone causes of action against
Travelers.

"It will not go back as a class action.

"Maybe Dr. Bemis does have a stand alone claim for his $14 against
EMC under these theories, not a class action."

The former Lakin Law Firm filed a series of insurance suits for
Mr. Bemis in 2005, ahead of the effective date of a national law
that steered most new class actions to federal courts.

Judge Stack interpreted the Travelers case as a contract dispute,
but Fifth District judges ruled that no contract existed between
the insurer and providers.

Employers then asked Judge Mudge to reconsider Judge Stack's class
certification order.

Two days before the hearing, the Illinois Supreme Court denied
Mr. Bemis leave to appeal the Travelers decision.

At the hearing, Mr. Pender said Fifth District judges found
Mr. Bemis agreed to accept reduced reimbursements when he signed a
preferred provider contract.

"Nowhere in that contract was the doctor told that he would get an
increased volume of patients," Mr. Pender said.

Judge Mudge asked Jonathan Piper of Lakin Chapman, "What about
this software license agreement, is this is or is it not a payor
agreement?"

Mr. Piper said, "That's the number one question in this case, is
there a contractual relationship here?

"The provider has a contract with the network, the network has a
contract with the payor, and the payor has policies with the
patients.

"The provider is looking for some sort of increased volume in
patient volume through steerage, in return for which he gets
discounts on his bills.

"Even if First Health has a payor agreement with First Isaac,
which we haven't seen, that may not be a payor agreement because
they don't have an obligation to provide health care services or
benefits.

"Is Employers claiming that First Isaac is the authorized
representative of First Health?,

"That's the big issue on the merits that has to be resolved in the
case."

He meant Fair Isaac, third party defendant in the case.

"They cannot turn this software agreement into a payor agreement
under the definition of what a payor agreement is," Mr. Piper
said.

"Was Employers really part of the network based on what the
providers had agreed had to happen before they got discounts?"

For Fair Isaac, Richard Lageson said plaintiffs never directed a
discovery request to his client in six years.

"Fair Isaac is not a payor," Mr. Lageson said.

"They are a software licensing company," he said.  "This case
should end now.

"We haven't been willing to settle.

"This case has some flawed theories and some flawed facts," he
said.

Robert Schmieder of Lakin Chapman said, "They don't have a payor
agreement."

"Not one of the things Employers did was legitimate,"
Mr. Schmieder said.

Mr. Pender said, "For them to say there is no payor agreement is
silly because that was the basis of their class definition."

"Dr. Bemis was never told what counsel is now arguing he should
have been told, that this was a payor agreement between a payor
like EMC and First Health," Mr. Pender said.

He said the Travelers decision was the elephant in the room.

"It is the law now," Mr. Pender said.

Mr. Schmieder said, "Is it an elephant or is it a dog?

"That's the issue that we teed up, and that's the issue that's
common to everybody, and that's why a class action procedure works
here."

Judge Mudge said, "I'm going to reexamine the submissions and the
Travelers case and issue an order."

As of Nov. 9, it remained under advisement.


U.S. BANCORP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Debit Transactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bancorp is a defendant in three separate cases primarily
challenging its daily ordering of debit transactions posted to
customer checking accounts for the period from 2003 to 2010.  The
plaintiffs have requested class action treatment; however, no
class has been certified.  The court has denied a motion by the
Company to dismiss these cases.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses against these matters, including class
certification.  As these cases are in the early stages and no
damages have been specified, no specific loss range or range of
loss can be determined currently.

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.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ingenix-Related Class Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated continues to defend class action
lawsuits over its use of a database previously maintained by
Ingenix, 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.

In 2000, a group of plaintiffs including the American Medical
Association filed a lawsuit against the Company asserting a
variety of claims challenging the Company's determination of
reimbursement amounts for non-network health care services based
on the Company's use of a database previously maintained by
Ingenix, Inc. (now known as OptumInsight).  The parties entered
into a settlement agreement in 2009 and this class action lawsuit,
along with a related industry-wide investigation by the New York
Attorney General, is now resolved.  The Company remains a party to
a number of other lawsuits, including putative class actions and
multidistrict litigation, brought on behalf of members of other
health insurance companies, including Aetna, WellPoint and CIGNA,
challenging those companies' determinations of out-of network
reimbursement amounts based on their use of the same database.
Those lawsuits allege, among other things, that the database
licensed to these companies by Ingenix was flawed and that Ingenix
conspired with these companies to underpay their members' claims
and seek unspecified damages and treble damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys fees.  The
Company says it is vigorously defending these lawsuits.  The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that
may result from these matters due to the procedural status of the
cases, motions to dismiss that are pending in several of the
cases, the absence of class certification in any of the cases, the
lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs, and the
involvement of other insurance companies as defendants.


USA TRUCK: Obtains Court Approval of "Cerdenia" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class action lawsuit entitled Hermes
Cerdenia vs. USA Truck, Inc., was approved in October, 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 July 2, 2010, a former driver team member filed a lawsuit
against the Company titled Hermes Cerdenia vs. USA Truck, Inc. in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Bernardino, alleging various violations of the California
Labor Code and seeking certification of the suit as a class action
to include "all individuals currently and formerly employed in
California as drivers, or other similarly titled positions."  The
Company successfully removed the case to the United States
District Court, Central District of California and filed an answer
denying the plaintiff's allegations.  The lawsuit sought monetary
damages for the alleged violations.  In February 2011, the Company
negotiated settlement of the lawsuit through mediation subject to
the District Court's review and approval.  Such approval of the
$250,000 settlement was received in October 2011.  The Company had
fully accrued the agreed upon settlement amount during the second
quarter of 2011.


VALEANT PHARMA: Expert Discovery Set to End November 17
-------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery in antitrust lawsuits filed against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., is currently scheduled to end
on November 17, 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.

On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class
action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Biovail, GlaxoSmithKline plc,
and SmithKline Beecham Inc. (the latter two of which are referred
to here as "GSK") seeking damages and alleging that Biovail and
GSK took actions to improperly delay FDA approval for generic
forms of Wellbutrin XL(R). The direct purchaser plaintiff in the
Massachusetts federal court lawsuit voluntarily dismissed its
complaint on May 27, 2008, and shortly thereafter re-filed a
virtually identical complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In late May and early June 2008,
additional direct and indirect purchaser class actions were also
filed against Biovail and GSK in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations. These complaints
have now been consolidated, resulting in a lead direct purchaser
and a lead indirect purchaser action.

On September 10, 2008, the Company and GSK filed motions to
dismiss both the direct and indirect purchaser actions. Those
motions were heard on February 26, 2009. In the direct purchaser
case, on March 13, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motions, dismissing the Sherman Act Section 2
monopolization claim that had been made by the direct purchasers
against the Company. The Company and GSK answered the remaining
claims in the direct purchaser case on April 16, 2009.  On
March 26, 2009, before an order issued on the motions to dismiss
the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The pending motions were
therefore denied as moot, and new motions to dismiss the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' claims were filed on April 30, 2009. On
July 30, 2009, the Court dismissed all indirect purchaser claims
except the antitrust claims (limited as to the Company's concerted
actions) in California, Nevada, Tennessee and Wisconsin and the
consumer protection claims of California and Florida.

On September 14, 2010, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to amend their complaint to add claims under
Illinois's Antitrust Act and New York's Donnelly Act. The Company
and GSK opposed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion. On
December 21, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion for leave to amend, permitting indirect purchasers
leave to amend their complaint to assert claims under New York's
Donnelly Act but not under Illinois's Antitrust Act.

Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification. The Company and
GSK opposed the motions. The Court held a hearing on direct
purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion on April 5, 2011,
and on indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion
on April 29, 2011 and May 27, 2011. The Court granted in part
and denied in part the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion on
August 11, 2011. The Court certified a class consisting of all
persons or entities in the United States and its territories who
purchased Wellbutrin XL(R) directly from any of the defendants at
any time during the period of November 14, 2005 through August 31,
2009. Excluded from the class are defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and federal government entities. Further excluded from
the class are persons or entities who have not purchased generic
versions of Wellbutrin XL(R) during the class period after the
introduction of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL(R). Defendants
petitioned the Third Circuit for immediate appellate review of
this order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), but
the Third Circuit denied the request without comment. The order
remains appealable at the conclusion of the district court
proceedings.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' motion on August 12, 2011. The defendants
have moved the district court to reconsider certain aspects of
this order, which motion is pending.

Expert discovery is currently scheduled to end on November 17,
2011. The deadline for filing of motions for summary judgment is
currently set for December 16, 2011, with a hearing set on such
motions for March 1, 2012.

The Company believes that each of these complaints lacks merit and
that the Company's challenged actions complied with all applicable
laws and regulations, including federal and state antitrust laws,
FDA regulations, U.S. patent law and the Hatch-Waxman Act.


VODAFONE: May Face Class Action Over Network Problems
-----------------------------------------------------
Nick Tabakoff, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that a
Sydney law firm will launch a multi-million-dollar damages suit
against Vodafone this week as it considers a class action against
the mobile phone provider over its 2010 network problems.

Vodafone said it would "strongly defend" the proposed AUD4 million
lawsuit.

Neville and Hourn Legal said it was preparing the suit on behalf
of Sydney-exclusive Vodafone dealer BD Mobile, seeking loss of
current and future earnings over last year's problems, which
included call dropouts and reception issues.

The action comes less than a month after The Daily Telegraph
revealed a similar AUD6 million legal action by another Vodafone-
exclusive dealer, Top Stuff 4 Business.

A class action against Vodafone over the 2010 problems --
potentially involving thousands of customers -- stalled last month
after the law firm involved was unable to find Australian backers.

But Neville and Hourn partner Matthew Hourn said on Nov. 10 he now
had "more than seven" Vodafone shops, franchises and online
dealers looking to commence proceedings against the company over
the network problems.

"There is the potential for a class action -- we are just looking
at the commonalities between the cases," he said.  "With only two
claims so far, our clients are claiming in the vicinity of AUD10
million, with more (cases) in the works."

BD Mobile director David Potter said on Nov. 10 he had been with
Vodafone since 1997, and Vodafone's service problems had caused
hardship to "my customers, my employees and my business".

Vodafone on Nov. 10 said it had "not received notice" of the
proceedings.

"BD Mobile was a small dealer with relatively low activity for the
past two years," a Vodafone spokeswoman said on Nov. 10.


W.P. APPLIANCES: Recalls 27,000 Wolfgang Puck Grills/Griddles
-------------------------------------------------------------
About 27,000 units of Wolfgang Puck Electric Reversible Tri-
Grill/Griddles were voluntarily recalled by importer, W.P.
Appliances Inc., of Hollywood, Florida, and manufacturer, YouO
Electric Appliances Co. Ltd., of China, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop
using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A defect in the electrical wiring of the electric grills/griddles
can pose a risk of overheating, melting and an electrical shock
hazard to consumers.

The firm has received four reports of electrical shock and two
reports of melted plastic housing.

This recall includes Wolfgang Puck brand combination electric
grills/griddles with dual thermostatic controls and model number
BRTGG010.  The grills measure about 14.5 inches in width, 11
inches in depth and 6.5 inches in height.  The model number is
located on an ETL/Intertek foil sticker label affixed to the
bottom of the unit.  The stainless steel grills/griddles have
"Wolfgang Puck Bistro Collection" stamped on the front of the unit
next to the control dials.  They feature a stainless steel handle
used to compress the top and bottom grill plates.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12703.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively by The Home Shopping Network (HSN) nationwide, HSN's
telephone ordering system and online at http://www.HSN.com/for
about one week between April 30, 2011, through May 6, 2011, for
about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled combination
grills/griddles and contact W.P. Appliances for instructions on
returning the grills/griddles for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact W.P. Appliances toll-free at (855) 666-0478
anytime, or visit the firm's recall website at
http://www.brtgg010-recall.com/


XENOPORT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Horizant" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
XenoPort, Inc., continues to await a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss an amended class action complaint relating to the product
Horizant Tablets, 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 July 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming the Company and certain of its officers and
directors as defendants.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with
allegedly false, misleading and incomplete statements issued by
the defendants related to the Company's product candidate,
Horizant (gabapentin enacarbil) Extended-Release Tablets, as a
potential treatment of primary restless legs syndrome or RLS,
which allegedly made it impossible for investors to meaningfully
understand the drug's potential for Food and Drug Administration
approval.  The plaintiff sought damages, an award of its costs and
injunctive and/or equitable relief on behalf of a purported class
of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period between May 5, 2009 and February 17, 2010. Another
lawsuit was filed in September 2010 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California making substantially similar
allegations, on behalf of a purported class of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period between
March 16, 2009 and May 5, 2010.  In November 2010, a motion to
consolidate the complaints and appoint a lead plaintiff was
granted.  In January 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  The Company responded to the complaint with a motion
to dismiss.  On May 20, 2011, the court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. An amended
complaint was filed on June 14, 2011.  In the amended complaint,
the plaintiff seeks damages, an award of its costs and injunctive
and/or equitable relief on behalf of a purported class of
stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period between May 7, 2008 and February 17, 2010.  The Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on July 29,
2011, and a hearing was held on October 28, 2011.  The Company has
not received a ruling on its motion to dismiss.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The Company is not able to
estimate the possible cost to the Company from this matter, as the
lawsuit is at an early stage and the Company cannot be certain how
long it may take to resolve this matter or the possible amount of
any damages that the Company may be required to pay.  Therefore,
the Company has not established any reserves for any potential
liability relating to the lawsuit.

XenoPort, Inc. -- http://www.xenoport.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing a portfolio of internally discovered product
candidates for the potential treatment of neurological disorders.
In April 2011, the FDA approved the Company's first product,
Horizant(TM) (gabapentin enacarbil) Extended-Release Tablets.  The
Company's collaborator, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), is currently
promoting Horizant in the United States.  The Company is also
developing gabapentin enacarbil with Astellas Pharma Inc. in Japan
and five Asian countries.  XenoPort's product candidates are being
developed for the potential treatment of neuropathic pain,
spasticity and Parkinson's disease.


ZIPCAR INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Late Fees in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Zipcar, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
complaint over late 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.

On July 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Reed v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-
11340-RGS.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company's late fees are
unlawful penalties.  The lawsuit purports to assert claims against
the Company for unjust enrichment, money had and received, for
declaratory judgment, and for unfair and deceptive trade practices
under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 93A and requests
certification of a class consisting of all Zipcar members who have
incurred late fees at the presently imposed rates.  The plaintiff
seeks unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement of the
revenues and/or profits that the Company allegedly received from
imposing late fees, as well as a declaration that such late fees
are void, unenforceable, and/or unconscionable, and an award of
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  While the Company
intends to contest the plaintiff's claims vigorously, neither the
outcome of this litigation nor the amount and range of potential
damages or exposure associated with the litigation can be assessed
at this time.

Zipcar, Inc. -- http://www.zipcar.com/-- and its subsidiaries
comprise a membership organization that provides self-service
vehicle use by the hour or by the day.  The Company places
vehicles in convenient parking spaces throughout major
metropolitan areas and universities in North America and in the
United Kingdom.  Through the use of the Company's proprietary
software, members are able to reserve vehicles online, through a
wireless mobile device or by phone, access the vehicle with an
electronic pass card or mobile device, and receive automatic
billings to their credit card.


                           *********

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  * * *