---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 16, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 227

                             Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces "Stone" Lawsuit in California
ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces "Betts" Lawsuit in Florida
ADVANCE AMERICA: "Johnson" Plaintiffs Yet to File for Arbitration
ADVANCE AMERICA: "King" Plaintiffs Yet to File for Arbitration
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Awaits Final Court OK of Securities Suit Deal

ANADYS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suits Over Roche Merger Deal
BELLSOUTH TELECOMS: Judge Allows FLSA Class Action to Proceed
CALAMOS FUND: 7th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Brown Suit
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Grandview Cemetery Suit Still in Discovery
CHOICE MANUFACTURING: Sells Illusory Service Contracts, Suit Says

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Enters Into Partial Class Action Settlement
CONNECTICUT LIGHT: Local Businesses No Plan to File Class Action
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Accused of Fixing Auto Wire Harness Prices

DFC GLOBAL: Units Defend Class Suits Filed by Consumers in Canada
DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 4th Securities Class Suit in California
DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 5th Securities Class Suit in California
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Lawyer Sued Over Handling of Class Action
DISH NETWORK: 9th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Channel Bundling Suit

EL PASO CORP: Expects Plaintiffs to Seek Review of Suit Dismissal
EL PASO CORP: Faces Class Suits Over KMI's Proposed Acquisition
EXPEDIA INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 674 Cadillac CTS Models to Fix Brakes
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Goodman" Suit

GOV'T OF CANADA: Closing Arguments in Tainted Water Suit Begins
HANOVER INSURANCE: 8th Cir. Sees Forum-sShopping in Thatcher Suit
HANSEN MEDICAL: Plaintiffs File Third Amended Complaint
HARMONY GOLD: N.Y. Court Approves Class Action Settlement
HUMAN GENOME: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action

IMMERSION CORP: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
IMMERSION CORP: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint
INFORMATICA CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
INTERLINE BRANDS: Opposes Bid for Class Certification in Ill. Suit
INTERMUNE INC: Appeals From Suit Dismissal to be Argued Nov. 29

LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL: Defends Suit Over 2011 Fiscal Results
MF GLOBAL: Class Action May Resume if Settlement Not Approved
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Oppose Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
OMNICARE INC: Two Institutional Investors File Class Action
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Objector Seeks Reconsideration of Appeal

PAETEC HOLDING: Enters Into MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit
PAYPAL: Fernando Plaintiffs Want Zepeda Class Action Dismissed
PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Appeals
PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Occupancy Suits

PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces Two Class Suits in Colorado & New York
REACHLOCAL INC: Court Dismisses Second Wage & Hour Suit
RIGHTNOW TECH: Being Sold to Oracle for Too Little, Suit Claims
SANTARUS INC: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Class Suit in N.Y.
SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS: Enters Into Partial Settlement Agreement

SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Dec. 2 Status Hearing Set for Fraud Suit
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Reviews Customer Indemnification Claim
STATE OF IOWA: Inmates Held Too Long File Class Action
STRAYER EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Kinnett" Suit Pending
SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Approves Deal to Dismiss "Feely" Suit

SUNRISE SENIOR: Hearing in "Purnell" Suit Set for Jan. 23
SUPPORT.COM INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
TRAVELCENTERS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Action Suit
TRAVELCENTERS: Class Action Lawsuit in Kansas Still Pending
UNITED FIRE: Hurricane Katrina-Related Class Suits Dismissed

UNITED ONLINE: Objection Deadline to Suit Settlement Is Nov. 18
UNITED ONLINE: Bid to Dismiss Appeal From Suit Settlement Pending
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court OKs Allocation Plan in Securities Suit
WORLD WRESTLING: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
YAHOO INC: Appeal in Consolidated Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending

YAHOO INC: Court Consolidates Securities Suits in California




                          *********

ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces "Stone" Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. continues to defend
itself from a putative class action complaint, styled Kerri Stone
v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al., in
California, according to the Company's November 7, 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, Kerri Stone filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California in San Diego against
the Company and its California subsidiary.  Defendants removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.  The amended complaint alleges violations of the
California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law and the California
Unfair Competition Law and seeks an order requiring defendants to
disgorge and/or make restitution of all revenue and loan
principal, pay three times the amount of damages the class members
actually incurred, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
and punitive damages.  The complaint also seeks certain injunctive
relief. The Company anticipates that the case will proceed to
trial in late 2011 or early 2012.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces "Betts" Lawsuit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. continues to defend
itself from a putative class action lawsuit styled Betts and
Reuter v. McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC et al., in
Florida, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

The Company and the Company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance
of Florida, LLC ("McKenzie"), are defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit commenced by former customers, Wendy Betts and
Donna Reuter, on January 11, 2001, and a third named class
representative, Tiffany Kelly, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach
County, Florida. This putative class action alleges that McKenzie,
by and through the actions of certain officers, directors, and
employees, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices and
violated Florida's criminal usury statute, the Florida Consumer
Finance Act, and the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. The suit seeks unspecified damages, and the
named defendants could be required to refund fees and/or interest
collected, refund the principal amount of cash advances, pay
multiple damages, and pay other monetary penalties. Ms. Reuter's
claim has been held to be subject to binding arbitration. However,
the trial court has denied the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of Ms. Kelly's claims. The appellate court affirmed
the trial court's decision, but certified a "Question of Great
Public Importance" to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida
Supreme Court accepted the Company's appeal and stayed the
appellate court's mandate pending the outcome of their review of
the appellate court's decision. The Company anticipates a final
decision from the Florida Supreme Court regarding the
enforceability of its arbitration clause sometime in 2012.


ADVANCE AMERICA: "Johnson" Plaintiffs Yet to File for Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a putative class action lawsuit, styled Sharlene
Johnson, Helena Love and Bonny Bleacher v. Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers, Inc. et al., have yet to file for arbitration
after the court stayed litigation and compelled representatives to
arbitrate their claims, according to the Company's November 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On August 1, 2007, Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love, and Bonny
Bleacher filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
the Company and two of its subsidiaries alleging that they
provided lines of credit to borrowers in Pennsylvania without a
license required under Pennsylvania law and with interest and fees
in excess of the amounts permitted by Pennsylvania law. The
complaint seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that
the monthly participation fee charged to customers with a line of
credit is illegal, an injunction prohibiting the collection of the
monthly participation fee, and payment of damages equal to three
times the monthly participation fees paid by customers since June
2006, which could total approximately $135 million in damages,
plus attorneys' fees and costs. By order dated August 18, 2011 and
a subsequent memorandum dated August 31, 2011, the trial court
stayed the litigation and compelled the class representatives to
arbitrate their claims on an individual basis. The trial court
denied plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory appeal. The
plaintiffs have not filed for arbitration.


ADVANCE AMERICA: "King" Plaintiffs Yet to File for Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a putative class action lawsuit, styled Raymond King
and Sandra Coates v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of
Pennsylvania, LLC, have yet to file for arbitration after the
court stayed litigation and compelled representatives to arbitrate
their claims, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On January 18, 2007, Raymond King and Sandra Coates, who were
customers of BankWest Inc., the lending bank for which the Company
previously marketed, processed, and serviced cash advances in
Pennsylvania, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging
various causes of action, including that the Company's
Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal cash advance loans in
Pennsylvania in violation of Pennsylvania's usury law, the
Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act. The complaint alleges that
BankWest Inc. was not the "true lender" and that the Company's
Pennsylvania subsidiary was the "lender in fact." The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, punitive damages,
and the trebling of any compensatory damages. By order dated
August 18, 2011 and a subsequent memorandum dated August 31, 2011,
the trial court entered an order stayed the litigation and
compelled the class representatives to arbitrate their claims on
an individual basis. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for
an interlocutory appeal. The plaintiffs have not filed for
arbitration.


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Awaits Final Court OK of Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassadors Group, Inc., will be seeking final court approval of a
settlement resolving a securities class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased its Common Stock between
February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  On
March 11, 2010, the Company, and certain of its executive
officers, moved to dismiss the class action.  On June 2, 2010, the
Court issued an order denying these motions to dismiss.  The
current amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's Common Stock.  On March 17,
2011, the class was certified for persons who purchased the
Company's Common Stock between July 24, 2007 and October 23, 2007.
The parties had commenced discovery when, on April 14, 2011, an
agreement was reached to settle the action following a mediation
before a retired federal judge.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company's insurance carriers have agreed to pay
the settlement amount of $7.5 million, in complete settlement of
all claims, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability by
the Company or any party in the action.  Throughout the
litigation, the Company and the individual defendants have denied,
and continue to deny, the allegations made against them.  The
Company agreed with the insurance carriers to settle the action on
these terms, because it was in the best interests of the Company
to avoid the burdens, risk, uncertainties and expense that would
be inherent in continued litigation.  The settlement agreement,
which includes a release for all defendants and other provisions
common in such agreements, was preliminarily approved by the Court
on September 6, 2011, which will then be followed by notice to all
class members.  Whether or not the settlement receives final court
approval depends on various factors, including but not limited to
the number of and reasons for any potential objections to the
settlement or the number of class members excluding themselves
from the class action settlement. The settlement will be subject
to final Court approval following a public hearing.  As the
settlement is covered by the Company's insurance carrier, the
settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, financial condition or results of
operations.

Ambassadors Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: EPAX) --
http://www.ambassadorsgroup.com/-- is an education company
located in Spokane, Washington.  Ambassadors Group is the parent
company of People to People Ambassador Programs, new subsidiary
World Adventures Unlimited, Inc., and BookRags, an educational
research website.  The company also oversees the Washington School
of World Studies, an accredited travel study and distance learning
school.


ANADYS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suits Over Roche Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action complaints have been filed against Anadys
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., relating to its merger agreement with
Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., et al., the Company disclosed in its
November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Between October 20 and October 25, 2011, three putative class
action lawsuits entitled (1) Hammad v. Anadys Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Case No. 37-2011-00099789-CU-BT-CTL, (2) Maestro v. Anadys
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 37-2011-00099895-CU-BT-CTL, and
(3) Shabtai v. Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 37-2011-
00099995-CU-BT-CTL, were filed in San Diego Superior Court against
the Company, members of the Anadys board of directors, Hoffmann-La
Roche, Inc., Bryce Acquisition Corporation, and Roche Holdings,
Inc. ("RHI"), arising out of the proposed acquisition of Anadys by
Roche.  These lawsuits generally allege that the Anadys board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good
faith, and independence to Anadys' stockholders by entering into
the merger agreement because the directors, among other things,
(i) failed to maximize stockholder value; (ii) used a process that
was unfair and inadequate and tailored to better their own
interests at the expense of Anadys' stockholders; (iii) failed to
properly value Anadys; (iv) and agreed to preclusive deal-
protection terms.  The lawsuits also allege that Anadys, Roche,
Bryce, and RHI aided and abetted the Anadys board of directors in
breaching their fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek to stop or delay
the acquisition of Anadys, or rescission of the merger in the
event it is consummated, and seek monetary damages in an
unspecified amount to be determined at trial.  On October 25,
2011, the Hammad and Maestro lawsuits were consolidated as In re
Anadys Pharmaceuticals Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 37-
2011-00099789-CU-BT-CTL.  Defendants believe plaintiffs'
allegations in these actions are without merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously.

Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http:///www.anadyspharma.com/--
is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to improving patient care
by developing novel medicines for the treatment of hepatitis C.


BELLSOUTH TELECOMS: Judge Allows FLSA Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Business Management Daily reports that a federal judge has allowed
a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class-action lawsuit against
BellSouth Telecommunications to move forward.

The class consists of "level-one" managers who claim they have
been misclassified so the company won't have to give them overtime
pay.  BellSouth's level-one managers primarily perform clerical
duties and relay information between company managers and field
technicians.

Even so, BellSouth classifies them as exempt from the FLSA.  They
typically work 60-hour weeks.

In addition to the misclassification charge, the lawsuit contends
that level-one managers don't receive meal and rest breaks
required under the FLSA.  The plaintiffs also claim BellSouth does
not keep proper time records for these employees.  Both charges
are related to the misclassification issue because exempt workers
are not entitled to rest and meal breaks and employers are not
necessarily required to track exempt employees' hours.

The class includes level-one managers in Florida and eight other
states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

BellSouth is a subsidiary of AT&T, which is facing similar
lawsuits against its Southern New England Telephone Co. and
Pacific Bell units.  Level-one managers at those companies have
also received class status.

The Southern New England suit alone could potentially cost the
company more than $60 million.  That case went to trial on Oct. 3.


CALAMOS FUND: 7th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Brown Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the
lawsuit, CHRISTOPHER BROWN, individually and on behalf of a class,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. JOHN P. CALAMOS, SR., trustee of Calamos
Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund, et al., Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 11-1785 (7th Cir.), was properly dismissed by
the district court on the merits.

The plaintiff asserts his suit is for breach of fiduciary
obligation and not for securities fraud.  The class consists of
the owners of the common stock of Calamos Convertible
Opportunities and Income Fund, a closed-end investment fund.

A copy of the Appellate Court's Nov. 10, 2011 order is available
at http://is.gd/i87OU4from Leagle.com.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Grandview Cemetery Suit Still in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
captioned Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc.,
et al., United States District Court, Southern District of
Indiana, Case No. 4:07-cv-137, against the current and past owners
of Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana, including Carriage
Services, Inc., subsidiaries that owned the cemetery from January
1997 until February 2001, on behalf of all individuals who
purchased cemetery and burial goods and services at Grandview
Cemetery.  Plaintiffs claim that the cemetery owners performed
burials negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts, and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery.  The Plaintiffs also
allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after the
Company owned the cemetery.  On October 15, 2007, the case was
removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana, to the
Southern District of Indiana.  On April 24, 2009, shortly before
Defendants had been scheduled to file their briefs in opposition
to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to
amend their complaint to add new class representatives and claims,
while also seeking to abandon other claims.  The Company, as well
as several other Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend
their complaint and add parties.  In April 2009, two Defendants
moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing
Plaintiffs in this action.  On March 31, 2010, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.  In that
order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain
new counsel.  On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ
of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking
relief from the trial court's order of disqualification of
counsel.  On May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the
petition of mandamus.  On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied
Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandamus.  Thus, pursuant to the
trial court's order, Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8,
2010, in which to retain new counsel to prosecute this action on
their behalf.  Plaintiffs retained new counsel and the trial Court
granted the newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel 90 days to review
the case and advise the Court whether or not Plaintiffs would seek
leave to amend their complaint to add and/or change the
allegations as are currently stated therein and whether or not
they would seek leave to amend the proposed class representatives
for class certification.  Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend both
the class representatives and the allegations stated within the
complaint.  Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments.  The
Court issued an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with
amending the class representatives and a portion of their claims;
however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed.
Discovery in this matter will now proceed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Carriage says it intends to defend this action vigorously.
Because the lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, the Company is
unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss,
if any, at this time.


CHOICE MANUFACTURING: Sells Illusory Service Contracts, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie L. High, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. The Choice Manufacturing Company, Inc., MEPCO Finance
Corporation, and Does 3 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 4:11-cv-
05478 (N.D. Calif., November 10, 2011) is brought on behalf of
those who purchased a vehicle service contract or engine additive
products throughout California that were administered by Choice
Manufacturing with MEPCO servicing and arranging of the financial
payments for the VSCs with the consumer.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants mislead consumers by
purporting to sell them extended vehicle service warranties that
cover repair or replacement costs to the consumers' covered
vehicles.  However, notes the complaint, the VSCs that the
Defendants are selling are illusory contracts, and once they have
extracted their full contract payment from the unassuming and
vulnerable consumer, they refuse to pay for the repair or
replacement of vehicle parts or other services, even though those
services are expressly covered under the contract.

Ms. High, is a resident of Inglewood, California, who purchased a
VSC from agent/broker non-party US Fidelis, Inc.  She relates that
she is a 60-year old insulin-dependent diabetic with other health-
related issues, who lives on a fixed monthly disability income and
depends on her vehicle as her primary means of transportation.

Choice Manufacturing, a Delaware corporation, is part of the
Accelerated Service International group of companies.  Choice
Manufacturing is the administrator for the VSCs sold through US
Fidelis as well as many other entities.  MEPCO, a Delaware
corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Independent Bank
Corporation, a commercial bank, which itself is a subsidiary of
Independent Bank Corporation, a publicly traded corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM
          One Market
          Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8093
          Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
          E-mail: Azram@themehdifirm.com


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Enters Into Partial Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Nov. 11 disclosed that the District Court
of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern
Division approved the following announcement of a proposed partial
class action settlement that could benefit certain purchasers of
securities of Colonial BancGroup, Inc.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

In re COLONIAL BANCGROUP, INC SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-00104-RDP-WC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED PARTIAL
SETTLEMENT

TO:  ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED: (I) THE COMMON STOCK
OF THE COLONIAL BANCGROUP, INC.; (II) COLONIAL'S COMMON STOCK
TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S APRIL 23, 2008 STOCK OFFERING PURSUANT
TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FILED WITH THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; OR (III) THE $250 MILLION
WORTH OF SUBORDINATED NOTES DUE IN 2038, PAYING 8.875% INTEREST ON
A QUARTERLY BASIS, PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO COLONIAL'S FORM S-3/A
SHELF REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS DATED NOVEMBER 12,
2004 AND FORM 424 (B)(2) PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 28,
2008, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN APRIL 18, 2007 AND AUGUST 6, 2009,
INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned litigation has been preliminarily certified as a class
action for the purposes of a partial settlement only and that a
partial settlement with Robert E. Lowder, Sarah H. Moore, T. Brent
Hicks, Lewis E. Beville, William Britton, Jerry J. Chesser,
Augustus K. Clements, III, Robert S. Craft, Patrick F. Dye, Hubert
L. Harris, Jr., Clinton O. Holdbrooks, Harold O. King, Deborah L.
Linden, John Ed Mathison, Milton E. McGregor, John C.H. Miller,
Jr., Joseph D. Mussafer, William E. Powell, III, James W. Rane,
Simuel Sippial, Jr., Edward V. Welch, Sheila P. Moody and Kamal
Hosein, in the amount of $10,500,000 in cash, has been proposed by
the Settling Parties.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable R. David Proctor of
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama in the Frank M. Johnson United States Courthouse, One
Church Street, Montgomery, AL 36104 at 1:00 p.m., on January 25,
2012, to among other things: determine whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate; determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the settlement proceeds should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and consider the application of Lead Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses.  The Court may change the date of the hearing without
providing another notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING LITIGATION AND THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Partial Settlement and a
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator:

          In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          P.O. Box 230
          600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 866-274-4004
          Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel.

          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          Thomas A Dubbs, Esq.
     James W. Johnson, Esq.
          140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: 888-219-6877
     E-mail: settlementquestions@labaton.com
     Web site: http://www.labaton.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a
Proof of Claim postmarked no later than February 29, 2012.  To
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice that it is received or postmarked no later
than January 4, 2012.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound
by the Final Order and Judgment of the Court.  Any objections to
the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation and/or application for
attorneys' fee and reimbursement of expenses must be filed with
the Court and served on counsel for the Settling Parties in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, such
that they are received or postmarked no later than January 4,
2012.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely
submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share
in the Net Settlement Fund, but you nevertheless will be bound by
the Final Order and Judgment of the Court.

DATED: NOVEMBER 11, 2011

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA


CONNECTICUT LIGHT: Local Businesses No Plan to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Glanzer, writing for The Granbys Patch, reports that six
owners or managers of local businesses all said they do not hold
CL&P responsible for the lengthy power outages that caused
significant losses in sales and stock.

Many area small businesses have joined a class action lawsuit
against Connecticut Light & Power for damages incurred as a result
of an alleged negligent response to power outages caused by the
late October snowstorm.

Those businesses just don't happen to be located in Granby and
East Granby.

Indeed, while representatives from six businesses -- four in
Granby and two in East Granby -- all said they were significantly
impacted by the lack of electricity for up to 10 days, none of
them hesitated in distancing themselves from the litigation.

Lori Love, owner of Granby Village Health, saw her business lose
power entirely for four days and have electricity restored to just
half her store for another week.

The end result was thousands of dollars worth of lost sales and
perishable stock, causing Love to tighten the store's figurative
belt.

"Everybody who is working is volunteering their time," Ms. Love
said.  "That's amazing to me.  You still have to pay rent and
other bills and that leaves you pretty strapped."

While she has filed an insurance claim, Ms. Love said that the
amount that she will receive hasn't been determined.

"I'm hoping they will hurry up and call," Ms. Love said.

When asked, however, if she is thinking of joining the class
action lawsuit, Ms. Love replied, "Unequivocally, no."

"Did anyone take a look at the number of trees down?" Ms. Love
asked rhetorically.  "Nobody can criticize for one minute how hard
CL&P [employees] have worked.  People are just looking for someone
to blame and be angry at.

"What if they had emergency crews on standby? What would that do
to our rates? There's no point [to joining a lawsuit].  It doesn't
serve a purpose.  Let's just get things fixed and move on and get
paid back from the insurance company, to which I pay a monthly
premium."

That was also the prevailing attitude at two of Granby's pizzerias
-- ABC Pizza and Granby Pizza.

After closing four days from flooding caused by Tropical Storm
Irene and three more as a result of the recent power outages,
Granby Pizza owner Franco Araujo can be forgiven for feeling a
little snakebit.

"That's a week's vacation that we didn't want," said Mr. Araujo,
who estimated losses in sales and food ranging between $5,000 and
$7,000 from the recent power outages.

Yet, Mr. Araujo doesn't hold any ill will toward CL&P.

"This isn't like a normal storm," Mr. Araujo said.  "It wasn't
something we were expecting.  I don't blame CL&P for anything."

Rob Steuart, manager of ABC Pizza, said that his store lost power
fully for several days, but that the losses -- include thousands
of dollars worth of food -- was hard to quantify.

"It absolutely affected us," Mr. Steuart said.  "We did the best
to serve our customers with whatever we could.  We all put in
hours we normally wouldn't.  The hardest part was disappointing
customers when we couldn't provide what they wanted."

Lost stock wasn't a huge problem for Jim Farley at the Center
Spirit Shop, which only had to throw away refrigerated Kahlua-
based coolers.

Nevertheless, being closed for several days and operating on half-
power for several days more resulted in significantly reduced
customer traffic, Mr. Farley said.

"I don't have a figure for you, but it was lots of money,"
Mr. Farley said.  "We don't make the product, so if they have
power down the street, people are going to go there.  They went
somewhere to get it."

Still, despite the losses, Mr. Farley stopped short of holding
CL&P, or anyone else for that matter, accountable.

"What are you going to do?" Mr. Farley asked.  "It was a disaster.
I have no animosity toward anybody.  It just happened."

In East Granby, Ashley Caruso, assistant manager of Gio's Brick
Oven Pizzeria, said that being out of power for four days was
"awful."

"We had to throw everything out.  It was crazy," she said.

So you're going to join the class action lawsuit, right?

"Oh God no," Ms. Caruso said.  "It's not [CL&P's fault].  . . . No
way, absolutely not.  As far as we're concerned, what are you
going to do?"

Jim Lergos, manager of J & G Restaurant and Lounge, had a similar
experience with his establishment and a held the same viewpoint.

Mr. Lergos said that he threw away between $5,000 to $10,000 in
food alone -- he did not provide an estimate in lost business --
but refused to hold anyone responsible other than himself.

"We should have been more prepared," said Mr. Lergos, noting that
he was looking into buying a generator to prevent such losses in
the future.

All of the managers and owners said that they have decided to hope
for the best from their insurance companies and move on.

At least one, Ms. Love, has also chosen to use the forced shutdown
of her business as an opportunity.

Specifically, Ms. Love said that she had rearranged the back of
her store to make it more of a sit-down gathering place for people
to enjoy the delicious hot meals and soups prepared on site.

"We're getting more back to basics," Ms. Love said.  "I've
remembered why I opened up this business in the first place.  When
the power was out, people came here as a gathering place."

It's that focus on their respective businesses that, perhaps,
keeps them from thinking of legal action.

"I have a lot of other things to worry about other than CL&P,"
Ms. Love said.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008.  The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the
Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of
Constellation Energy between January 30, 2008, and September 16,
2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June
2008.  The securities class actions generally allege that
Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers
or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by
issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008
offering of Debentures.  The securities class actions also allege
that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or
was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted
public statements including in connection with its announcements
of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the
first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the
filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.  The securities class
actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases as
class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there.  On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September
17, 2009.  On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On August 13,
2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion
to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the
Securities Act of 1934 and limiting the lawsuit to those persons
who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering.

In August 2011, plaintiffs requested permission from the court to
file a third amended complaint in an effort to attempt to revive
the claims of the common shareholders.  Constellation Energy has
filed an objection to the plaintiffs' request for permission to
file a third amended complaint.  Given that limited discovery has
occurred, that the court has not certified any class and the
plaintiffs have not quantified their potential damage claims, the
Company says it is unable at this time to provide an estimate of
the range of possible loss relating to these proceedings or to
determine the ultimate outcome of the securities class actions or
their possible effect on the Company's, or Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company's financial results.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle shareholder class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed merger with Exelon Corporation, according to the
Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On April 28, 2011, Constellation Energy entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Exelon Corporation (Exelon).  At closing,
each issued and outstanding share of common stock of Constellation
Energy will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive
0.93 shares of common stock of Exelon, and Constellation Energy
will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon.

In late April and early May 2011, shortly after Constellation
Energy and Exelon announced their agreement to merge the two
companies, twelve shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland.  Each class
action lawsuit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of the
shareholders of Constellation Energy against Constellation Energy,
members of Constellation Energy's board of directors, and Exelon.
The shareholder class actions generally allege that the individual
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
proposed merger because they failed to maximize the value that the
shareholders would receive from the merger, and failed to disclose
adequately all material information relating to the proposed
merger.  The class actions also allege that Constellation Energy
and Exelon aided and abetted the individual directors' breaches of
their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits challenge the proposed
merger, seek to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger
until all material information is provided relating to the
proposed merger, and ask for rescission of the proposed merger and
any related transactions that have been completed as of the date
that the court grants any relief.  The class action lawsuits also
seek certification as class actions, compensatory damages, costs
and disbursements related to the action, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and rescission damages.  Plaintiffs in three of the
twelve lawsuits subsequently filed motions to consolidate all the
lawsuits.  The court has granted the motion to consolidate.

In August 2011, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
The class actions generally assert that Constellation Energy's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Constellation
Energy's shareholders in connection with the pending merger and
that Constellation Energy's directors, Constellation Energy, and
Exelon aided and abetted the alleged breaches and that
Constellation Energy's directors, Constellation Energy and/or
Exelon violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in
the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on
June 27, 2011.  The class actions seek various forms of relief,
including, among other things, a declaratory judgment, an
injunction prohibiting the merger, fees, expenses, and other
costs.

In the third quarter of 2011, the parties to the consolidated
action in the state court and the two actions in the federal court
entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth an
agreement in principle regarding the settlement of the actions.
Under the agreement, Constellation Energy and Exelon agreed to
provide certain additional disclosures in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger.  The agreement
provides that the actions will be dismissed with prejudice and
that the members of the class of Constellation Energy shareholders
will release the defendants from all claims that were or could
have been raised in the actions, including all claims relating to
the merger.  The agreement also provides that the plaintiffs'
counsel may apply to the state court for an award of attorney's
fees and expenses.  The settlement is subject to customary
conditions, including, among other things, the execution of
definitive settlement papers and approval of the settlement by the
state court.

Constellation Energy and Constellation Energy's directors believe
the actions are without merit and that they have valid defenses to
all claims asserted therein.  They entered into the memorandum of
understanding solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and
uncertainties inherent in further litigation.  If the state court
does not approve the settlement or any of the other conditions to
consummation of the settlement are not satisfied, Constellation
Energy and Constellation Energy's directors will continue to
defend their positions in these matters vigorously.


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Accused of Fixing Auto Wire Harness Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Budner; Dorine Kramer; Nicholas Mitchell; Lillian
Fireside; Kelly Hopkins; Timothy Griffin; and John Hollingsworth,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Delphi
Automotive LLP; Denso Corporation; Denso International America,
Inc.; Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.; Lear Corp.; Leoni LG; Sumitomo
Electric Industries, Ltd.; S-Y Systems Technologies GMBH; Yazaki
Corp.; and Yazaki North America Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-05477 (N.D.
Calif., November 10, 2011) arises out of an alleged conspiracy
extending from at least January 1, 2000, through at least
January 1, 2010, to rig bids for, and to fix, raise, stabilize,
and maintain prices, of automotive wire harnesses sold indirectly
to the Plaintiffs and other Class members.

During the Class Period, the Defendants and their co-conspirators
conspired to illegally restrict competition in the market for
Automotive Wire Harnesses, specifically targeting indirect
purchaser consumers and affecting billions of dollars of commerce
throughout the United States of America, including California, the
Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs contend that as a result of the
Defendants' bid-rigging and price-fixing conduct, the Plaintiffs
and Class members have been injured in their business and property
by paying more for Automotive Wire Harnesses than they would
otherwise have paid.

The Plaintiffs are residents of California.  During the Class
Period, the Plaintiffs say they purchased one or more Automotive
Wire Harnesses in California, indirectly from one or more of the
Defendants, for end use and not for resale.

Delphi and Lear are Delaware corporations, while Yazaki North
America is an Illinois corporation.  Furukawa, Sumitomo and Yazaki
Corp. are Japanese corporations.  Leoni and S-Y Systems are German
corporations.  The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell
Automotive Wire Harness Systems throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sylvie K. Kern, Esq.
          KAG LAW GROUP
          P.O. Box 210135
          San Francisco, CA 94121
          Telephone: (415) 221-5763
          E-mail: skern@antitrustglobal.com


DFC GLOBAL: Units Defend Class Suits Filed by Consumers in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DFC Global Corp.'s subsidiaries, Dollar Financial Group, Inc., and
National Money Mart Company, are defending themselves against
lawsuits filed by consumers in Canada, according to the Company's
November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In 2003 and 2006, purported class actions were brought against NMM
and Dollar Financial Group, Inc. in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who obtained
short-term loans from NMM in Alberta, alleging, among other
things, that the charge to borrowers in connection with such loans
was usurious under Canadian federal law (the "Alberta
Litigation"). The actions seek restitution and damages, including
punitive damages. In April 2010, the plaintiffs in both actions
indicated that they would proceed with their claims. Demands for
arbitration were served on the plaintiff in each of the actions,
and NMM has filed motions to enforce the arbitration clause and to
stay the actions. To date, neither case has been certified as a
class action. The Company intends to defend these actions
vigorously.

In 2004, an action was filed against NMM in Manitoba on behalf of
a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from
NMM. The allegations in the action are substantially similar to
those in the Alberta Litigation and, to date, the action has not
been certified as a class action. If the action proceeds, NMM
intends to seek a stay of the action on the grounds that the
plaintiff entered into an arbitration and mediation agreement with
NMM with respect to the matters which are the subject of this
action. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 4th Securities Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Rall and Marion Rall, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Michael J. Mendes, and
Steven M. Neil, Case No. 4:11-cv-05457 (N.D. Calif., November 9,
2011) is a securities class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
all persons who purchased Diamond Foods' publicly traded
securities during the period between April 5, 2011, and
November 1, 2011, inclusive.

During the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's accounting
procedures for payments to walnut growers and failed to disclose
expenses that should have been realized for the fiscal year ending
July 31, 2011, the Ralls allege.  They point out that these
material misrepresentations and omissions resulted in artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period for Diamond Foods shares.

The Ralls are residents of Litchfield Park, Arizona.  They
purchased shares of Diamond Foods during the Class Period at
artificially inflated prices.

For most of its history, Diamond Foods was a growers' cooperative.
In 2005, Diamond Foods, a Delaware corporation, became a publicly
traded company, and broadened its focus to include the acquisition
of successful snack food brands.  Diamond Foods produces and sells
nuts, including walnuts, almonds, pine nuts, and pecans, and also
sells other packaged snack foods.  Mr. Mendes has served as the
Company's president and chief executive officer since 1997, and is
also the chairman of the Board of Directors.  Mr. Neil has served
as the Company's executive vice president and chief financial and
administrative officer since 2008.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Punzalan, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-mail: mpunzalan@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          L. Kendall Satterfield, Esq.
          Michael G. McLellan, Esq.
          Robert O. Wilson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          James Place
          1077 30th Street, NW, Suite 150
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
          E-mail: ksatterfield@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  rwilson@finkelsteinthompson.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Faces 5th Securities Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Simon, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Michael J. Mendes and Steven M.
Neil, Case No. 4:11-cv-05479 (N.D. Calif., November 10, 2011) is a
securities class action lawsuit alleging violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Diamond Foods'
publicly traded securities between December 9, 2010, and
November 4, 2011, inclusive.

According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, the Defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme and multiple violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's current and future financial
condition.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
misrepresented the Company's current financial condition and
prospective financial results, including the reported earnings and
expenses incurred during the Company's fiscal year 2011, and the
proposed acquisition of The Procter &Gamble Company's Pringles
business, purportedly scheduled to close in December 2011.

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Diamond Foods'
publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

Diamond Foods sells snack products to global, national, regional
and independent grocery, drug and convenience store chains, as
well as to mass merchandisers and club stores.  Mr. Mendes is the
chairman of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer of
the Company.  Mr. Neil is the chief financial officer and a
director of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          431 Montgomery Avenue, Suite B
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 660-8000
          Facsimile: (610) 660-8080
          E-mail: Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Lawyer Sued Over Handling of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Smith, writing for The Courier-Journal, reports that already
facing disbarment for alleged misconduct involving one class-
action lawsuit, Cincinnati trial lawyer Stan Chesley is embroiled
in accusations from former clients who accuse him of wrongdoing in
a second case.

Two lawsuits are pending in Kenton County, Ky., against
Mr. Chesley, his Cincinnati law firm and a staff attorney.

The lawsuits accuse them of defrauding four of the 252 sexual-
abuse victims who shared in an $84 million class-action settlement
with the Diocese of Covington, reached in 2006 in neighboring
Boone County.

They accuse Mr. Chesley and attorney Robert Steinberg of fraud,
promising them higher payouts than they actually received and
telling them their payments would be delayed or reduced if they
refused to support the attorneys' fee requests.

Judge Robert W. McGinnis has denied a request filed in Boone
Circuit Court by Messrs. Chesley and Steinberg to block the Kenton
County lawsuits.  Judge McGinnis had presided over the final
stages of the diocese case in 2009.

The lawyers deny the charges and had asked Judge McGinnis to
declare the Kenton suits an improper attack on the "integrity of
the settlement" already determined to be fair and final in Boone
County.

Judge McGinnis' order -- which he signed Nov. 4 without additional
comment -- comes as Mr. Chesley's professional fate remains in the
hands of the Kentucky Supreme Court in another major Boone County
class-action case.

The Kentucky Bar Association recommended in June that the Supreme
Court disbar Mr. Chesley.  The bar concluded he took excessive
fees and covered up the misconduct of other attorneys in a $200
million settlement reached in 2001 between makers of the fen-phen
diet-drug combination and those who suffered heart problems from
it.

The $84 million settlement of the Diocese of Covington lawsuit
remains one of the largest made by any Roman Catholic diocese in
the nation -- even though the diocese represents less than half a
percent of the nation's Catholic population.

The diocese acknowledged in 2004 it had received more than 200
allegations of sexual abuse against 35 priests in the previous 50
years.

In the pending Kenton County cases, the four plaintiffs accuse
Messrs. Chesley and Steinberg of fraud and professional
negligence.

"I'm hoping now we can shed some light" on the case, said
Louisville attorney Thomas Clay, who represents three clients
suing Messrs. Chesley and Steinberg -- one of the victims, Tom
Cardosi; a second represented by a second, Heather Moser; and the
administrator of the estate of a third, Julane Simpson.

Another victim, Christine Anderson, is representing herself in a
separate lawsuit.

"We're not attacking the fairness of the settlement," Mr. Clay
said." . . . We are attacking the way in which the settlement was
administered" by the lawyers, he said.

But Messrs. Chesley and Steinberg called the allegations
"baseless" and "frivolous" in court documents.

They said the clients already had a chance to challenge the dollar
amounts when the class-action case was pending in Boone Circuit
Court.  They cited an audit of the settlement money that found it
was handled according to sound accounting principles.

Attorney David Sloan, representing Messrs. Chesley and Steinberg,
noted that Judge McGinnis didn't rule on the merits of the case,
only on whether he could stop litigation in another court.

"We will be filing motions to dismiss shortly" in Kenton County,
he said.

Judge McGinnis' decision contrasts with ones issued earlier this
year by the U.S. District Court for Eastern Kentucky, which heard
the same claims.  It ruled that the plaintiffs were trying to
reopen a class-action case that a state court had closed.

In the diocese settlement, victims could receive anywhere from
$5,000 to $450,000 each depending on where they fit in one of four
categories, ranked by the severity of abuse they suffered.

The plaintiffs allege Messrs. Chesley and Steinberg promised they
would be placed in the highest-paying category and also share in a
separate fund that could offer as much as $550,000 for
"extraordinary" injuries.

The plaintiffs allege they received less than they were promised.

Messrs. Chesley and Steinberg, however, say the clients received
hundreds of thousands of dollars and that the lawyers didn't
decide the amounts -- court-appointed special masters did.

Messrs. Chesley and Steinberg submitted copies of correspondence
they said prove they kept their clients informed.

The plaintiffs alleged Messrs. Chesley and Steinberg provided them
no help in preparing requests for higher settlements to a court-
appointed special master named to hear appeals.

The plaintiffs allege the lawyers told them their "settlement
amounts would be decreased, stalled or even denied if they did not
support the attorneys' fee request."

They are asking the court for damages that include forcing Messrs.
Chesley and Steinberg's firm to forfeit the estimated $18.5
million in legal fees from the case.

The current lawsuits do not allege wrongdoing by anyone associated
with the diocese.

Under the Covington case's class-action status, a small group of
plaintiffs filed suit but the settlement was open to anyone
sexually abused by a priest or anyone else associated with the
church before Oct. 21, 2003.

Of 400 people claiming injuries, 252 received payments and the
rest were denied, according to court documents.

Victims were allowed to opt out of the settlement and pursue
individual settlements if they chose -- and some did.  But their
window for filing claims closed if they failed to opt out.
Clients in the current lawsuits said they that decided not to opt
out because the lawyers allegedly promised them awards close to $1
million each.

The fen-phen case involves some of the same actors as the diocese
case.

Former judge Joseph "Jay" Bamberger was disbarred last month by
the Kentucky Supreme Court for his approval of the fen-phen
settlement, which put tens of millions of dollars in excessive
fees in the hands of three other now-disbarred lawyers.

Judge Bamberger also presided over the early stages of the diocese
case and approved it for class-action status -- a rarity in
church-abuse cases nation-wide.

But Judge Bamberger retired in December 2003 after lawyers for the
diocese questioned the judge's close friendship with Mark Modlin,
a consultant to Mr. Chesley's firm.

Mr. Modlin also was a consultant in the fen-phen case, and the
Kentucky Bar's trial commissioner found that Judge Bamberger knew
Mr. Modlin stood to gain $2 million from the settlement.


DISH NETWORK: 9th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Channel Bundling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated its
June 3, 2011, order, which affirmed the dismissal of a class
action lawsuit relating to channel bundling, according to DISH
Network Corporation's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
lawsuit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009,
the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  The plaintiff class sought rehearing en banc.

On October 31, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating
the June 3, 2011 order, directing that a three-judge panel be
reconstituted, and denying the plaintiff class' motion for
rehearing as moot.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this case.  The
Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of
the lawsuit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages.


EL PASO CORP: Expects Plaintiffs to Seek Review of Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation said in its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011, that plaintiffs will likely seek further
review of the appellate court's decision affirming dismissal of
their purported class action lawsuit in Colorado.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Tomlinson, et al.v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Corporation
Pension Plan was filed in U.S. District Court for Denver,
Colorado.  The lawsuit alleges various violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act as a result of the Company's change from a final
average earnings formula pension plan to a cash balance pension
plan.  In 2010, a District Court dismissed all of the claims in
this matter.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case
and in August 2011 the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's decision.

The Company believes that it is likely that the plaintiffs will
seek United States Supreme Court review of the Tenth Circuit
decision.


EL PASO CORP: Faces Class Suits Over KMI's Proposed Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation is facing shareholder class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed acquisition by Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 16, 2011, the Company announced a definitive agreement
with Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI) whereby KMI will acquire El Paso
Corporation (El Paso) in a transaction that values El Paso at
approximately $38 billion, including the assumption of debt.  The
transaction has been approved by each of the Company's and KMI's
board of directors.

Beginning on October 17, 2011, multiple purported shareholder
class actions were filed challenging the proposed acquisition of
El Paso by KMI.  The lawsuits were filed against both companies,
an advisor and the El Paso board of directors.  The shareholder
class actions generally allege that the El Paso board breached its
fiduciary duties to the shareholders by approving the transaction
and that the two companies aided in the alleged breach.  All of
the shareholder class actions seek to enjoin the transaction.
These actions have been filed in state district court in Harris
County, Texas, and in Delaware Chancery Court.

The Company says it expects that additional actions may be filed
in the future.  The Company believes these purported shareholder
class actions are without merit and it intends to defend against
them vigorously.


EXPEDIA INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Inc. continues to defend itself from lawsuits relating to
hotel occupancy taxes, according to the Company's November 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

The Company is currently involved in 44 lawsuits brought by or
against states, cities and counties over issues involving the
payment of hotel occupancy taxes.  The Company continues to defend
these lawsuits vigorously.  With respect to the principal claims
in these matters, the Company believes that the ordinances at
issue do not apply to the services it provides, namely the
facilitation of hotel reservations, and, therefore, that the
Company does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed.  The
Company believes that the ordinances at issue generally impose
occupancy and other taxes on entities that own, operate or control
hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms
or similar accommodations.

Recent developments include:

   * San Diego, California Litigation. On September 6, 2011, the
court handling the California consolidated cases overturned the
city of San Diego's administrative decision that was in the city's
favor and held that the online travel companies are not liable for
hotel occupancy taxes.

   * Columbus, Georgia Litigation. The judge who has presided over
the case since its inception resigned amid a Judicial
Qualifications Commission investigation and the case has been
assigned to a new judge. Expedia's motion for removal of the case
to federal court was denied and the case shall now proceed in
front of a new judge.

   * City of Houston, Texas Litigation. On October 25, 2011, the
Texas state court of appeals held that online travel companies are
not liable to pay hotel occupancy taxes to the city of Houston on
their services.

   * Jacksonville, Florida Litigation. The parties have reached a
settlement regarding convention development taxes.

   * Lyndhurst, New Jersey Litigation. A federal appeals court
affirmed the trial court decision dismissing, on standing grounds,
a putative class action seeking occupancy taxes brought by the
town of Lyndhurst, on behalf of itself and similarly situated
municipalities, townships and counties in New Jersey.

   * County of Genesee, County of Calhoun, County of Ingham and
County of Saginaw, Michigan Litigation. The parties have reached a
settlement in principle.

   * Rosemont, Illinois Litigation. On October 14, 2011, the court
granted summary judgment in favor of the town of Rosemont and
denied the online travel companies' motion for summary judgment.

   * Palm Beach, Florida Litigation. The parties have reached a
settlement in principle.

   * Lawrence County, Pennsylvania Litigation. On August 4, 2011,
a state appeals court issued an order affirming in part, and
reversing in part, a lower court's dismissal of a putative class
action against the online travel companies brought by Lawrence
County on behalf of all Pennsylvania counties. The court is
allowing the municipalities' claims for declaratory judgment to
proceed.

   * Hamilton County, Ohio Litigation. The court held that the
online travel companies are not liable under the hotel occupancy
ordinances of the three jurisdictions in the suit, including the
city of Cincinnati, and granted in part and denied in part the
online travel companies' motion to dismiss.

   * Montgomery County, Maryland Litigation. The court granted in
part and denied in part the online travel companies' motion to
dismiss. The court dismissed the county's claims for unjust
enrichment and failure to separately state taxes.

   * District of Columbia Litigation. On October 12, 2011, the
court denied the online travel companies' motion to dismiss. The
District of Columbia has filed a motion for summary judgment.

   * Volusia County, Florida Litigation. On September 13, 2011,
the court denied the online travel companies' motion to dismiss.

In addition, these cases were filed and/or served during the third
quarter of 2011:

   * City of Breckenridge, Colorado Litigation. On July 25 2011,
Breckenridge, Colorado brought suit against a Hotels.com, Expedia
and Hotwire, on behalf of itself and, purportedly, other similarly
situated Colorado home rule municipalities. Town of Breckenridge
v. Colorado Travel Co., LLC, et al., Case No. 2011 CV420 (In the
District Court, Summit County, Colorado). The complaint includes
claims for declaratory judgment, violation of ordinance,
conversion, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. The online
travel companies have filed a motion to dismiss.

   * Nassau County, New York Litigation. On September 26, 2011,
Nassau County re-filed its suit against a number of online travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire, in New York
state court, on behalf of itself and, purportedly, other similarly
situated New York cities, counties and local governmental
entities. County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (In the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau). The
complaint includes claims for violation of hotel tax laws,
conversion, unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive
trust. Nassau County's prior federal court action was dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 674 Cadillac CTS Models to Fix Brakes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Welsh at The Wall Street Journal reports that General
Motors Co. is recalling certain Cadillac CTS vehicles from the
2012 model year to check for a possible flaw in their power-brake
systems.

In a document filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the car maker said the affected cars were built
from October 21 through October 26, 2011.  The recall includes a
total of 674 vehicles.

A nut that retains the brake-boost pushrod, which is critical to
the brakes' power-assist system, may not be tightened properly.
As a result, the nut could loosen and allow the pushrod to
separate from the brake pedal.  If this happens, the driver could
suddenly lose braking, which increases the risk of a crash.

Under the recall, dealers will inspect the power vacuum brake
boost pushrod retention nut, and tighten it if necessary.  The
recall began November 1 and the repair service is free of charge.
Customers can contact Cadillac at 800-458-8006.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Goodman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
putative class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to
the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In December 2009, one of the Company's non-insurance subsidiaries,
one of the subsidiary's officers and Genworth Financial, Inc. were
named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J.
Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management,
Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  In response to the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the Court granted on
March 30, 2011, the motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty
claim and denied the motion to dismiss the remaining federal
claims.

The Company says it will continue to vigorously defend this
action.


GOV'T OF CANADA: Closing Arguments in Tainted Water Suit Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne White, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a
landmark multi-million dollar class-action lawsuit launched by
residents of Shannon, Que., who claim they were sickened by
groundwater contamination, is coming to an end.

Closing arguments have begun at the Quebec City courthouse nearly
10 years after residents of the town, located near CFB Valcartier,
first initiated their legal actions against the federal government
and two ammunition companies.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Bernard Godbout heard testimony from
nearly 25 experts in toxicology, epidemiology, hydrogeology and
biochemistry and 100 witnesses during the 10 months of trial. Some
3,500 residents of Shannon are seeking compensation after their
wells were contaminated with trichloroethylene, or TCE, a known
carcinogen which was used as a solvent to clean artillery and
other ordnance at the base.

The class-action lawsuit contends the Department of National
Defence and the ammunition companies were negligent in handling
and disposing of TCE.

The plaintiffs claim hundreds of people living near the military
base got sick by drinking the water and breathing it in during hot
showers.  The evidence put forward by their lawyers during the
trial show at least 489 residents of the small town of 4,000 got
cancer.

According to experts who testified for the residents in court, the
high rates of cancer and other diseases found in Shannon were
caused by exposure to TCE.

However, the federal government maintained at the trial, with the
help of its own experts, that not a single person has become ill
from drinking tainted water.

It will be up to the judge to determine if the tainted water is
the most probable cause for the cancers and other diseases
suffered by Shannon residents.

The lawyer representing the government said there is not a shred
of scientific evidence linking TCE levels in groundwater to cancer
in the community.  "The plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate
that what they alleged is based on facts as opposed to based on a
perception," said David Lucas.

For their part, the lawyers for the plaintiffs say they are
confident and looking forward to the conclusion of the extensive
legal proceedings.

"I believe we attempted the impossible," said Charles Veuilleux,
the lead lawyer for the residents.

"We did the best we could with the information that we had," he
said, blaming the Defence Department for setting up a "Great Wall
of China" to prevent access to critical information.

In December 2000, Shannon residents learned TCE had been dumped
decades earlier and had made its way into their private wells.

Government officials told residents to stop drinking tap water at
that time, but Mr. Veuilleux contended in court the Defence
Department was aware of the contamination as early as the 1950s.

The government has acknowledged a handful of wells were
contaminated but claimed the TCE concentration was not strong
enough to pose any health risk.

"We don't think that there is a question of fault," said
Mr. Lucas.

The government lawyer also stressed the residents of Shannon were
informed of the risks as soon as they became known and the federal
government provided them with $26.5 million to secure an
alternate, safe source of drinking water.

The suit seeks damages that could be worth millions, according to
Mr. Veuilleux.

Closing arguments are set to wrap up by November 17.

The judge is expected to take three to six months to table his
decision.


HANOVER INSURANCE: 8th Cir. Sees Forum-sShopping in Thatcher Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a
district court decision granting plaintiff's motion to voluntarily
dismiss the lawsuit, Allen Thatcher, Individually and as a Class
Representative on Behalf of all Similarly Situated Persons,
Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.; Massachusetts
Bay Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.

Allen Thatcher filed the putative class action in Arkansas state
court against Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. and Massachusetts Bay
Insurance Co., asserting causes of action for unjust enrichment,
fraud, constructive fraud, and breach of contract.  After the
Defendants removed the case to federal district court pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), Mr.
Thatcher sought permission to voluntarily dismiss his case without
prejudice so that he could refile an amended complaint in state
court that would avoid federal jurisdiction.

The Eighth Circuit found that the district court abused its
discretion in granting Mr. Thatcher's motion to voluntarily
dismiss without first addressing whether the motion was an
improper forum-shopping measure.  Implicit in this error was the
district court's failure to consider subject matter jurisdiction,
the Eighth Circuit opined.  The case is remanded to the district
court for further proceedings, the Eighth Circuit ruled.

A copy of the Eighth Circuit's Nov. 4, 2011 order is available at
http://is.gd/p9kIpXat Leagle.com.


HANSEN MEDICAL: Plaintiffs File Third Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a consolidated securities lawsuit against Hansen
Medical, Inc., have filed a third amended complaint, according to
the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement that it
would restate certain of its financial statements, a securities
class action lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2009 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
naming the Company and certain of its officers. Curry v. Hansen
Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094. The complaint asserts
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Hansen stock between May 1, 2008 and October 18,
2009, inclusive, and alleges, among other things, that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to make
disclosures regarding the Company's financial results and
compliance with GAAP while improperly recognizing revenue; that
these misstatements and/or nondisclosures resulted in
overstatement of Company revenue and financial results and/or
artificially inflated the Company's stock price; and that
following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement, the price
of the Company's stock declined. On November 4, 2009 and
November 13, 2009, substantively identical complaints were filed
in the Northern District of California by other purported Hansen
stockholders asserting the same claims on behalf of the same
putative class of Hansen stockholders. Livingstone v. Hansen
Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05212 and Prenter v. Hansen
Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-05367. All three complaints
seek certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys fees. On December 22, 2009,
two purported Hansen stockholders, Mina and Nader Farr, filed a
joint application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and for
consolidation of the three actions. On February 25, 2010, the
Court issued an order granting Mina and Nader Farr's application
for appointment as lead plaintiffs and consolidating the three
securities class actions. On July 15, 2010, the Court entered an
order granting lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs' second amended complaint, in
addition to alleging that shareholders suffered damages as a
result of the decline in the Company's stock price following the
October 19, 2009 announcement, also alleges that shareholders
suffered additional damages as the result of share price declines
on July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009, January 8, 2009, July 6, 2009,
and August 4, 2009, all of which lead plaintiffs allege were
caused by the disclosure of what they claim was previously
misrepresented information. Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on October 13, 2010. The
Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend on
August 25, 2011. Plaintiffs' third amended complaint was filed on
October 18, 2011. Defendants' deadline for responding to the third
amended complaint is January 9, 2012.

The Company says it and the named officers intend to defend
themselves vigorously against these actions.


HARMONY GOLD: N.Y. Court Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Independent Online reports that Harmony Gold Mining Company on
Nov. 11 disclosed that the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Nov. 10 approved the settlement
agreement reached between Harmony and the plaintiff in respect of
the class action filed against the company in May 2008.

"Harmony did not admit to any liability in connection with the
proposed settlement and all claims against Harmony have been
dismissed," the group said.


HUMAN GENOME: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action
complaint against Human Genome Sciences, Inc., certain of the
Company's senior officers and directors and GlaxoSmithKline plc in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The action
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought
on behalf of those purchasing the common stock of HGSI between
July 20, 2009 and November 11, 2010, inclusive, including all
persons who acquired the common stock of HGSI in the Company's
July 28, 2009 public offering at $14 per share and in its
December 2, 2009 public offering of common stock at $26.75.

If you purchased the common stock of HGSI during the Class Period
and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from Nov. 11.  Any member of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact:

          Scott+Scott LLP
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
          Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com/cases/hgs.html

There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint filed in the action alleges that, during the Class
Period, HGSI issued false and misleading statements concerning
Benlysta(R) (belimumab), the Company's potential new drug for the
treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, a chronic, life-
threatening autoimmune disease.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Benlysta was
associated with suicide in clinical drug trials conducted by the
Company.

The complaint alleges that when the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration posted its analysis of Benlysta on the Internet on
November 12, 2010, investors learned for the first time of the
association between Benlysta and suicide in clinical trials of the
drug, causing HGSI's common stock price to decline precipitously.
Meanwhile, the complaint alleges, during the Class Period, HGSI
sold to investors more than 44 million shares of its common stock
in public offerings at artificially inflated prices, receiving
$850 million in net proceeds.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.


IMMERSION CORP: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal relating to a settlement of the litigation over
Immersion Corporation's initial public offering remains pending,
according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company is involved in legal proceedings relating to a class
action lawsuit filed on November 9, 2001, in the U. S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Immersion
Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No.
Civ. 01-9975 (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.).  The named
defendants are the Company and three of its current or former
officers or directors (the "Immersion Defendants"), and certain
underwriters of its November 12, 1999 initial public offering
("IPO").  Subsequently, two of the individual defendants
stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice.

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from the date
of the Company's IPO through December 6, 2000.  It alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the IPO
did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters agreed to allow
certain customers to purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for
excess commissions to be paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters arranged for certain customers to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The complaint
also appears to allege that false or misleading analyst reports
were issued.  The complaint does not claim any specific amount of
damages.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

In September 2008, all of the parties to the lawsuits reached a
settlement, subject to documentation and approval of the District
Court.  Subsequently, an underwriter defendant filed for
bankruptcy and other underwriter defendants were acquired.  On
April 2, 2009, final documentation evidencing the settlement was
presented to the District Court for approval.  On October 6, 2009,
the District Court approved the settlement, and the Court
subsequently entered a judgment of dismissal.  Under the judgment,
the Immersion Defendants are not required to contribute to the
settlement.  Several notices of appeal have been filed by putative
class members challenging the settlement.  Subsequently, the
District Court determined that none of the objectors had standing
to appeal.  One of the putative objectors has filed a notice of
appeal of the determination as to him.  The Company says it
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


IMMERSION CORP: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Immersion Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss an amended complaint in the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the
Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers.  Over the following
five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed.
(One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.)  The
securities class action complaints name the Company and certain
current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants
and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the
Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements.
The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May
2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly
sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.  On
the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.  Following the Company's restatement of its
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
action on June 15, 2010, and that motion was granted on March 11,
2011.  Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 29,
2011.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 1, 2011.

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


INFORMATICA CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging a final court order approving the settlement
of a class action lawsuit against Informatica Corporation remain
pending, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ending September 30, 2011.

On November 8, 2001, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The case is entitled In re Informatica Corporation
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs'
amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock from April 29, 1999
through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants Informatica
Corporation, two of the Company's former officers, and several
investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the
Company's April 29, 1999 initial public offering (IPO) and
September 28, 2000 follow-on public offering.  The complaint
alleges liability as to all defendants under Sections 11 and/or 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statements for the offerings did not disclose that:
(1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess
commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had
arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The complaint also
alleges that false analyst reports were issued.  No specific
damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging more
than 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The Court denied the
motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the
Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.
The Company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer
defendants.  In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and
release all claims against the Informatica defendants, in exchange
for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and
for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the
Company may have against the underwriters.  The Informatica
defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the
settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the
settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage.  Any
final settlement will require approval of the Court after class
members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or
opt out of the settlement.

All parties in all lawsuits have reached a settlement, which will
not require the Company to contribute cash unless the pro rata
amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount
of the insurance coverage.  The Court gave preliminary approval to
the settlement on June 10, 2009 and gave final approval on October
6, 2009.  Several objectors have filed notices of appeals of the
final judgment dismissing the cases upon the settlement. The
Company has not paid, and does not expect to pay in the future,
any amount towards the settlement.  As of September 30, 2011, the
Company has not accrued or disclosed any amounts because further
losses are not considered probable or reasonably possible.

Informatica Corporation (NASDAQ: INFA) -- http://informatica.com/
-- is an independent provider of data integration software.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Opposes Bid for Class Certification in Ill. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interline Brands, Inc., is opposing the motion for certification
of a class in a lawsuit filed against it in Illinois, according to
the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company been named as a defendant in an action filed before
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois,
which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges that
the Company sent thousands of unsolicited fax advertisements to
businesses nationwide in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005.  At the time of filing the complaint, the plaintiff also
filed a motion asking the Court to certify a class of plaintiffs
comprised of businesses who allegedly received unsolicited fax
advertisements from the Company.  Other reported TCPA claims have
resulted in a broad range of outcomes, with each case being
dependent on its own unique set of facts and circumstances.
Accordingly, the Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the
amount of loss, if any, arising from this matter.  The Company
says it is vigorously contesting class action certification and
liability, and will continue to evaluate its defenses based upon
its internal review and investigation of prior events, new
information, and future circumstances.


INTERMUNE INC: Appeals From Suit Dismissal to be Argued Nov. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court has scheduled the oral argument of appeals
challenging the dismissal of a class action complaint against
InterMune, Inc., relating to Actimmune(R) for November 29, 2011,
according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In May 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah
Jane Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v.
InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No.
C-08-02376.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered
Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of
consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune.  The complaint
alleged that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical
benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF (idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis) and promoted Actimmune for IPF.  The complaint
asserted various claims against the Company, including civil RICO,
unfair competition, violation of various state consumer protection
statutes, and unjust enrichment.  The complaint sought various
damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and
the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs, as well
as equitable relief.  Between June 2008 and September 2008, three
additional complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging similar
facts.  In February 2009, the Court consolidated the four
complaints for pretrial purposes.

On September 1, 2010, after two rounds of motions to dismiss, the
Court granted defendants' third motions to dismiss, dismissing all
remaining claims in all consolidated cases with prejudice and
entered judgment accordingly.  On October 1, 2010, the remaining
plaintiffs in all cases filed notices of appeal, appealing the
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  On October 10, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit set an oral argument date of November 29,
2011 for the appeals.

The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses
to the claims at issue and intends to defend the actions
vigorously.  The Company relates in its latest SEC filing that it
may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these matters,
and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes
settlement is in the best interests of its stockholders.  It
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
may arise from these lawsuits.

InterMune Inc. -- http://www.intermune.com/-- is a biotechnology
company focused on the research, development and commercialization
of innovative therapies in pulmonology and fibrotic diseases.  In
pulmonology, InterMune is focused on therapies for the treatment
of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a progressive and fatal
lung disease.  Pirfenidone, the only medicine approved worldwide
for IPF, is approved for marketing by InterMune in the EU as
Esbriet(R) and is currently in a Phase 3 clinical trial in the
United States.  Pirfenidone is also approved for the treatment of
IPF in Japan, where it is marketed by Shionogi & Co. Ltd. under
the trade name Pirespa(R).


LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL: Defends Suit Over 2011 Fiscal Results
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against
Logitech International S.A. and certain of its officers.  This
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of individuals who
purchased Logitech shares between October 28, 2010, and April 1,
2011.  The action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on July 28, 2011.
The complaint relates to Logitech's disclosure on March 31, 2011,
that its results for fiscal year 2011 would fall below
expectations and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief against the defendants.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company believes these lawsuits and claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.  However, there can
be no assurances that its defenses will be successful, or that any
judgment or settlement in any of these lawsuits would not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial
condition, cash flows and results of operations.  The Company's
accruals for lawsuits and claims as of September 30, 2011 were not
material.


MF GLOBAL: Class Action May Resume if Settlement Not Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Voreacos and Linda Sandler, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that MF Global Holdings Ltd. asked a bankruptcy judge to
allow it to participate in a $90 million settlement of a lawsuit
over a 2008 wheat-trading loss incurred at the company's commodity
brokerage.

MF Global and other defendants won preliminary approval in August
of the settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of investors.
The investors claimed they lost $1.1 billion on the company's
stock in February 2008 after an employee lost $141.5 million
making bad wheat futures trades.  MF Global's $2.5 million
contribution to the settlement will be fully reimbursed, the
company said in a court filing on Nov. 11.

MF Global was a defendant with Man Group, its former owner;
underwriters of MF Global's initial public offering in July 2007;
and some former and current officers and directors.  The
settlement of the lawsuit, which claimed MF Global deceived
investors by misrepresenting its risk management measures, needs a
district judge's approval on Nov. 18 to go forward.

"If the settlement agreement is not approved, a complex securities
class action will resume," according to the Nov. 11 filing.  Such
costs would be "extensive" and "key executives would be
meaningfully distracted."

Mark Rosen, a lawyer for the investors, didn't immediately return
a call seeking comment.  He previously said that the $90 million
settlement would proceed if Glenn approved MF Global's
contribution.

The case is Rubin v. MF Global, 08-cv-2233, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York (Manhattan).  The bankruptcy case is
MF Global Holdings Ltd., 11-bk-15059, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Oppose Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit against Novelos Therapeutics,
Inc., and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Harry S.
Palmin, have filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to
dismiss, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A putative federal securities class action complaint was filed on
March 5, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts by an alleged shareholder of Novelos, on
behalf of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise
acquired Novelos common stock in the period between December 14,
2009 and February 24, 2010, against Novelos and its President and
Chief Executive Officer, Harry S. Palmin.  On October 1, 2010, the
court appointed lead plaintiffs (Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald)
and appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On October 22, 2010, an
amended complaint was filed.  The amended complaint claims, among
other things, that Novelos violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged misleading
disclosures related to the progress of the Phase 3 clinical trial
of NOV-002 for non-small cell lung cancer.  On December 6, 2010,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice.  On January 20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the Company's motion and on March 3, 2011, the
defendants filed their response to the opposition. On June 23,
2011, the motion to dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed
without prejudice.  On August 5, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint realleging that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in connection
with alleged misleading disclosures related to the Phase 3
clinical trial for NOV-002 in non-small cell lung cancer.  On
September 9, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  The plaintiff's opposition to the
motion was filed on October 14, 2011, and the defendants filed a
reply brief on November 4, 2011.  The Company and Mr. Palmin
believe the allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against them.


OMNICARE INC: Two Institutional Investors File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Ritchie, writing for Business Courier, reports that as
Omnicare Inc. fights a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it defrauded
Medicare and Medicaid, several investors have piled on with class-
action litigation.

The plaintiffs are two institutional investors -- the Florida-
based Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund and the Texas-
based City of Austin Police Retirement System -- and, in a
separate suit, an individual, Paul Ansfield.  They claim that they
and "others similarly situated" lost money by investing in
Covington-based Omnicare from Jan. 10, 2007, to Aug. 5, 2010.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Objector Seeks Reconsideration of Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
An objector to the final court order approving a settlement of a
securities class action lawsuit against Openwave Systems Inc. is
seeking reconsideration of a determination that he has no standing
to appeal, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On November 5, 2001, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York captioned In re Openwave Systems Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  It is brought purportedly
on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the Company's
common stock from June 11, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The
defendants are the Company and five of its present or former
officers, and several investment banking firms that served as
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and
secondary public offering.  Three of the individual defendants
were dismissed without prejudice, subject to a tolling of the
statute of limitations.  The complaint alleges liability under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the registration statements for the offerings did not
disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain
customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The
amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued by Credit Suisse First Boston, Hambrecht & Quist, Robertson
Stephens, and Piper Jaffray.  No specific damages are claimed.
Similar allegations were made in over 300 other lawsuits
challenging public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the
cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.
On April 2, 2009, the parties in all the lawsuits submitted a
settlement for the Court's approval.  Under the settlement, the
Openwave Defendants would not be required to make any cash
payment.  On October 6, 2009, the Court approved the settlement,
under which the Openwave Defendants are not required to contribute
any cash.  Subsequently, the Court entered a judgment on the
settlement.  Several notices of appeal were filed by putative
class members, challenging the settlement and the judgment.
Subsequently, the Court determined that none of the objectors had
standing to appeal.  One of the putative objectors has filed a
notice of appeal of the determination as to him.  The Company
believes a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable. Therefore
no amount has been accrued as of September 30, 2011.

Headquartered in Redwood City, California, Openwave Systems Inc.
(Nasdaq: OPWV) -- http://www.openwave.com/-- is a global software
innovator delivering context-aware mediation and messaging
solutions that enable communication service providers and the
broader ecosystem to create and deliver smarter services.
Building on its mobile data heritage, Openwave mobilizes the
Internet with predictive solutions fueled by real-time analytics
that mediate among different ecosystem elements, comprehensively
permitting the enhancement of IP traffic. Openwave is a global
company with a blue chip customer base spanning North America,
Latin America, Australia and New Zealand, Asia, Africa, Europe,
and the Middle East.


PAETEC HOLDING: Enters Into MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paetec Holding Corp. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle a consolidated class action lawsuit filed against the
Company in connection with its proposed merger with Peach Merger
Sub Inc., according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

In August 2011 purported stockholders of the Company filed a
complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware and a second complaint styled as
a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Monroe County, in response to the announcement of the
execution of the agreement and plan of merger, dated as of July
31, 2011, among the Company, Windstream Corporation, and Peach
Merger Sub, Inc.  The plaintiff in the New York action also filed
a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The
lawsuits were consolidated in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware.  The Consolidated Lawsuit alleged, among other
things, that the board of directors of the Company conducted an
unfair sales process resulting in an unfair merger price and
breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the merger, and
that Windstream aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The Consolidated Lawsuit also alleged that the board of
directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties by
issuing a false and misleading proxy statement. The lawsuit sought
to enjoin the merger and sought unspecified monetary damages.  On
October 14, 2011, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs and other named defendants regarding
the settlement of the Consolidated Lawsuit.  Under the terms of
the MOU, the Company, the other named defendants, and the
plaintiffs agreed to settle the Consolidated Lawsuit and negotiate
or arbitrate a release of the defendants from claims relating to
the merger, subject to court approval.  If the court approves the
settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Consolidated Lawsuit will
be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU,
Windstream and the Company made available additional information
to the Company's stockholders before the Company's special meeting
of stockholders held on October 27, 2011.  In addition, the
defendants in the Consolidated Lawsuit have agreed to negotiate in
good faith with plaintiffs' counsel regarding an appropriate
amount of fees, costs and expenses to be paid to plaintiffs'
counsel by the Company or its successor.  The Company and the
other defendants deny all of the allegations in the Consolidated
Lawsuit, but agreed to settle the Consolidated Lawsuit in order to
avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the
completion of the merger.


PAYPAL: Fernando Plaintiffs Want Zepeda Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Corbin, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that
online sellers who feel they have been burned by PayPal's policy
of holding funds for as long as six months are looking to overtake
a separate legal action in California against the payment
processor and its parent company eBay.

Plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit Fernando vs. PayPal are
asking a judge in California's Northern District to intervene in
the related case of Zepeda vs. PayPal on the grounds that they
involve essentially the same charges, and that any rights accorded
to one class would be available to the other.

"These two actions are substantially overlapping if not
identical," attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in their motion
requesting to intervene.

They are asking Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong to strike or dismiss
the Zepeda class allegations.  Failing that, they are seeking a
stay on that case pending the resolution of their own.

PayPal is opposing the request to intervene, both on procedural
grounds as well as the potential settlement that the litigants
have reached in the Zepeda case.  PayPal and the Zepeda plaintiffs
participated in mediation in May, which resulted in an agreement
on a class settlement.  PayPal said that it plans to submit the
proposed settlement to the court for preliminary approval
"shortly."

"In the 18 months that Fernando has been pending, the Fernando
plaintiffs' litigation efforts have consisted of no more than the
filing of an amended complaint and several requests for extensions
of time," PayPal contended in its opposition to the request for
consolidation filed with the court late last month.  "Indeed, the
Fernando plaintiffs' request for a stay is simply an attempt to
hijack the settlement in this case in an attempt to make up for
their own extended inaction."

Attorneys for the Zepeda plaintiffs have yet to respond to
Fernando counsel's request with a court filing, and did not
respond to requests for comment.  The court is scheduled to hold a
hearing on the motion to intervene and strike Feb. 14 of next
year.

The Two Cases

Zepeda vs. PayPal

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02500 EJD, filed June 7, 2010, Lawyer:
Freed & Weiss LLC eric@freedweiss.com

Fernando vs. PayPal
Case No. 10-CV-01668 PVT, filed April 19, 2010, Lawyer: Marina
Trubitsky & Associates marina.trubitsky@lawcontact.com

At issue is PayPal's practice of withholding funds from sellers in
transactions that seemingly have no suspicious circumstances, and
then, refusing to explain why.

The plaintiffs in the Fernando case are alleging that PayPal's
practice of holding funds for up to 180 days or longer is
fraudulent, and in violation of its user agreement, the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act and the terms of a 2004 settlement the company
agreed to in resolution of an earlier lawsuit in the Comb et al
vs. PayPal case, which dated to 2002.

The Zepeda plaintiffs claim that PayPal's practices constitute a
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violate the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair
Competition Law, and that PayPal has been unjustly enriched.

"We have in place a holds policy that is for the benefit of
consumers," Anuj Nayar, PayPal's director of communications, said
in an e-mailed statement.  "While we cannot specifically comment
on the pending litigation or any particular seller's account due
to our privacy policy, in general, PayPal may require that a
seller hold funds in their account, either through a reserve or a
hold, if PayPal believes there may be a high level of risk
associated with the user, their account or any of their
transactions.  Many factors are considered by PayPal when
considering whether holds should be placed on a seller's account
such as the seller's account and transaction activity, information
provided by credit reporting agencies, the rate of customer
disputes, the type of business a seller runs, average delivery
timeframes, customer satisfaction, performance and history, among
other factors."

Attorneys for plaintiffs in both cases are arguing on behalf of
proposed classes that would be essentially the same -- those
sellers in the United States whose accounts were frozen or
otherwise limited by PayPal's practice of holding funds, which,
they allege, is inappropriate and a violation of its user
agreement and relevant statutes.

The Fernando plaintiffs are arguing that their claims against
PayPal are broader than those at issue in the Zepeda case,
contending that their rights could be impaired if the Zepeda case
were to continue on a separate track.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Fernando case said that they
only learned about the Zepeda case by chance in April, when an
associate at the law offices of Marina Trubitsky came upon it when
searching on the Web.  Soon after, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to relate the case with Zepeda, which Judge Jeremy Fogel, then
presiding over the case, ordered in August.

The litigation includes examples of funds held from transactions
on eBay as well as other Web sites.

The Zepeda plaintiffs allege that they received notice from PayPal
in the form of e-mails or "prepared phone scripts" that the holds
were in effect as a result of "excessive risk involved," "security
issues" or "suspicious activity."

They further claim that PayPal's representatives flatly refused to
provide any information about the specific transactions that could
explain the holds.

"Class members who inquire of PayPal as to the reasons behind
PayPal's actions are told PayPal will not explain its actions
absent a subpoena," the Zepeda complaint reads.  "In other words,
PayPal holds money belonging to plaintiffs and the class and tells
them they have to get a subpoena or court order just to discover
the reason why PayPal is denying plaintiffs and the class access
to their own money."

Judge Fogel Unreceptive to Zepeda Claims

In February, Judge Fogel granted PayPal's motion to dismiss the
Zepeda plaintiffs' first amended complaint, issuing an order that
roundly rejected each of the allegations.  Following that
dismissal, the plaintiffs can submit a second amended complaint,
but have yet to do so in light of the pending settlement.

Judge Fogel was unreceptive to the claims of fraud, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

"Plaintiffs allege that PayPal breached the express terms of the
user agreement by placing their accounts on hold "without reason
to believe that Plaintiffs were engaged in restricted
activities,"" he wrote, addressing the plaintiffs' citation of
section 10.4 of PayPal's user agreement, in which it asserts the
right to close, suspend or limit access to a user's account or
funds to protect itself from liability for up to 180 days "if
reasonably needed to protect against the risk of liability."

"Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract is unpersuasive," Judge
Fogel wrote.  "Even assuming that plaintiffs did not engage in any
restricted activities and that PayPal thus lacked authority to
place their accounts on hold pursuant to section 10.4, this court
cannot infer that the holds amount to breach of the user
agreement.  This is because the user agreement contains at least
two other provisions that give PayPal broad discretion to place
holds on its users' accounts, neither of which requires that the
users have engaged in restricted activities."

The judge referred to sections in the user agreement in which
PayPal asserts that it can place holds or reserves on funds "at
its sole discretion" for transactions that it believes may carry a
"high level of risk."

Judge Fogel also noted that the plaintiffs had failed to identify
a section of the user agreement that compels PayPal to provide an
explanation in the event of a hold.

PayPal has filed a motion to dismiss the Fernando plaintiffs'
first amended complaint.  The court is scheduled to hold a hearing
on that motion Feb. 14, the same day it plans to consider the
motion to intervene and strike the Zepeda case.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in connection with the settlement of a consolidated
securities lawsuit involving priceline.com Incorporated remains
pending, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On March 16, March 26, April 27, and June 5, 2001, respectively,
four putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming
priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Jay Walker, Paul
Francis, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. as defendants (01 Civ. 2261, 01 Civ.
2576, 01 Civ. 3590 and 01 Civ. 4956).  Shives et al. v. Bank of
America Securities LLC et al., 01 Civ. 4956, also names other
defendants and states claims unrelated to the Company.  The
complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and the
individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling priceline.com common stock in the Company's
March 1999 initial public offering without disclosing to investors
that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead
underwriters, had allegedly solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.  After extensive
negotiations, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement on
March 30, 2009.  On April 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement.  On June 9, 2009,
the court granted the motion and scheduled the hearing for final
approval for September 10, 2009.  The settlement, previously
approved by a special committee of the Company's Board of
Directors, compromised the claims against the Company for
approximately $0.3 million.  The court issued an order granting
final approval of the settlement on October 5, 2009.  Notices of
appeal of the court's order have been filed with the Second
Circuit.  All but one of the appeals has been resolved.  The
remaining appeal is still pending.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in the proceeding.  The Company has accrued for certain
legal contingencies where it is probable that a loss has been
incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.  Except as
disclosed, such amounts accrued are not material to the Company's
consolidated balance sheets and provisions recorded have not been
material to the Company's consolidated results of operations or
cash flows.  The Company is unable to estimate the potential
maximum range of loss.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Appeals
---------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss certain appeals as improperly filed in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the
Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In Chiste, et al. v. priceline.com Inc., et al. (United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York; filed in
December 2008), the District Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss all claims against it except the breach of fiduciary
claim, which, the court ordered transferred to Illinois.  On
July 11, 2011, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
resolution of the remaining claim, which was consolidated under
Peluso v. Orbitz.com, et al., 11 Civ. 4407 on July 14, 2011.  On
July 13, 2011, plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals of the court's orders in the Southern
District of New York.  On July 26, 2011, the Peluso court granted
plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the claim against the
Company in the Northern District of Illinois.  On August 5, 2011,
the Company moved to dismiss the appeal in the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals as improperly filed there.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in all of the ongoing proceedings.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Hotel Occupancy Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated continues to defend lawsuits over
issues involving the payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes,
according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company and certain third-party defendant online travel
companies are currently involved in approximately fifty lawsuits,
including certified and putative class actions, brought by or
against states, cities and counties over issues involving the
payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e., state and local
sales tax) and the Company's "merchant" hotel business.  The
Company's subsidiaries Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are
named in some but not all of these cases.  Generally, each
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each law.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.  The Company is also involved in
one consumer lawsuit relating to, among other things, the payment
of hotel occupancy taxes and service fees.  In addition,
approximately sixty municipalities or counties, and at least six
states, have initiated audit proceedings (including proceedings
initiated by more than forty municipalities in California), issued
proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the
payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e., state and local
sales tax).  Additional state and local jurisdictions are likely
to assert that the Company is subject to, among other things,
hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e., state and local sales tax)
and could seek to collect such taxes, retroactively and/or
prospectively.

With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company
believes that the ordinances at issue do not apply to the service
it provides, namely the facilitation of reservations, and,
therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be
owed.  Rather, the Company believes that the ordinances at issue
generally impose hotel occupancy and other taxes on entities that
own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish
or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations.  In addition, in
many of these matters, municipalities have asserted claims for
"conversion" -- essentially, that the Company has collected a tax
and wrongfully "pocketed" those tax dollars -- a claim that the
Company believes is without basis and has vigorously contested.
The municipalities that are currently involved in litigation and
other proceedings with the Company, and that may be involved in
future proceedings, have asserted contrary positions and will
likely continue to do so.  From time to time, the Company has
found it expedient to settle, and may in the future agree to
settle, claims pending in these matters without conceding that the
claims at issue are meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in
fact due to be paid.

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


PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces Two Class Suits in Colorado & New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated disclosed in its November 7, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that it is facing two new
putative class action lawsuits commenced in Colorado and New York.

In the quarter ending September 30, 2011, two new putative class
actions were commenced.  Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v.
Colorado Travel Company, LLC et al., 2011CV420 (Summit County
District Court) was filed on July 25, 2011.  County of Nassau v.
Expedia, Inc. et al. (Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Nassau) was filed on September 26, 2011.  This case
previously had been dismissed from federal court and was refiled
as a state court action.


REACHLOCAL INC: Court Dismisses Second Wage & Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A second class action lawsuit against ReachLocal, Inc., was
dismissed after the parties entered into a settlement, according
to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On March 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by two of the
Company's former employees in California Superior Court in Los
Angeles, California. The complaint alleged wage and hour
violations in a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and a
California class action. On May 6, 2011, the Court granted
preliminary approval of a settlement of the class action for
$800,000, which together with legal costs resulted in a charge of
$832,000 recorded in fiscal 2010. On or about February 2, 2011, a
second class action lawsuit was filed by former employees alleging
substantially similar wage and hour violations. The second class
action was settled for a de minimis amount was dismissed by the
court on September 27, 2011.


RIGHTNOW TECH: Being Sold to Oracle for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say RightNow
Technologies is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair
process to Oracle, for $43 a share or $1.4 billion.

A copy of the Complaint in West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v.
RightNow Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 7026 (Del. Ch. Ct.),
is available at:

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399


SANTARUS INC: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Class Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santarus, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage-and-hour
class action complaint in New York, according to the Company's
November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In December 2010, a complaint styled as a putative class action
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by a person employed at the time by
the Company as a sales representative and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated current and former employees.  The complaint
seeks damages for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law
Section 650 et seq. and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid wages and
overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other damages.  The Company denies all claims asserted in
the complaint.  In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.  In August 2011, the Company's
motion to transfer was denied, and the action will proceed in the
New York district court.  Over the last few years, similar class
action lawsuits have been filed against other pharmaceutical
companies alleging that the companies' sales representatives have
been misclassified as exempt employees under the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and applicable state laws.  At this time, the
Company is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses
for this action.  There have been varying outcomes in these cases
to date, and it is too early to predict an outcome in the
Company's matter at this time.

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

Although it intends to vigorously defend against the litigation,
the Company says litigation often is expensive and diverts
management's attention and resources, which could adversely affect
the Company regardless of the outcome.

Santarus, Inc. -- http://santarus.com/-- is a specialty
biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing and
commercializing proprietary products that address the needs of
patients treated by physician specialists.


SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS: Enters Into Partial Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
SearchMedia Holdings Limited on Nov. 11 disclosed that it reached
a tentative partial settlement agreement for a securities class
action lawsuit pending against the Company and a number of its
current and former directors, officers and employees.

The securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Murdeshwar v.
SearchMedia Holdings Limited, et al., Case no. 1:11-cv-20549-KMW)
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in relation to various disclosures regarding the
Company's acquisition of SearchMedia International Ltd. and the
financial condition of that company.  The partial settlement
agreement is made on behalf of the defendants who served as
directors and officers of Ideation Acquisition Corp. without any
admission of wrongdoing on the part of the Settling Defendants and
provides for a settlement fund of $2.75 million, which the Company
expects to be entirely funded by its insurance carriers.  The
partial settlement agreement remains subject to court approval and
certain other conditions including execution of a stipulation of
settlement, notice to class members, and an opportunity for class
members to object or opt out of the settlement.

The securities class action lawsuit remains pending against other
defendants who reside in China and who have not been served with
the complaint and summons.

                       About SearchMedia

SearchMedia -- http://www.searchmediaholdings.com-- is a
nationwide multi-platform media company and one of the largest
operators of integrated outdoor billboard and in-elevator
advertising networks in China.  SearchMedia operates a network of
high-impact billboards and one of China's largest networks of
in-elevator advertisement panels in 50 cities throughout China.


SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Dec. 2 Status Hearing Set for Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
El Defensor Chieftain reports that a date for a status hearing in
the case brought by Socorro Electric Cooperative against its
member-owners has been set.

Judge Albert J. Mitchell Jr. will hold a telephonic hearing with
the parties involved on Friday, Dec. 2, at 9:00 a.m.

"I called for the hearing, so we can figure out where we're at,"
Judge Mitchell said in a recent phone interview.  "The initial
case was determined, but we have a pending motion and still have
to address whether or not we're going to have a class action."

The Deschamps and Kortemeier law firm, of Socorro, and Ikard
Wynne, of Austin, Texas, jointly filed a countersuit, not against
Socorro Electric, but against members of the board of trustees and
five other former co-op officials.  The countersuit alleges breach
of fiduciary duty and fraud, and requests class action
certification.

Bill Ikard was brought into the case by members of a co-op reform
movement.  He was among the attorneys who helped win a $23 million
class action settlement against Pedernales Electric Cooperative,
the largest co-op in the country.

Judge Mitchell said he didn't anticipate any decisions would be
made on the pending motion during the Dec. 2 hearing.

"If the parties stipulate to something, we might make a decision,
but I have nothing else on my desk.  I have the class action
certification, and we'll have a hearing on that," he said.

The judge allowed discovery to begin for the countersuit five
months ago, and Judge Mitchell said he was interested in hearing
what progress has been made.

"Everyone told me it would take a long time to get discovery done.
I'll let them tell me where they stand and where we go from here,"
he said.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Reviews Customer Indemnification Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
SoundBite Communications, Inc., disclosed in its November 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that it received in
October 2011, a notice from a customer requesting indemnification
in connection with a class action lawsuit that asserts the
customer violated certain federal telecommunication laws as the
result, in part, of mobile termination text messages sent using
the Company's service.  The Company is evaluating this matter but,
currently is unable to estimate the amount of losses, if any, for
which the Company may be responsible under its indemnification
obligations to the customer.  The Company maintains insurance
that, subject to deductibles, may be available to cover all or a
portion of losses that might arise as the result of such
indemnification.

SoundBite Communications, Inc. -- http://soundbite.com/-- is a
global provider of cloud-based, multi-channel proactive customer
communications solutions designed to transform the way
organizations communicate throughout the customer lifecycle to
build trusted, lifelong and profitable relationships.


STATE OF IOWA: Inmates Held Too Long File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Eckhoff, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that Iowa
inmates held past their proper release dates deserve to be
compensated for each day they were improperly confined, according
to a class action lawsuit filed last week in Polk County District
Court.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Mahaska County sex offender
Richard Scott and other similarly situated inmates, contends that
Mr. Scott was held for 46 days too long under new rules outlined
in a decision this summer by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Justices ruled in July in a case involving convicted sex offender
Michael Anderson that Mr. Anderson deserved credit for time spent
under home supervision even though he was later found to have
violated probation during that time.  According to the decision,
Iowa law clearly requires that any defendant committed to the
state Department of Corrections for supervision "who has probation
revoked shall be given credit for such time served."

Iowa corrections officials say the ruling explicitly changed the
math used to calculate prison release dates for more than 3,500
Iowa convicts.

"Our position is that they have been prepared for this," said
Jeffrey Lipman, the Des Moines attorney behind the lawsuit.
"Knowing that this was an issue, they should have been prepared."

The class action lawsuit, filed against Iowa Department of
Corrections director John Baldwin, contends that "hundreds if not
thousands of Iowa inmates" have been detained past the dates they
properly should have been set free.

"On information and belief, the cause of the over-detentions is a
collapse of the inmate management system and deliberate
indifference by defendants to the rights of detainees and
prisoners to be released by their release dates," the lawsuit
contends.  "Defendant has taken no action to implement an
effective inmate management that can ensure release of prisoners
by their release dates."

State corrections numbers say discharge dates were checked and
double-checked as part of a review completed in early November.
That process led to the immediate release of 551 inmates from
prison and work release programs and recalculation of a new
release date for 2,588 others.

Corrections spokesman Fred Scaletta declined to comment on the
lawsuit, but confirmed that "everybody who we believe changed
discharge dates as a result of the recalculation, they're out the
door."

Court papers allege that the state's failure to properly release
inmates violates the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution.  The lawsuit seeks "compensatory damages on
a per diem basis in an amount to be determined," as well as
attorney fees and appointment of "a special master to supervise
Department of Corrections to ensure that all inmates are released
on or before their release dates."


STRAYER EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Kinnett" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, Strayer Education, Inc., is involved in
litigation and other legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary
course of its business.  On October 15, 2010, a putative
securities class action styled Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc.,
et al ., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.  On April 19, 2011, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On January 3, 2011, a
shareholder derivative complaint styled Vakharloskaya v. Silberman
et al., was filed in Florida state court in Hillsborough County,
Florida.  On March 29, 2011, the plaintiff and Strayer jointly
submitted to the Florida state court a stipulation recognizing
that Fairfax, Virginia, is a more appropriate forum for this
litigation.  On April 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint in the
Circuit Court of Fairfax County, and on June 27, 2011, the Court
stayed the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in
the securities class action lawsuit.

The Company believes these lawsuits to be without merit and will
contest them vigorously.  While the outcome of any legal
proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does
not presently expect that these matters will have a material
effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Approves Deal to Dismiss "Feely" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A California state court approved a stipulation for the dismissal
of the class action lawsuit commenced by Janet M. Feely, according
to Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.'s November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On July 7, 2011, Plaintiff Janet M. Feely, a former Sunrise
employee, filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, against Sunrise Senior Living,
Inc., captioned Janet M. Feely, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.
and Does 1 through 55, Case No. BC 465006 (Los Angeles County
Superior Court).  Plaintiff's complaint is styled as a class
action and alleges that Sunrise improperly classified a position
formerly held by her as exempt from the overtime obligations of
California's wage and hour laws. The complaint asserts claims for:
(1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to provide accurate
wage statements, (3) unfair competition, and (4) failure to pay
all wages owed upon termination.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, statutory penalties provided for under the
California Labor Code, restitution and disgorgement of unpaid
overtime wages under the California Business and Professions Code,
prejudgment interest, costs and attorney's fees.  On August 11,
2011, Sunrise removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Case No. LACV11-6601.

On October 19, 2011, the Court entered an order approving the
parties' joint stipulation of dismissal of the case, with
prejudice as to Ms. Feely and without prejudice as to others
similarly situated.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Hearing in "Purnell" Suit Set for Jan. 23
---------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc., is scheduled for January 23, 2012, according to the
Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On May 14, 2010, Plaintiff LaShone Purnell filed a lawsuit on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Orange County, against Sunrise
Senior Living Management, Inc., captioned LaShone Purnell as an
individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v.
Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case
No. 30-2010-00372725 (Orange County Superior Court).  Plaintiff's
complaint is styled as a class action and alleges that Sunrise
failed to properly schedule the purported class of care givers and
other related positions so that they would be able to take meal
and rest breaks as provided for under California law.  The
complaint asserts claims for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages;
(2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest
periods; (4) failure to pay wages upon ending employment; (5)
failure to keep accurate payroll records; (6) unfair business
practices; and (7) unfair competition.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, statutory penalties provided for
under the California Labor Code, injunctive relief, and costs and
attorneys' fees.  On June 17, 2010, Sunrise removed this action to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. SACV 10-897 CJC (MLGx)).  On July 16, 2010,
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which
the Court denied.

The parties have completed briefing on class certification, and a
hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification is scheduled
for January 23, 2012.  No trial date has been set.

Sunrise believes that Plaintiff's allegations are not meritorious
and that a class action is not appropriate in this case, and
intends to defend itself vigorously.  Because of the early stage
of this lawsuit, the Company says it cannot at this time estimate
an amount or range of potential loss in the event of an
unfavorable outcome.


SUPPORT.COM INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging a final court order approving the settlement
of a securities offering class action complaint against
Support.com, Inc., remain pending.

In November 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, two of its former officers and certain underwriters in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters
and more than 300 other companies and other individual officers
and directors of those companies; the consolidated case is In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.).  The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, fees
and costs, alleged that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for the issuance and initial public
offering of 4,250,000 shares of the Company's common stock
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions related to
alleged inflated commissions received by the underwriters of the
offering.  On April 1, 2009, all parties entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that would resolve all
claims and dismiss the case against the Company and its former
officers, without any payment by the Company or its former
officers.  On October 5, 2009, the court issued an order approving
the settlement.  Certain other parties have appealed the
settlement and the appeal is pending.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 7, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Support.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPRT) -- http://www.support.com/
-- provides cloud-based technology services and software for
consumers and small business.


TRAVELCENTERS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America LLC is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit filed by truck stop
owners, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add the Company as a defendant, which was allowed on
March 25, 2010.  The amended complaint also added as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc.  Comdata markets fuel cards which are
used for payments by trucking companies at truck stops.  The
amended complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of
Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in connection
with its fuel cards.  The plaintiffs have sought unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.  On March 24, 2011, the Court
dismissed the claims against TA in the amended complaint, but
granted plaintiffs leave to file a new amended complaint.  Four
independent truck stop owners, as plaintiffs, filed a new amended
complaint against the Company on April 21, 2011, repleading their
claims.  On May 6, 2011, the Company renewed its motion to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice.  Briefing on the motion is complete
and the parties await the Court's decision while discovery
otherwise proceeds.  The Company believes that there are
substantial factual and legal defenses to the plaintiffs' claims
against it but that the costs to defend this case could be
significant.


TRAVELCENTERS: Class Action Lawsuit in Kansas Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against the subsidiaries
of Travelcenters of America LLC in Kansas is pending, according to
the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the Company's predecessor and its subsidiaries, in U.S.
district courts in over 20 states.  Major petroleum refineries and
retailers have been named as defendants in one or more of these
lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that
they are retail purchasers who purchased motor fuel at
temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of
sale.  One theory alleges that the plaintiffs purchased smaller
amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which defendants charged
them because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel they
delivered by volumes which, at higher temperatures, contain less
energy.  A second theory alleges that fuel taxes are calculated in
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons and are collected by
governmental agencies from suppliers and wholesalers, who are
reimbursed in the amount of the tax by the defendant retailers
before the fuel is sold to consumers.  These "tax" cases allege
that, when the fuel is subsequently sold to consumers at
temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell a greater volume
of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax, and therefore reap
unjust benefit because the customers pay more tax than the
retailer pays.  The Company believes that there are substantial
factual and legal defenses to the theories alleged in these so
called "hot fuel" lawsuits.  The "temperature" cases seek
nonmonetary relief in the form of an order requiring the
defendants to install temperature correcting equipment on their
retail fuel pumps and monetary relief in the form of damages, but
the plaintiffs have not quantified the damages they seek.  The
"tax" cases also seek monetary relief.  Plaintiffs have proposed a
formula (which the Company disputes) to measure these damages as
the difference between the amount of fuel excise taxes paid by
defendants and the amount collected by defendants on motor fuel
sales.  Plaintiffs have taken the position in filings with the
Court that under this approach, the Company's damages for an
eight-year period for one state would be approximately $10,700.
The Company denies liability and disagrees with the plaintiffs'
positions.  All of these cases have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to multi-
district litigation procedures.  On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled
that, with respect to two cases originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, it would grant
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of plaintiffs seeking
injunctive relief (implementation of fuel temperature equipment
and/or posting of notices regarding the effect of temperature on
fuel), and that it would defer plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class with respect to damages.  A TA entity was named in one of
those two Kansas cases, but the Court ruled that the named
plaintiffs were not sufficient to represent a class as to TA, and
as a result, there has been no class certified as to TA.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has denied a request for
interlocutory review of the Court's class certification decision,
and the litigation in the Kansas cases is proceeding.  The U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas has not issued a
decision on class certification with respect to the remaining
cases that have been consolidated in the multi-district.  Because
these various motions are pending, the Company cannot estimate its
ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to these
lawsuits.  However, the continued cost of litigating these cases
could be significant.


UNITED FIRE: Hurricane Katrina-Related Class Suits Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company disclosed in its November 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that all Hurricane
Katrina-related lawsuits seeking class relief have been dismissed.

The Company is named as a defendant in various lawsuits relating
to disputes arising from damages that occurred as a result of
Hurricane Katrina in 2005.  These lawsuits originally included
actions seeking certification from the court to proceed as a class
action lawsuit and actions filed by individual policyholders.  All
lawsuits seeking class relief have been dismissed by the courts.

The individual policyholder lawsuits involve among other claims:
disputes as to the amount of reimbursable claims; the scope of
insurance coverage under homeowners and commercial property
policies due to flooding, civil authority actions, loss of use and
business interruption; breach of the duty of good faith or
violations of Louisiana insurance claims-handling laws or
regulations (which cases involve claims for statutory damages and,
in some cases, punitive or exemplary damages); the applicability
of Louisiana's so-called "Valued Policy Law," pursuant to which
insurers must pay the total insured value of a structure that is
totally destroyed if any portion of such damage was caused by a
covered peril, even if the principal cause of the loss was an
excluded peril; and the scope or enforceability of the water
damage exclusion in the policies.  The Company says it has
established its loss and loss settlement expense reserves on the
assumption that the application of the Valued Policy Law will not
result in its having to pay damages for perils not otherwise
covered.  The Company believes that, in the aggregate, these
reserves are adequate.

The Company says it intends to continue to defend the cases
related to losses incurred as a consequence of Hurricane Katrina.
There are approximately 59 individual policyholder cases pending
as of September 30, 2011.  The Company's evaluation of these
claims and the adequacy of recorded reserves may change if it
encounters adverse developments in the further defense of these
claims.  In the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2011, and
2010, the Company incurred $6.0 million and $7.6 million of loss
and loss settlement expenses from Hurricane Katrina claims and
related litigation.


UNITED ONLINE: Objection Deadline to Suit Settlement Is Nov. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties-in-interest have until November 18, 2011, to object to, or
opt out of, a revised settlement resolving two consumer class
action lawsuits against United Online, Inc., the Company disclosed
in its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 30, 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class
action complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as
Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online,
Inc. in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  On December
19, 2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action complaint
against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and
United Online, Inc. in Superior Court of Washington, Kings County,
alleging causes of action for violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust
enrichment and violation of California Civil Code section 1694,
dealing with dating services contracts.  In both actions, the
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages.  On April
30, 2009, the United States District Court of the Western District
of Washington consolidated the Michaels and the Vasquez actions
and designated the Michaels action as the lead case.  On March 12,
2010, the parties entered into a comprehensive class action
settlement agreement.  On December 16, 2010, the court conducted a
final approval hearing on the settlement.  On February 22, 2011,
the court issued an order formally denying final approval of the
settlement.  On March 24, 2011, the parties entered into a revised
settlement agreement, and on March 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary approval of the revised settlement.  On
July 8, 2011, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the revised settlement agreement, establishing a
schedule for providing notice to class members and setting
December 15, 2011, as the date for the hearing to determine the
final approval of the settlement.  On July 27, 2011, the court
entered an order approving a revised individual notice to the
settlement class and, thereafter, the parties entered into a
revised settlement agreement effective as of August 1, 2011, that
included the revised notice and minor court-approved changes.  The
notices have been sent to the settlement class and the deadline to
submit all claims and objections or to opt-out of the settlement
class is November 18, 2011.

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.untd.com/-- through its
operating subsidiaries, is a provider of consumer products and
services over the Internet through a number of brands, including
FTD, Interflora, Memory Lane, Classmates, StayFriends, MyPoints,
and NetZero.   On August 26, 2008, the Company completed its
acquisition of 100% of the capital stock of FTD Group, Inc.
Headquartered in Woodland Hills, CA, United Online operates
through a global network of locations in the U.S., the United
Kingdom, Germany, and India.


UNITED ONLINE: Bid to Dismiss Appeal From Suit Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Online, Inc., continues to await a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to dismiss an appeal from the approval of a
settlement in the consolidated lawsuit involving its subsidiary,
according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In April 2001 and in May 2001, lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company's subsidiary, NetZero, Inc., certain officers
and directors of NetZero and the underwriters of NetZero's initial
public offering, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., BancBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.  A consolidated
amended complaint was filed in April 2002.  The complaint alleges
that the prospectus through which NetZero conducted its initial
public offering in September 1999 was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that
(i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which the underwriters allocated to those investors material
portions of the restricted number of NetZero shares issued in
connection with the offering; and (ii) the underwriters had
entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriters
agreed to allocate NetZero shares to those customers in the
offering in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional NetZero shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.  Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages.
The case against NetZero was coordinated with approximately 300
other suits filed against more than 300 issuers that conducted
their initial public offerings between 1998 and 2000, their
underwriters and an unspecified number of their individual
corporate officers and directors.  The parties in the
approximately 300 coordinated class actions, including NetZero,
the underwriter defendants in the NetZero class action, and the
plaintiff class in the NetZero action, have reached an agreement
in principle under which the insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make a settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including NetZero. On October 5, 2009, the district
court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement
and certifying the settlement class.  Two individuals appealed the
October 5, 2009 order, and plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss
the appeals.  One of the appeals has been dismissed and the other
appeal is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

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

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.untd.com/-- through its
operating subsidiaries, is a provider of consumer products and
services over the Internet through a number of brands, including
FTD, Interflora, Memory Lane, Classmates, StayFriends, MyPoints,
and NetZero.   On August 26, 2008, the Company completed its
acquisition of 100% of the capital stock of FTD Group, Inc.
Headquartered in Woodland Hills, CA, United Online operates
through a global network of locations in the U.S., the United
Kingdom, Germany, and India.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court OKs Allocation Plan in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman approved the proposed plan of allocation
of net settlement funds created by settlements achieved in the
consolidated securities class action, In re Washington Mutual,
Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:08-md-1919 MJP, Case No.
C08-387 MJP (W.D. Wash.).

Judge Pechman finds that the formula for the calculation of the
claims of Authorized Claimants as set forth in the Plan of
Allocation mailed to Class Members provides a fair and equitable
basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement
Funds among Class Members with due consideration having been given
to administrative convenience and necessity.

A copy of the District Court's Nov. 4, 2011 order is available at
http://is.gd/X6I670from Leagle.com.


WORLD WRESTLING: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging a New York court order approving a settlement
of a securities class action lawsuit against World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc., remain pending.

In December 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of federal securities laws relating to the
Company's initial public offering in 1999.  According to the
claims, the underwriters, who were also named as defendants,
allegedly engaged in manipulative practices by, among other
things, pre-selling allotments of shares of the Company's stock in
return for undisclosed, excessive commissions from the purchasers
and/or entering into after-market tie-in arrangements to
artificially inflate the Company's stock price.  The complaint
further alleges that the Company knew or should have known of such
unlawful practices.  In or around March 2009, the parties agreed
to a global settlement of the litigation in its entirety. On April
2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
settlement, which was granted by the court by order dated June 10,
2009.  On October 6, 2009, the court granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, and various objectors have filed notices to
appeal this decision.  The Company is a party to the settlement
and is not one of the parties appealing the settlement's approval.
The Company is unable to predict whether these appeals will be
successful, but assuming they are unsuccessful and the settlement
is completed, no financial obligation has been or will be incurred
by the Company and accordingly, no loss has been or will be
recognized.

There has been no significant development in the IPO class action,
according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., a publicly traded company
(NYSE: WWE), is an integrated media organization and recognized
leader in global entertainment.


YAHOO INC: Appeal in Consolidated Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit
arising from a subsidiary's initial public offering remains
pending, according to Yahoo! Inc.'s November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On July 12, 2001, the first of several purported securities class
action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against certain underwriters
involved in the initial public offering of the Company's
subsidiary, Overture Services Inc.'s ("Overture"), Overture, and
certain of Overture's former officers and directors.  The Court
consolidated the cases against Overture.  Plaintiffs allege, among
other things, violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") involving
undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and improper
practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified damages.
Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous
public companies that conducted IPOs of their common stock since
the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits were consolidated.  On
October 5, 2009, the Court granted class certification and granted
final approval of a stipulated global settlement and plan of
allocation.  On October 6, 2010, various individuals objecting to
the settlement filed opening appeal briefs with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, and in early February 2011 Yahoo!
and other appellees filed reply briefs in support of the
settlement.  The Second Circuit dismissed one appeal and remanded
a second appeal to the District Court for a determination on
standing.  On remand, the District Court held on August 25, 2011,
that the individual objector lacked standing and was not a class
member; that ruling has been appealed to the Second Circuit.

With respect to the legal proceeding and claims, the Company has
determined, based on current knowledge, that the amount or range
of reasonably possible losses, including reasonably possible
losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not reasonably
estimable with respect to certain matters and that the aggregate
amount or range of such losses that are estimable would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  Amounts accrued as
of December 31, 2010, and September 30, 2011, were not material.
The ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments,
estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with
certainty.  In the event of a determination adverse to Yahoo!, its
subsidiaries, directors, or officers in these matters, however,
the Company may incur substantial monetary liability, and be
required to change its business practices. Either of these events
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.  The Company may
also incur substantial expenses in defending against these claims.


YAHOO INC: Court Consolidates Securities Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California consolidated two purported stockholder class action
lawsuits under the caption In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities
Litigation, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
and directors by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin Cities Pipe Trades
Pension Trust.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between April 19, 2011, and May 13, 2011, and allege that during
that class period, defendants issued false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial results
and failed to disclose that Alibaba Group Holding Limited
("Alibaba Group") transferred ownership of its subsidiary,
Alipay.com Co., Ltd. ("Alipay"), at less than market value.  The
complaints purport to assert claims for relief for violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and for violation of
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seek unspecified damages, injunctive
and equitable relief, fees and costs.  In October 2011, the
District Court consolidated the two purported class actions under
the caption In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed
the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff.

With respect to the legal proceeding and claims, the Company has
determined, based on current knowledge, that the amount or range
of reasonably possible losses, including reasonably possible
losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not reasonably
estimable with respect to certain matters and that the aggregate
amount or range of such losses that are estimable would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  Amounts accrued as
of December 31, 2010, and September 30, 2011, were not material.
The ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments,
estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with
certainty.  In the event of a determination adverse to Yahoo!, its
subsidiaries, directors, or officers in these matters, however,
the Company may incur substantial monetary liability, and be
required to change its business practices.  Either of these events
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.  The Company may
also incur substantial expenses in defending against these claims.


                           *********

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  * * *