CAR_Public/111117.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 17, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 228

                             Headlines

AARON'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Consumer Practices
ADDUS HOMECARE: IPO-Related Suit Dismissal Finalized in August
ADVOCAT INC: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Arkansas
AGENUS INC: Awaits Outcome of Appeals in IPO-Related Litigation
AIR TRANSPORT: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Suit in Ohio

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jan. 2012 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: No More Liability in "Leiszler" Suit
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Defends "Krueger" Class Suit in Minnesota
ANADIGICS INC: Appeal From N.J. Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From JNI IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending

BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Military Illegal Foreclosure Suit
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Appeal From Class Decertification Pending
BRISTOW GROUP: Appeal From Antitrust Suit Dismissal Still Pending
BROADWIND ENERGY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Illinois
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Credit Card Fees Suit in Canada

CAPITAL ONE: Unit Still Defends Credit Card Interest Rates Suits
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Checking Account Overdraft Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Oral Argument in Interchange Fee Suits Set for 4Q
CAPITAL ONE: 9th Cir. Continues Stay of Late Fees Litigation
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Defends 2000-2002 Natural Gas Markets Suits

CENTRAL PACIFIC: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Peterson" Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Pending
CHARLES SCHWAB: Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suits Settlement
CHOICE MANUFACTURING: Sued Over "Illusory" Service Warranties
CITY OF RICHMOND, VA: Former Deputies File Overtime Class Action

CON-WAY INC: WARN Class Suit in Ohio vs. EWA Now Completed
CRANE CO: Still Defends Homeowners' Class Suit in New Jersey
DENTSPLY INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Second Hildebrand Complaint Pending
DENTSPLY INT'L: Court Denies Motion to Expand Class
DIAMOND FOODS: Faces Class Action for Misleading Shareholders

DIRECTV: Wants to Compel Early Cancellation Suits to Arbitration
DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Pain Pump Class Suit in Canada
DUCOMMUN INC: Still Defends Merger-Related Class Suits
DUN & BRADSTREET: Briefing on Appeal in IPO Litigation Not Yet Set
EL PASO NATURAL GAS: Still Defends Royalty Underpayment Suit

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Trubion-Related Class Suits Now Resolved
ENTERGY CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Class Certification
EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL: Plea to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Pending
FANNIE MAE: Judge Denies Bid to Stay Antitrust Class Action
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Sued Over Excessive Overdraft Fees

GMAC MORTGAGE: Nichols Kaster Files Class Action in Florida
GREAT SOUTHERN BANCORP: Subsidiary Still Faces Suit in Missouri
HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Defends "Police Employees" Suit in Delaware
HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Defends "Berger" Class Suit in Delaware
INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES: Overdraft Suit Dismissed in September

LENDER PROCESSING: Continues to Defend 7 Fee Splitting Suits
LENDER PROCESSING: Awaits Ruling on "St. Clair" Suit Dismissal Bid
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Loses Appeal in Discrimination Class Action
MEMC ELECTRONIC: No Appeals Filed From Securities Suit Dismissal
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Missouri

METLIFE INC: Gov't.'s EME Homer City Environmental Case Dismissed
METLIFE INC: Unit Continues to Defend Total Control Accounts Suits
METLIFE INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Roberts" Suit in New York
METLIFE INC: Unit Awaits Outcome on Bid to Dismiss "Haviland" Suit
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Claims

MF GLOBAL: Former Employees File Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
MGM RESORTS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in California
MIO SUSHI: Faces Class Action Over Fraud & FLSA Violations
MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Denies N.J. AG's Objection to Settlement
MORGAN STANLEY: Securities-Related Suit in New York Still Pending

MORGAN STANLEY: Seeks Dismissal of "Coulter" Suit in New York
MORGAN STANLEY: Awaits Ruling on "Stratte-McClure" Suit Dismissal
MORGAN STANLEY: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Agreement Reached in Lehman-Related Class Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Wins Dismissal of Virgin Islands Pension Fund Suit

MORGAN STANLEY: Intervenors File Appeal Brief in IndyMac Suit
NETBANK INC: Judge OKs $12.5MM Investors' Suit Settlement
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Certification of "Wass" Suit
OLYMPUS CORP: Sarraf Gentile Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
ORACLE: Settles Overtime Class Action  for $35 Million

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
PHI INC: Appeal in "Superior" Suit Remains Pending in 3rd Circuit
PORSCHE: Faces Class Action Over Defective Boxsters Shaft
POTPOURRI MANUFACTURERS: Sued Over Synthetic Cannabinoid
RIGHTNOW TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Face Merger-related Suits

SINO-FOREST CORP: RCMP Investigation Won't Affect Class Action
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Units Defend Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit
TEKELEC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in North Carolina
TEMPLE-INLAND: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit
TEMPLE-INLAND: Defends Class Suits Over IP Merger Deal

UNITED BANKSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Practices Suits
UNITED STATES: Keepseagle Settlement Meeting Set in Oklahoma
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Shareholder Class Suit vs. PSI Remains Pending
VENTAS INC: Continues to Defend NHP-Related Suits in Calif. & Md.
VULCAN MATERIALS: July 2012 Trial Set in Suits vs. Florida Rock

VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit in Pending West Virginia Court
WALTER ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Class Action Suit Pending
WALTER ENERGY: Motion for Class Certification Pending in Canada




                          *********

AARON'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Consumer Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ConsumerAffairs.com reports that an Atlanta law firm has filed a
class action lawsuit against Aaron's, Inc., taking issue with the
leasing practices at the rent-to-own company's 1,900 stores.

Aaron's leases furniture, appliances, and electronics to consumers
usually with the promise that, after a certain number of payments
have been successfully completed, the consumer will own the items.

But the lawsuit filed by Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC alleges that
Aaron's has breached its lease agreements by refusing to provide
pay-off information to consumers and through other improper
practices.

The suit charges that the company has used unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations to induce
customers to enter lease agreements that are not as favorable for
the consumer as represented. The claims also include unjust
enrichment.

According to the suit, Aaron's rent-to-own business model is in
reality the extension of credit through consumer loans disguised
as leases for the purchase of goods.

The suit alleges that the difference between the market value of
the goods and the total amount of payments made by a consumer
constitutes interest.  State usury laws, such as the civil and
criminal usury statutes in Georgia, impose a cap on the amount of
interest that may be charged by a lender.  The suit alleges that
Aaron's repeatedly violates these laws.

Further, the suit alleges that Aaron's deceptively markets its
well-known offer of "120-days same as cash."

According to the complaint, this offer purports to allow consumers
to buy their furniture, appliances, or electronics from Aaron's
for their market value so long as the consumer pays in full within
four months.

The deception, as alleged in the suit, is that Aaron's regularly
and proactively attempts to prevent consumers from taking
advantage of the 120-day offer by failing to provide them with
their outstanding balance or pay-off amount in a timely and
appropriate manner.


ADDUS HOMECARE: IPO-Related Suit Dismissal Finalized in August
--------------------------------------------------------------
Addus Homecare Corporation disclosed in its November 4, 2011 Form
10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011,
that the judgment of dismissal entered by an Illinois court in a
class action arising from the Company's initial public offering
became final on August 25, 2011.

On March 26, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
October 27, 2009 and March 18, 2010, in connection with the
Company's IPO. The complaint, which was amended on August 10,
2010, asserted claims against the Company and individual officers
and directors pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and alleged, inter alia, that the Company's registration
statement was materially false and/or omitted the following: (1)
that the Company's accounts receivable included at least $1.5
million in aging receivables that should have been reserved for;
and (2) that the Company's home health segment's revenues were
falling short of internal forecasts due to a slowdown in
admissions from the Company's integrated services program due to
the State of Illinois' effort to develop new procedures for
integrating care. A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on
behalf of the defendants on September 20, 2010. The Company and
the other defendants have denied and continue to deny all charges
of wrongdoing or liability arising out of any conduct, statements,
acts or omissions alleged in the complaint. In addition, on
April 16, 2010, Robert W. Baird & Company, on behalf of the
underwriters of the IPO, notified the Company that the
underwriters were seeking indemnification in respect of the action
pursuant to the underwriting agreement entered into in connection
with the IPO.

On March 21, 2011, the Company and the other named defendants
entered into a stipulation of settlement with the plaintiffs with
respect to the class action, pursuant to which it caused $3.0
million to be paid into a settlement fund. The monetary amount of
this settlement is covered by insurance.

On July 21, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois approved the settlement and
dismissed the class action with prejudice.

The settlement became effective when the judgment of dismissal
entered by the court became final on August 25, 2011.

Addus Homecare Corporation provides services, including personal
care and assistance with activities of daily living, skilled
nursing and rehabilitative therapies, and adult day care.


ADVOCAT INC: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported class
action complaint filed in Arkansas, 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 January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
residents of the Facility over the past five years.  The lawsuit
has not been certified as a class action, and no motion to certify
the class has been filed by Plaintiffs' counsel to date.  The
Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


AGENUS INC: Awaits Outcome of Appeals in IPO-Related Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Agenus Inc. is awaiting the outcome of appeals from the final
judgment entered in lawsuits relating to initial public offerings,
coordinated for pre-trial purposes, according to the Company's
November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Garo H.
Armen, Ph.D., and two investment banking firms that served as
underwriters in its initial public offering were named as
defendants in a federal civil class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Substantially similar actions were filed concerning the initial
public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and the
cases were coordinated for pre-trial purposes as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. The lawsuit
alleges that the brokerage arms of the investment banking firms
charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers
in return for allocations of the Company's stock in the offering.
The lawsuit also alleges that shares of the Company's stock were
allocated to certain of the investment banking firms' customers
based upon agreements by such customers to purchase additional
shares of the Company's stock in the secondary market. The parties
have reached a global settlement of the litigation. Under the
settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement
share allocated to the defendants, and the defendants will bear no
financial liability. The Company and the other defendants will
receive complete dismissals from the case. In October 2009, the
Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement,
and subsequently judgment was entered. Various objectors have
filed appeals. If for any reason the settlement does not become
effective, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims and intend to defend the action vigorously. The Company is
unable to predict the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
estimate its potential liability, if any.

Agenus Inc.'s current research and/or development activities are
focused on developing technologies and product candidates to treat
cancers and infectious diseases.


AIR TRANSPORT: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABX Air Inc., a subsidiary of Air Transport Services Group Inc.,
continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit
filed by a former employee, 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 December 31, 2008, a former ABX employee filed a complaint
against ABX, a total of four current and former executives and
managers of ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and three former
executives of the Garcia Labor companies, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The case was filed as a
putative class action against the defendants, and asserts
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act
(RICO).  The complaint, which was later amended to include a
second former employee plaintiff, seeks damages in an unspecified
amount and alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to hire
illegal immigrant workers to depress the wages paid to hourly wage
employees during the period from December 1999 to January 2005.
On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision in response to a
motion filed by ABX and the other ABX defendants, dismissing three
of the five claims constituting the basis of Plaintiffs'
complaint.  Thereafter, on October 7, 2010, the Court issued a
decision permitting the plaintiffs to amend their complaint for
the purpose of reinstating one of their dismissed claims. On
October 26, 2010, ABX and the other ABX defendants filed an answer
denying the allegations contained in plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.

The complaint is similar to a prior complaint filed by another
former employee in April 2007.  The prior complaint was
subsequently dismissed without prejudice at the plaintiff's
request on November 3, 2008.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jan. 2012 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on Align Technology, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an
amended complaint in a purported class action lawsuit filed by
Charles Wozniak in California is scheduled for January 13, 2012,
according to the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In August 2009, Plaintiff Charles Wozniak filed a lawsuit against
the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and President, Thomas
M. Prescott, in District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a claimed class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased the Company's common stock between
January 30, 2007 and October 24, 2007.  The complaint alleges that
the Company and Mr. Prescott violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that Mr. Prescott violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
the Company failed to disclose that it had shifted the focus of
its sales force to clearing backlog, causing a significant
decrease in the number of new case starts.  On November 13, 2009,
the Court appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
as lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on January 29, 2010.  The amended complaint alleges that the
Company and Mr. Prescott issued a number of purportedly false and
misleading statements throughout the class period concerning the
Patients First program, its production capacity, a purported
backlog, and the focus of its sales force.  On March 26, 2010, the
Company and Mr. Prescott filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The motion was heard by the Court on July 9, 2010 and
on June 8, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with leave to amend.  On July 22, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint adding allegations that Align and Mr.
Prescott issued a number of purportedly false and misleading
statements throughout the class period concerning the ClinAdvisor
product.  Align and Mr. Prescott moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The hearing on that motion is currently scheduled for
January 13, 2012.  The Company believes the lawsuit to be without
merit and intend to vigorously defend itself.  The Company
believes there is no evidence to indicate that a reasonable
possibility exists that a loss had been incurred as of September
30, 2011.

Align Technology, Inc designs, manufactures and markets the
Invisalign system and the iTero and iOC scanning system and
services.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: No More Liability in "Leiszler" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. disclosed that it has no further liability
related to a class action lawsuit filed by Christopher J. Leiszler
over alleged unfair Invisalign proficiency requirements, according
to the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On May 10, 2010, Christopher J. Leiszler filed a complaint against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleged that the Company
implemented unfair and fraudulent requirements for the
prescription of Invisalign through the Invisalign Proficiency
Requirements for minimum case submission and continuing education
credits requirements.  In January 2010 Dr. Leiszler's Invisalign
provider status was suspended for failing to meet the Proficiency
Requirements.  Dr. Leiszler sued on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated.  The complaint sought a refund of the
price paid to the Company for Invisalign training. On October 19,
2010, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding to
resolve this litigation, and on November 30, 2010, the Company
executed a formal Stipulation of Settlement.  On December 23,
2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and on April 8, 2011, granted final approval of the
settlement.  The settlement took effect on May 18, 2011.  Under
the terms of the settlement, class members who did not elect to
receive the cash remedy prior to the Court-ordered deadline will
be reinstated to prescribe Invisalign treatment after the
effective date under certain circumstances.  In January 2011, the
Company deposited approximately $8.0 million into an escrow
account to pay eligible class members who elected the cash remedy,
as well as legal fees and other costs.  The Company recorded a
total litigation settlement charge of $4.5 million during the
third and fourth quarter of 2010 for this settlement.  In early
June 2011, payments were made from the escrow account to class
members who elected the cash remedy and the remaining balance of
the escrow has been refunded to Align, except for a nominal amount
which has been retained for administrative purposes.  As of
September 30, 2011, the Company has no further liability related
to this matter.

Align Technology, Inc designs, manufactures and markets the
Invisalign system and the iTero and iOC scanning system and
services.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Defends "Krueger" Class Suit in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc., is defending itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by participants and beneficiaries of the
Ameriprise Financial 401(k) Plan, 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 October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan. The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005, to the
present. The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA by selecting and retaining primarily
proprietary mutual funds with poor performance histories, higher
expenses relative to other investment options, and improper fees
paid to Ameriprise Financial, Inc., or its subsidiaries. The
action also alleges that the Company breached fiduciary duties
under ERISA because it used its affiliate Ameriprise Trust Company
as the Plan trustee and record-keeper and improperly reaped
profits from the sale of the record-keeping business to Wachovia
Bank, N.A. Plaintiffs allege over $20 million in damages. The
Company plans to vigorously defend itself in this action.


ANADIGICS INC: Appeal From N.J. Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed challenging a New Jersey court order
dismissing a second amended securities class action complaint
against ANADIGICS 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 October 1, 2011.

On or about November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie
Attias v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or
about November 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related
class action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz
v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750.  The Complaints in
the Class Actions, which were consolidated under the caption In re
Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an
Order of the District Court dated November 24, 2008, seek
unspecified damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with, among other
things, Anadigics's manufacturing capabilities and the demand for
its products.  On October 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which names the
Company, a current officer and a former officer-director, and
alleges a proposed class period that runs from July 24, 2007
through August 7, 2008.  On December 23, 2009, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; that motion was
fully briefed as of March 30, 2010.  After holding extensive oral
argument on defendants' motion on August 3, 2010, the District
Court found plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to be deficient,
but afforded them another opportunity to amend their pleading.
The District Court therefore denied defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice to defendants' renewing the motion in response
to plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on
October 4, 2010.  The Second Amended Complaint, which contains the
same substantive claims that were alleged in the First Amended
Complaint, alleges a proposed class period that runs from February
12, 2008 through August 7, 2008.  Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on December 3, 2010.  By an
Opinion and an Order dated September 30, 2011, the District Court
dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.  On
October 27, 2011, plaintiffs filed with the District Court a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit from the District Court's September 30, 2011 Opinion
and Order.

Because the Class Actions, which are in a preliminary stage, do
not specify alleged monetary damages, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, to the
Company.

ANADIGICS, Inc., is a provider of semiconductor solutions in the
growing broadband wireless and wireline communications markets.
The Company's products include radio frequency (RF) power
amplifiers (PAs), tuner integrated circuits, active splitters,
line amplifiers and other components, which can be sold
individually or packaged as integrated front end modules (FEMs).


APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From JNI IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging the settlement of a class action lawsuit
against Applied Micro Circuits Corporation's subsidiary JNI
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 ended September 30, 2011.

The Company acquired JNI Corporation in October 2003.  In November
2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against JNI and the
underwriters of its initial and secondary public offerings of
common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, case no. 01 Civ 10740 (SAS).  The complaint alleged
that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, in connection with JNI's public offerings.  This lawsuit
was among more than 300 class action lawsuits pending in this
District Court that have come to be known as the "IPO laddering
cases."  Pursuant to In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), in mid-2009 a settlement was
reached in all of the cases.  In October 2009, the Court issued an
order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the
case.  The settlement did not have a material impact on the
Company.  The Court subsequently issued a final judgment.  Several
appeals of the settlement and judgment were filed between October
29 and November 4, 2009.  Should the settlement be overturned on
appeal and the final judgment vacated, the Company could be
exposed to additional liabilities and such liability, if any,
could not be reasonably estimated at this time.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Military Illegal Foreclosure Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America
will pay $116,785 to each military servicemember whose home was
unlawfully foreclosed upon, plus compensation for lost equity, the
Justice Department said.  It's the largest settlement ever under
the Servicemember Civil Relief Act.

The payments are part of a settlement between the federal
government and Bank of America subsidiary BAC Home Loans
Servicing, formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing.

Bank of America agreed to pay $20 million to about 160 members of
the armed forces whose homes were foreclosed on illegally between
2006 and the middle of 2009.  It also must provide information
about its foreclosures from mid 2009-2010, and pay the same
minimum amount for each of those illegal foreclosures.

Beginning Nov. 14, letters will be sent to 157 servicemembers to
notify them of the money that they may receive under the
settlement.

The Justice Department has until the end of the month to determine
the damages to which servicemembers may be entitled, under the
agreement.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Appeal From Class Decertification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the lawsuit alleging Brinker International, Inc.,
violated labor laws 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 28, 2011.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a
lawsuit against the Company in California Superior Court alleging
violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest
breaks.  The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was
certified as a class action in July 2006.  In July 2008, the
California Court of Appeal decertified the class action on all
claims with prejudice.  In October 2008, the California Supreme
Court granted a writ to review the decision of the Court of Appeal
and oral argument before the California Supreme Court was set for
November 8, 2011.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend its position.
However, the Company notes that it is not possible at this time to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.


BRISTOW GROUP: Appeal From Antitrust Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a Delaware class action
complaint against Bristow Group, Inc., alleging violations of
antitrust laws 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 June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow
Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The purported class
action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Among other things,
the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to
raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services
between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005.  The plaintiff was
seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
In September 2010, the court granted the Company's and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds.  The
plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking
leave to amend its original complaint which was partially granted
to permit limited discovery.  The Company and the other defendants
again filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were granted.
The plaintiff has since appealed the judgment in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The Company intends to
file a response in the near future and continue to defend against
this lawsuit vigorously.  The Company is currently unable to
determine whether it could have a material effect on the Company's
business, financial condition or results of operations.

Bristow Group Inc. headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a provider
of helicopter transportation services to the oil and gas industry
worldwide.


BROADWIND ENERGY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadwind Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself from a
shareholder class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to
the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On February 11, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, against the Company and certain of its
current or former officers and directors. The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 17, 2009 and August 9, 2010. A lead
plaintiff has been appointed and an amended complaint was filed on
September 13, 2011. The amended complaint names as additional
defendants certain of the Company's current and former directors,
certain Tontine entities, and Jeffrey Gendell, a principal of
Tontine. The complaint seeks to allege that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and/or Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing or causing to be issued a
series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning
the Company's financial results, operations, and prospects,
including with respect to the January 2010 secondary public
offering of the Company's common stock. The plaintiffs allege that
the Company's statements were false and misleading because, among
other things, the Company's reported financial results during the
class period allegedly violated generally accepted accounting
principles because they failed to reflect the impairment of
goodwill and other intangible assets, and the Company allegedly
failed to disclose known trends and other information regarding
certain customer relationships at Brad Foote. In support of their
claims, the plaintiffs rely in part upon six alleged confidential
informants, all of whom are alleged to be former employees of the
Company. The Company's motion to dismiss is due by November 18,
2011. Between February 15, 2011 and March 30, 2011, three putative
shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, and four putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, against certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors, and certain Tontine entities, seeking to
challenge alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate
assets, and unjust enrichment, including in connection with the
January 2010 secondary public offering of the Company's common
stock. One of the lawsuits also alleges that certain directors
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the
Company's Proxy Statement for its 2010 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders. Two of the matters pending in the federal court have
been consolidated and the Company filed a motion to dismiss these
matters on September 19, 2011. Also, on September 19, 2011, the
four derivative lawsuits filed in state court were dismissed
following oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss the
actions as duplicative of the federal derivative actions. The
Company has received a request from the Tontine defendants for
indemnification in the derivative suits and the class action
lawsuit and may receive additional requests for indemnification
from Tontine and/or Mr. Gendell pursuant to various agreements
related to shares owned by Tontine. The Company maintains
directors and officers liability insurance, however, the costs of
indemnification for Mr. Gendell and/or Tontine would not be
covered by any Company insurance policy. Because of the
preliminary nature of these lawsuits, the Company is not able to
estimate a loss or range of loss at this time.

Broadwind Energy, Inc.provides technologically advanced high-value
products and services to customers in the energy, mining and
infrastructure sectors, primarily in the United States. Its most
significant presence is within the U.S. wind industry, where its
product and service portfolio provides its customers, including
wind turbine manufacturers, wind farm developers and wind farm
operators, with access to a broad array of component and service
offerings.


CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Credit Card Fees Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits in Canada relating to credit card
interchange fees.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner, on behalf of himself and
other merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit
cards, filed a class action in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia (Vancouver Registry) against the Visa and MasterCard
membership associations related to credit card interchange fees.
In May 2011, another merchant, on behalf of himself and other
merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit cards,
filed a class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Toronto Region) asserting the same alleged violations of law
related to credit card interchange fees and network rules.  Both
class actions name Visa and MasterCard and a number of member
banks, including Capital One Financial Corporation, which only
issues MasterCard branded credit cards in Canada.  The class
action complaints allege that the associations and member banks
are liable for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, constructive
trust and unlawful interference with economic interests and
violated Canadian anti-competition laws by (a) conspiring to fix
supra-competitive interchange fees and merchant discounts, and (b)
requiring participation in the respective networks and adherence
to Visa and MasterCard Rules to acceptance of payment guarantee
services.

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.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Unit Still Defends Credit Card Interest Rates Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation's subsidiary, Capital One Bank
(USA), National Association, continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits relating to credit card interest rates,
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 July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed a dismissal entered in favor of COBNA in Rubio v. Capital
One Bank, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in 2007.  The plaintiff in Rubio
alleges in a putative class action that COBNA breached its
contractual obligations and violated the Truth In Lending Act (the
"TILA") and the UCL when it raised interest rates on certain
credit card accounts.  The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution,
attorney's fees and an injunction against future rate increases.
The District Court granted COBNA's motion to dismiss all claims as
a matter of law prior to any discovery.  On appeal, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal with respect to
the TILA and UCL claims, remanding the case back to the District
Court for further proceedings.  The Ninth Circuit upheld the
dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, finding
that COBNA was contractually allowed to increase interest rates.
In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied COBNA's Petition for
Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.  In January 2011, COBNA
filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court,
seeking leave to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling.  On April 4,
2011, the United States Supreme Court denied Capital One's writ of
certiorari, and as a result, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case
back to the District Court to begin discovery.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter involves similar issues as Rubio.  This multi-
district litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010
transfer order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on
Multi-district Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia two pending putative class actions against COBNA --
Nancy Mancuso, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al.,
(E.D. Virginia); and Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A., (N.D. Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was
subsequently transferred into the MDL. On August 2, 2010, the
plaintiffs in the MDL filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges in a putative class action
that COBNA breached its contractual obligations, and violated the
TILA, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the UCL, the
California False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised
interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The MDL plaintiffs
seek statutory damages, restitution, attorney's fees and an
injunction against future rate increases.  Fact discovery is now
closed.  On August 8, 2011, Capital One filed a motion for summary
judgment.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Checking Account Overdraft Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation and its subsidiary, Capital One
Bank (USA), National Association, continue to defend themselves
against a multi-district litigation over overdraft fees in
checking accounts, 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.

In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and COBNA were
named as defendants in a putative class action named Steen v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Plaintiff
challenges the Company's practices relating to fees for overdraft
and non-sufficient funds fees on consumer checking accounts.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company's methodology for posting
transactions to customer accounts is designed to maximize the
generation of overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of
state unfair trade practices laws.  Plaintiff seeks a range of
remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  In May 2010, the case was
transferred to the Southern District of Florida for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL)
involving numerous defendant banks, In re Checking Account
Overdraft Litigation.  In January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint against CONA in the MDL court.  In February
2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On March 21, 2011, the MDL court granted the motion to dismiss
claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
under Texas law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other
respects.  On April 18, 2011, CONA moved for reconsideration of
those portions of the court's ruling denying its motion to
dismiss, and on June 7, 2011, CONA moved for certification of an
interlocutory appeal.  The MDL court denied the motion to
reconsider on June 23, 2011, and denied the motion for
interlocutory appeal on July 13, 2011.  The parties are now
engaged in discovery.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Oral Argument in Interchange Fee Suits Set for 4Q
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument of summary judgment motions in a consolidated
lawsuit against Capital One Financial Corporation relating to
interchange fees is to be presented in the fourth quarter of 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 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the
"Interchange Lawsuits") against MasterCard and Visa and several
member banks, including the Company's subsidiaries and the
Company, alleging among other things, that the defendants
conspired to fix the level of interchange fees.  The complaints
seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be
trebled.  Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted
similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only.  In October 2005,
the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for certain purposes, including discovery. Fact and expert
discovery have closed.  The parties have briefed and presented
oral argument on motions to dismiss and class certification and
are awaiting decisions from the court.  The parties have also
filed motions for summary judgment and will present oral argument
before the court in the fourth quarter of 2011.

The defendant banks are members of Visa U.S.A., Inc.  As members,
the Company's subsidiary banks have indemnification obligations to
Visa with respect to final judgments and settlements of certain
litigation against Visa.  In the first quarter of 2008, Visa
completed an IPO of its stock.  With IPO proceeds, Visa
established an escrow account for the benefit of member banks to
fund certain litigation settlements and claims, including the
Interchange Lawsuits.  As a result, in the first quarter of 2008,
the Company reduced its Visa-related indemnification liabilities
of $91 million recorded in other liabilities with a corresponding
reduction of other non-interest expense.  The Company made an
election in accordance with the accounting guidance for fair value
option for financial assets and liabilities on the indemnification
guarantee to Visa, and the fair value of the guarantee at December
31, 2010 and September 30, 2011 was zero. In January 2011, the
Company entered into a MasterCard Settlement and Judgment Sharing
Agreement, along with other defendant banks, which apportions
between MasterCard and its member banks any costs and liabilities
of any judgment or settlement arising from the Interchange
Lawsuits.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: 9th Cir. Continues Stay of Late Fees Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The stay on the proceedings of a consolidated class action lawsuit
against Capital One Financial Corporation over late fees charged
to credit card holders is continued, 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 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including the Company.  These
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired
to fix the level of late fees and over-limit fees charged to
cardholders, and that these fees are excessive.  In May 2007, the
cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed alleging violations of federal
statutes and state law.  The amended complaint requests civil
monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive relief.
In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal of their
claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository Institutions
Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair Competition Law
(the "UCL"), but not their antitrust conspiracy claims.  In June
2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the matter pending
the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the defendant financial
institutions.  In August 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
entered an additional order continuing the stay of the matter
pending the bankruptcy proceedings.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Defends 2000-2002 Natural Gas Markets Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, is defending various
lawsuits brought in connection with the operation of the natural
gas markets in 2000-2002, 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.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI Energy, Inc.
(RRI) (formerly known as Reliant Energy, Inc. and Reliant
Resources, Inc.), was a participant in gas trading in the
California and Western markets.  These lawsuits, many of which
have been filed as class actions, allege violations of state and
federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking
a variety of forms of relief, including, among others, recovery of
compensatory damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a
trebling of compensatory damages, full consideration damages and
attorneys' fees.  CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were
named in approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted
between 2003 and 2009.  CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have
been released or dismissed from all but two of such cases.
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), an indirect subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy, is a defendant in a case now pending in
federal court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin
natural gas prices in 2000-2002.

In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims against the other defendants in the case, each of whom had
demonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdictional
sales for resale during the relevant period, based on federal
preemption.  The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in
March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court.

CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES is a proper
defendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursue
dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Houston does not expect
the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


CENTRAL PACIFIC: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Peterson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Pacific Financial Corp. reached a tentative settlement to
resolve the class action lawsuit commenced by Gregory and Camila
Peterson, 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 March 2011, the Company and Central Pacific Bank (the "Bank")
were named as defendants in a putative class action captioned as
Gregory and Camila Peterson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Central Pacific Bank,
Central Pacific Financial Corp. and Doe Defendants 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 11-1-0457-03 VLC, in the First Circuit Court
of Hawaii in Honolulu.  The complaint asserted claims for
unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations
of Hawaii's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act, relating to the
bank's overdraft practices and fees.  Plaintiffs sought
declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement, damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

In October 2011, through a mediation process, the Company reached
a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs.  The tentative
settlement, which remains subject to court approval, provides for
a payment of $1.2 million into a class settlement fund, the
proceeds of which will be used to refund class members and pay
attorneys' fees and administrative and other costs, in exchange
for a complete release of all claims asserted against the Company
and the bank.  As of September 30, 2011, the Company says that the
$1.2 million tentative settlement amount was fully accrued for.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM)
remains pending, according to The Charles Schwab Corporation's
November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM) (Northstar
lawsuit).  The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.
(CSIM) as defendants.  Allegations include that the fund
improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by
investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and
investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before
the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on August 8, 2011, the court
dismissed plaintiffs' case with prejudice.  On September 7, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the court, which remains
pending.

A second class action lawsuit filed on September 3, 2010, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which
raised similar allegations on behalf of investors in the fund
(Smit lawsuit), was dismissed with prejudice on April 19, 2011.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suits Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation is awaiting court approval of its
settlement to resolve merger-related lawsuits, 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 September 1, 2011, the Company completed its acquisition of all
of the outstanding common shares of optionsXpress Holdings, Inc.
(optionsXpress) for total consideration of $714 million.
optionsXpress is an online brokerage firm primarily focused on
equity option securities and futures.  optionsXpress' brokerage
platform provides active investors and traders trading tools,
analytics and education to execute a variety of investment
strategies.

Between March 21, 2011, and April 6, 2011, ten purported class
action lawsuits were filed by optionsXpress stockholders
challenging Schwab's then proposed acquisition of optionsXpress.
Named defendants include the Company, optionsXpress and members of
its board of directors.  Seven lawsuits were filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, and consolidated in a single
amended complaint on May 9, 2011 (Consolidated Illinois Action);
and three lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and consolidated in a single amended complaint
on April 25, 2011 (Consolidated Delaware Action).  On April 28,
2011, the Delaware court stayed the Consolidated Delaware Action
in favor of the Consolidated Illinois Action.  The complaints
generally allege that optionsXpress directors breached fiduciary
duties owed to optionsXpress' stockholders by allegedly approving
the merger agreement at an unfair price and terms and through an
unfair process, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged
fiduciary breaches.  The lawsuits seek, among other relief,
rescission of the merger, an accounting for alleged damages, and
an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 16, 2011, the Illinois court dismissed all claims against
the Company with prejudice.  On July 29, 2011, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement under which the remaining defendants
agreed to provide certain supplemental merger disclosures in
exchange for full releases of all claims related to the merger,
including all claims in the Consolidated Illinois Action and the
Consolidated Delaware Action.  Defendants also agreed not to
oppose any fee application by plaintiffs' counsel that does not
exceed $650,000.  The settlement is subject to court approval.
Defendants have denied any wrongdoing in connection with the
merger and believe the claims lack merit.  In the event the
settlement is not finalized, the remaining defendants will
vigorously defend the claims.


CHOICE MANUFACTURING: Sued Over "Illusory" Service Warranties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
The Choice Manufacturing Co. and Mepco Finance Corp. sell
"illusory" extended vehicle service warranties they refuse to
honor.

A copy of the Complaint in High v. The Choice Manufacturing
Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-05478 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/14/BogusAuto.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM
          One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com


CITY OF RICHMOND, VA: Former Deputies File Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Williams, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that
three former Richmond sheriff's deputies allege in a lawsuit that
the Richmond Sheriff's Office failed to properly compensate them
for some overtime hours worked.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, is the latest move
by Richmond-area law-enforcement officers to seek compensation
they say they are owed.  As many as 600 current or former city
deputies could be eligible to take part in the lawsuit, said
Harris Butler, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The complaint was filed this month in Richmond federal court on
behalf of plaintiffs Anthony Washington, Vincent Matassa and John
Dismuke.  It names Sheriff C.T. Woody Jr. and the city of Richmond
as defendants.  Mr. Butler said the city is a defendant because
its employees handled payroll functions.

Mr. Butler said the plaintiffs are entitled to double the overtime
pay they are owed over the past three years, though he did not
specify a dollar figure.

Mr. Butler also represents nearly 400 current and former Richmond
police officers in a separate federal class-action lawsuit seeking
similar compensation.

The complaint involving the sheriff's deputies alleges that the
plaintiffs and other employees are required to report to work 15
minutes before their shift every work day for "shift formation"
but that the time "has not been calculated as time worked within
the applicable work periods for overtime compensation purposes."

Deputies, according to the complaint, also are required to attend
monthly training or other meetings without compensation and are
not given overtime pay for time spent making court appearances on
their days off.  Also, deputies are not given overtime pay for the
time they are required to spend delivering documents and other
materials to court after they leave work, according to the
complaint.

The lawsuits brought by the sheriff's deputies and the police
officers both allege that the city violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime for all hours worked
above 171 hours in a 28-day pay cycle.

The two complaints also allege that the city violated a 2005 state
law by refusing to properly pay officers for all hours they worked
between their standard 28-day pay cycle -- or 160 hours -- and the
171-hour threshold for overtime set by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  That is known as "gap time."

Tony H. Pham, general counsel for the Sheriff's Office, said the
department is evaluating the allegations in the complaint.  "It
would be inappropriate to comment on the specific allegations made
in the complaint while this matter is still pending," he said.

Tammy D. Hawley, press secretary for Richmond Mayor Dwight C.
Jones, declined to comment on the former deputies' lawsuit.

The 2005 Virginia law was shepherded through the General Assembly
by then-state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, now the state's attorney
general.  It says localities employing at least 100 law-
enforcement officers must pay them overtime at a rate of at least
1 1/2 times their regular rate for the hours during the gap time.

In a similar lawsuit in Chesterfield County, more than 80 law-
enforcement officers alleged a violation of state law, but the
complaint has been withdrawn.  One of the plaintiffs, Master
Deputy Ben Lent of the Chesterfield Sheriff's Office, said the
county has contended that its policies and those of the Sheriff's
Office are compliant with state law, but Mr. Lent said the
officers are in discussions with county officials.  A phone call
left for the county attorney was not immediately returned.

In December, Henrico County officials said a computer payroll
glitch shortchanged hundreds of county public-safety employees of
overtime.  The checks reimbursing 437 police officers and other
staff members averaged about $2,000.  Some Sheriff's Office
employees and Henrico firefighters also received payments: $71,000
to 200 firefighters and $240,000 to 207 employees of the county
Sheriff's Office.

Mr. Butler said he and attorney Craig Curwood are representing
more than 80 Henrico police officers or former officers and are
trying to reach an agreement with the county to offer additional
compensation.


CON-WAY INC: WARN Class Suit in Ohio vs. EWA Now Completed
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit against Con-way Inc.'s former subsidiary
has now been completed, 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 February 2002, a lawsuit was filed against Emery Worldwide
Airlines, Inc. ("EWA") in the District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") in connection with
employee layoffs and ultimate terminations due to the August 2001
grounding of EWA's airline operations and the shutdown of the
airline operations in December 2001.  The court subsequently
certified the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of affected
employees laid off between August 11 and August 15, 2001.  The
WARN Act generally requires employers to give 60-days notice, or
60-days pay and benefits in lieu of notice, of any shutdown of
operations or mass layoff at a site of employment.  The lawsuit
was tried in early January 2009, and on September 28, 2009, the
court issued its decision in favor of EWA.  The Plaintiffs
appealed the judgment and the District Court's decision was
affirmed on February 16, 2011.  Plaintiffs' petitions for
rehearing of the appellate court's decision were denied by orders
dated March 4, 2011, and March 9, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed a
petition with the Supreme Court on June 7, 2011, arguing that the
lower courts were wrong in ruling that there is no right to a jury
trial in a WARN Act case.  Plaintiffs contended that there was a
split in the circuit courts on the issue and that the Supreme
Court should review the case to resolve that split.  Con-way filed
its opposition to the petition on July 14, 2011.  On October 3,
2011, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition and this
case has now been completed.

Con-way Inc. -- http://www.con-way.com/-- and its consolidated
subsidiaries provide transportation, logistics and supply-chain
management services for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial
and retail customers.  Con-way's business units operate in
regional and transcontinental less-than-truckload and full-
truckload freight transportation, contract logistics and supply-
chain management, multimodal freight brokerage, and trailer
manufacturing.


CRANE CO: Still Defends Homeowners' Class Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to recently enacted regulations in New Jersey, Crane Co.
performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of approximately
40 homes in a residential area surrounding a former manufacturing
facility in Roseland, New Jersey, to determine if any contaminants
(volatile organic compound vapors from groundwater) from the
facility were present in those homes.  The Company installed vapor
mitigation equipment in three homes where contaminants were found.
On April 15, 2011, those three homeowners, and the tenants in one
of those homes, filed separate lawsuits against the Company
seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for their
lost property value and nuisance.  In addition, a homeowner in the
testing area, whose home tested negative for the presence of
contaminants, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company on
behalf of himself and 142 other homeowners in the surrounding
area, claiming damages in the nature of loss of value on their
homes due to their proximity to the facility.  The Company says it
is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of
a loss and therefore, no loss amount has been accrued for the
claims because among other things, the extent of the environmental
impact, consideration of other factors affecting value have not
yet advanced to the stage where a reasonable estimate can be made.

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.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Second Hildebrand Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second complaint
by plaintiffs of a putative class action lawsuit filed in
Pennsylvania is pending, according to the Company's November 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Plaintiffs have filed their motion for class certification to
which the Company has filed its response.  The Company also filed
other motions, including a motion to dismiss the claims of Drs.
Hildebrand and Jaffin for lack of standing.  The Court granted
this motion for lack of standing of the individuals and did not
allow the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to substitute their
corporate practices, leaving Dr. Goldman as a putative class
representative in Pennsylvania, raising a question of jurisdiction
of the U.S. District Court.  Recently, the Court issued an Order
dismissing this case on the grounds that it did not have
jurisdiction over the matter.  The plaintiffs filed a second
complaint after the Court granted the initial Motion for lack of
standing in which they named the corporate practices of Drs.
Hildebrand and Jaffin as class representatives.  The Company has
moved to dismiss this complaint and the Court has not yet ruled on
this Motion.

As of September 30, 2011, a reasonable estimate of a possible
range of losses related to the litigation cannot be made, the
Company said.  DENTSPLY does not believe the outcome of any of
these matters will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position.  In the event that one or more of these matters is
unfavorably resolved, it is possible the Company's results from
operations could be materially impacted.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Court Denies Motion to Expand Class
---------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco County Court has denied plaintiffs' motion to
expand a class in a lawsuit relating to DENTSPLY International
Inc.'s Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers, according to the Company's
November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures.  The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and
refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for
use in oral surgery.  The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims.  The class that was certified is
defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used
one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of
oral surgical procedures.  The Company filed a motion for
decertification of the class and this motion was granted.
Plaintiffs appealed the decertification of the class to the
California Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed the
decertification decision of the trial Court.  The case was
remanded to and is pending in the San Francisco County Court and
the plaintiffs filed a Motion to redefine the class to include
non-surgical periodontal use.  The Company filed its Response to
this Motion challenging the plaintiffs' attempted expansion of the
claims beyond surgical use and the standing of the class
representatives to assert class claims.  At a hearing in October
2011, the Judge denied the plaintiffs' Motion to expand the class
beyond surgical use and held the named plaintiffs have standing to
assert the surgical use class claims.


DIAMOND FOODS: Faces Class Action for Misleading Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Diamond
Food inflated its share price with false and misleading
statements, and its share price fell from $92.47 on Sept. 20 to
$46.32 on Nov. 4.

A copy of the Complaint in Rall, et al. v. Diamond Foods, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-05457 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/14/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Punzalan, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          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, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000


DIRECTV: Wants to Compel Early Cancellation Suits to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV said it intends to compel putative class action lawsuits
challenging early cancellation fees to arbitration, according to
the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

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

From time to time, the Company receives investigative inquiries or
subpoenas from state and federal authorities with respect to
alleged violations of state and federal statutes. These inquiries
may lead to legal proceedings in some cases. DIRECTV U.S. has
received a request for information from the Federal Trade
Commission, or FTC, on issues similar to those recently resolved
with a multistate group of state attorneys general. The Company is
cooperating with the FTC by providing information about its sales
and marketing practices and customer complaints.

DIRECTV is a provider of digital television entertainment in the
United States and Latin America.


DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Pain Pump Class Suit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit in Canada related to a disposable drug infusion pump
product, according to the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 1, 2011.

The Company is named as one of several defendants in a number of
product liability lawsuits in courts in several states related to
a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain pump) manufactured
by two third party manufacturers that we distributed through the
Company's Bracing and Vascular segment. There were approximately
60 plaintiffs in U.S. cases pending as of October 15, 2011 and a
lawsuit in Canada which was recently certified as class action. On
October 26, 2011, the Company received notice of filing of several
lawsuits involving a total of 200 plaintiffs. Based upon the
allegations in the complaints, it appears that all but
approximately 20 plaintiffs used a pain pump that was not sold by
DJO. The Company discontinued its sale of these products in the
second quarter of 2009.  These cases have been brought against the
manufacturers and certain distributors of these pumps, and in some
cases, the manufacturers of the anesthetics used in these pumps.
All of these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with
certain anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain shoulder
surgeries has resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs. The
lawsuits allege damages ranging from unspecified amounts to claims
of up to $10 million. Many of the lawsuits which have been filed
in the past three years have named multiple pain pump
manufacturers and distributors without having established which
manufacturer manufactured or sold the pump in issue. In the past
twelve months, the Company has entered into settlements with
plaintiffs in approximately 45 pain pump lawsuits.

DJO Finance LLC is a developer, manufacturer and distributor of
medical devices that provide solutions for musculoskeletal health,
vascular health and pain management.


DUCOMMUN INC: Still Defends Merger-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Ducommun Incorporated continues to defend merger-related class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 1, 2011.

On June 28, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of all the
outstanding stock of LaBarge, Inc. ("LaBarge"), a publicly-owned
company based in St. Louis, Missouri, for $325,315,000 (net of
cash acquired and excluding acquisition costs).  LaBarge is a
provider of electronics manufacturing services to aerospace,
defense and other diverse markets.  LaBarge provides its customers
with sophisticated electronic, electromechanical and mechanical
products through contract design and manufacturing.  The
acquisition was funded from internally generated cash, senior
unsecured notes and a senior secured term loan.  The operating
results for this acquisition have been included in the
consolidated statements of operations since the date of
acquisition.

Ducommun has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions filed in April, 2011, by purported stockholders of LaBarge
against LaBarge, its Board of Directors and Ducommun in connection
with the LaBarge acquisition.  Two of the stockholder actions
(filed by purported class representatives Barry P. Borodkin and
Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No. 14) were filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court, and the court consolidated those two
actions.  The other three stockholder actions (filed by purported
class representatives J. M. Foley, Jr., William Wheeler and Doris
A. Gastineau) were filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri, and that court consolidated those three actions.

The consolidated Delaware and Missouri putative class actions
generally allege that the individual members of the Board of
Directors of LaBarge breached their fiduciary duties to LaBarge
stockholders with respect to the merger transaction announced on
April 4, 2011.  These actions also allege that Ducommun and
LaBarge aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties.  They
seek equitable relief (including injunctive relief), judicial
declarations that the merger agreement was entered into in breach
of the LaBarge directors' fiduciary duties, rescission of the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and the award
of attorneys' fees and expenses for the plaintiffs.

In the Delaware consolidated actions, the parties engaged in
expedited discovery in connection with a preliminary injunction
hearing scheduled for June 17, 2011.  After document discovery and
depositions, and before the plaintiffs filed their motion for
preliminary injunction, the parties negotiated and signed a
memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims.  The
preliminary settlement is subject to a definitive agreement and
final approval of the Delaware Chancery Court.  There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Chancery Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties do enter into such stipulation.

In the Missouri consolidated actions, the defendants sought a stay
of the Missouri actions from the Missouri court, the plaintiffs
opposed that request, and the Missouri court stayed the actions.
Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court's stay, and the
defendants opposed that request.  On June 16, 2011, a hearing
before the Missouri court was held on plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.  On June 20, 2011, the Missouri court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed the court's
stay.

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

Ducommun believes these lawsuits are without merit, and in the
event that settlement of these claims is not finalized, intends to
defend them vigorously.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Briefing on Appeal in IPO Litigation Not Yet Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
No briefing schedule has yet been set for an appeal from a global
settlement of coordinated cases relating to initial public
offerings of, among others, Hoover's Inc., according to The Dun &
Bradstreet Corporation's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On November 15, 2001, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against Hoover's Inc., a subsidiary of the Company,
certain of its then current and former officers and directors, and
one of the underwriters of Hoover's July 1999 initial public
offering. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Hoover's
stock between July 20, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The operative
complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Hoover's and the
Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter
allocated stock in Hoover's IPO to certain investors in exchange
for commissions and agreements by those investors to make
additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at prices above
the IPO price. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for Hoover's
IPO was false and misleading because it did not disclose these
arrangements.

The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than 300
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
ours, reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants
in the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on
behalf of the issuers, including Hoover's. Hoover's would not be
required to incur a liability as a result of this settlement. On
October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval to the
settlement. Objectors to the settlement appealed its approval to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. One
appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the
district court to determine if the appellant is a class member
with standing to appeal. Although the district court ruled that
the second appellant did not have standing, the second appellant
thereafter filed a notice of appeal. No briefing schedule has yet
been set for that appeal.

The Company believes that it does not have a probable or
reasonably possible loss exposure given the approved settlement.
However, given the appeals and the uncertainty of their impact
should they be granted, the Company currently cannot accurately
predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the source of commercial
information and insight on businesses, enabling customers to
Decide with Confidence(R) for 170 years.


EL PASO NATURAL GAS: Still Defends Royalty Underpayment Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Natural Gas Company is a named defendant, along with
Burlington Resources, Inc. (Burlington), now a subsidiary of
ConocoPhillips Company, in a class action lawsuit styled Bank of
America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas and Burlington Resources
Oil and Gas Company, L.P., filed in October 2003 in the District
Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma, asserting royalty underpayment
claims related to specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and
New Mexico.  The Plaintiffs assert that royalties were underpaid
starting in the 1980s when the purchase price of gas was lowered
below the Natural Gas Policy Act maximum lawful prices.  The
Plaintiffs have only alleged an amount of damages against the
Company's co-defendant, Burlington.  The Company believes that its
actions in the 1980s were proper in light of a declining market.
The Company also contends that it is entitled to an indemnity from
Burlington under the Company's 1992 separation agreement for all
claims related to royalty payments, which Burlington denies.  The
Plaintiffs assert that royalties were further underpaid by
Burlington as a result of post-production cost deductions taken
starting in the late 1990s.  The Company has no liability for the
post-production claims as they pertain to periods after the
Company's separation from Burlington.  This action was transferred
to Washita County District Court in 2004.  A tentative settlement
reached in November 2005 was rejected by the court in June 2007.
A class certification hearing occurred in April 2009.  The court
certified a Texas and Oklahoma class of royalty owners and stayed
the claims pertaining to New Mexico wells.  The class
certification was upheld by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, and a
petition for review was denied by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  The
Plaintiffs have proceeded with discovery of the post-production
claims against Burlington.  The Company's costs and legal exposure
related to this lawsuit are not currently determinable.

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.

El Paso Natural Gas Company's primary business consists of the
interstate transportation and storage of natural gas.  The Company
conducts its business activities through its natural gas pipeline
systems and a storage facility.  The Company is based in Houston.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Trubion-Related Class Suits Now Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits filed over the acquisition of Trubion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are now resolved, according to Emergent
BioSolutions Inc.'s November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On August 17, 2010, two class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of Washington, King County, or State Court, against
Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Trubion, its board of directors,
and the Company, or the Defendants, alleging in summary that, in
connection with the merger of Trubion with the Company's
subsidiary, or the Acquisition, the members of the Trubion board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties by conducting an
unfair sale process and agreeing to an unfair price. Both
complaints also claimed that Trubion and the Company aided and
abetted the Trubion board of directors in its breach of fiduciary
duties. On September 9, 2010, the actions were consolidated into
one action, or the State Action.  On October 1, 2010, the
plaintiffs in the State Action served on the Defendants a
consolidated amended class action complaint, or the Amended
Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleged, among other things and
in addition to the matters alleged in the initial complaints, that
the Defendants omitted material information from the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus relating to the Acquisition.

On October 4, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Defendants, or the Federal Action, and, collectively with the
State Action, the Actions, which made allegations related to the
Acquisition that were substantially similar to those matters
alleged in the Amended Complaint and included additional
allegations regarding purported violations of the federal
securities laws and sought substantially similar relief.

On October 8, 2010, the Defendants reached agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs in the Actions regarding the settlement of the
Actions. The terms of the settlement contemplated by that
agreement in principle required that Trubion and the Company make
certain additional disclosures related to the Acquisition, as set
forth in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
October 8, 2010. The parties also agreed that the plaintiffs in
the Actions could seek attorneys' fees and costs in an aggregate
amount up to $475,000, to be paid by Trubion if such fees and
costs are approved by the State Court. There would be no other
payment by Trubion, any of the members of the Trubion board of
directors or the Company to the plaintiffs or their respective
counsels in connection with the settlement and dismissal of the
Actions. The agreement in principle further contemplated that the
parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would
be subject to customary conditions, including State Court approval
following notice to Trubion's shareholders. The Actions were
stayed pending approval of the settlement of the State Action by
the State Court, after which the State Action and all claims
asserted therein would be dismissed with prejudice and counsel for
the plaintiff in the Federal Action would take all necessary steps
to dismiss the Federal Action and all claims asserted therein with
prejudice. On April 26, 2011, the State Court entered an order
granting preliminary approval of the settlement and requiring that
notice of the settlement and preliminary approval be mailed to
class members by May 17, 2011.  The order also provided that all
class members wishing to be excluded from the settlement of the
Actions were required to give notice by June 21, 2011.  At a
hearing on July 29, 2011, the State Court determined that the
settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate to the class members
and approved the settlement in all aspects.  On September 12,
2011, the Federal Action was dismissed and the Company has since
made a payment in the amount of $475,000 for attorneys' fees and
costs.

Emergent BioSolutions Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on protecting and enhancing life by developing and manufacturing
vaccines and protein therapeutics that are supplied to healthcare
providers and purchasers for use in preventing and treating
disease.


ENTERGY CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the class action lawsuit over
power price in Texas, 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 August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas, by Texas residents on behalf of a
purported class apparently of the Texas retail customers of
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric
power from January 1, 1994, to the present.  The named defendants
include Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power,
Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf
States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but is alleged to be a co-
conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price gouging
accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated
utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants
while rejecting and/or reselling to off-system utilities less
expensive power offered and/or purchased from off-system suppliers
and/or generated by the Entergy system.  In particular, plaintiffs
allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate
the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from
affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-
system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were
charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for
power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.
The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report calculating damages
in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present
value, under various scenarios.  The Entergy defendants have
tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions,
methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs' expert reports.

The case is pending in state district court, and a class
certification hearing was held in August 2011.  The decision of
the court on class certification is pending.

Entergy Corporation -- http://www.entergy.com/-- is an integrated
energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and
retail distribution operations.  Entergy owns and operates power
plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating
capacity.  Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility
customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.  Entergy
has annual revenues of more than $11 billion and approximately
15,000 employees.


EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL: Plea to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
an antitrust class action lawsuit in New York 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 January 3, 2008, the Company was named as a defendant, with
seven other European and North American-based global logistics
providers, in a Federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New
York, Precision Associates, Inc. et al v. Panalpina World
Transport, No. 08-CV0042.  On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint adding a number of new third party defendants
and various claims which they assert to violate the Sherman Act.
The plaintiffs' amended complaint, which purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of customers (and has not yet been certified),
asserts claims that the defendants engaged in price fixing
regarding eight discrete surcharges in violation of the Sherman
Act.  The allegations concerning the Company relate to two of
these surcharges.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages
and injunctive relief.

The Company believes that these allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.

On August 13, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.  Plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the Company's motion on January 30, 2010.  On
January 4, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation to dismiss the claims against the Company and
others, but allowed the plaintiffs' the opportunity to further
amend the complaint.  The Report and Recommendation is now pending
before the Court for resolution.  The Company expects to incur
ongoing attorneys' fees and other defense costs and, if there is
an adverse judgment, monetary damages could have a material impact
on the Company's results of operations and operating cash flows
for any particular quarter or year.  At this time, the Company has
no way of predicting the ultimate outcome of this proceeding and
is unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss or
damages, if any, that might result as an outcome of this
proceeding.

Seattle-based Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.
provides global logistics services.  The Company offers its
customers an international network supporting the movement and
positioning of goods.


FANNIE MAE: Judge Denies Bid to Stay Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Zoe
Tillman, in early October, Fannie Mae's conservator, the Federal
Housing Finance Agency, asked a Washington federal judge for a
stay in an antitrust class action against the mortgage giant.  The
agency argued that the litigation had already cost taxpayers $80
million in fees and that there was no hope of resolution until
Fannie Mae's fate was more certain.

On Nov. 14, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued an order
denying the request.  Judge Leon didn't give a reason in writing.

The agency, which took over Fannie Mae as its conservator in July
2008, first entered the case as an intervening party in Nov. 2008.
Fannie Mae and its auditor, KPMG, are facing allegations that the
mortgage giant cost the Ohio state pension plan and other
plaintiffs billions of dollars after overstating profits and
failing to comply with other generally accepted accounting
principles.

The plaintiffs, led originally by veteran plaintiffs' attorney
Stanley Chesley of Cincinnati's Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
Chesley, filed suit in 2005 in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.  Mr. Chesley, who is facing unrelated
disciplinary actions in Kentucky, is no longer on the case,
although his firm is still lead counsel.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a motion on Oct. 7 asking
for a stay, stating that even if the plaintiffs were to prevail,
they "almost certainly will never be able to collect even a single
dollar of any final judgment."  In Fannie Mae's three years under
conservatorship, the organization has ended every quarter with a
"negative net worth."

Even if Fannie Mae were to make money, the agency stated, it would
go first to paying back the U.S. government for the $104.8 billion
in public dollars to date used to keep Fannie Mae afloat.  The
future of Fannie Mae is uncertain, the agency wrote, so there is
no point to continuing litigation until it's clear what will
happen.  If Fannie Mae stays under conservatorship or enters
receivership, the agency wrote, plaintiffs still couldn't collect
on any judgment, as per an agency decision on Oct. 7.

The third option would be for Fannie Mae to come out of
conservatorship in solid financial shape, but the agency wrote
that it "is so exquisitely remote that it cannot begin to justify
the continuing expenditure of litigation costs in this matter."
The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and individual defendants aside
from Fannie Mae asked Judge Leon to at least rule on pending
motions for summary judgment first.

Lead counsel for the agency, Joseph Aronica of Duane Morris in
Washington, and agency attorney Stephen Hart could not immediately
be reached.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for Ohio Attorney General Mike
DeWine said, "We believe that the Judge was correct, and we will
continue to aggressively go forward with the class' claims."


FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Sued Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for the Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a Mattoon woman has filed a class action claim against an
Illinois bank she claims has been charging excessive overdraft
fees.

Deanna Williamson, on behalf of herself and several others, filed
the lawsuit Oct. 20 in Madison County Circuit Court against First
Mid-Illinois Bankshares Inc. and First Mid-Illinois Bank and
Trust.

According to the complaint, First Mid-Illinois Bankshares and
First Mid-Illinois Bank and Trust charged an overdraft fee of $25
for every transaction made while a customer's account was
overdrawn.  The banks also allegedly charged some account holders
the same fee even when their account was not overdrawn at the time
of the transaction.

Ms. Williamson says that if the debit card would have simply been
declined at the time of the purchase or if the bank had provided a
warning that a charge would be assessed if funds were
insufficient, she could have chosen an alternative form of payment
and avoided the overdraft fee altogether.  Ms. Williamson alleges
these charges and the bank's policy on them target the low-income
customers who are likely to maintain low balances.

Ms. Williamson claims First Mid-Illinois Bankshares and First Mid-
Illinois Bank and Trust made a practice of maximizing its
overdraft charges.  They are accused of breach of contract and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violating Illinois' Consumer
Fraud Act.  The class asks the bank's fee policies be declared
unfair and to be repaid all the overdraft charges they paid along
with punitive damages and court costs.

Attorneys Eric D. Holland and Steven L. Groves of St. Louis are
representing the class.

Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 11-L-1079


GMAC MORTGAGE: Nichols Kaster Files Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff Christine Ulbrich filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit against GMAC Mortgage, LLC and
Balboa Insurance Services, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The lawsuit alleges
that GMAC and Balboa illegally backdated force-placed insurance
policies and charged borrowers for insurance coverage that was, in
some cases, expired on the day it was purchased.  The suit also
alleges that GMAC and Balboa charged borrowers inflated premiums
that were as much as 14 times the market rate.  According to
Plaintiff's attorney, Kai Richter, "The whole point of insurance
is to protect against future risks.  Forcing borrowers to buy
expired insurance at inflated premiums is inexcusable."

The Complaint alleges that GMAC force-placed a windstorm policy on
Ms. Ulbrich's property in March 2011, which was backdated for the
period from October 1, 2009 to October 1, 2010, and charged
Ms. Ulbrich almost $10,000 for this already-expired coverage.  The
lawsuit further alleges GMAC sent Ms. Ulbrich a renewal notice on
the very same date, stating that "the windstorm insurance coverage
we placed on your account has expired," and then force-placed a
second windstorm policy on her property in April 2011, which was
backdated by more than six months and cost more than $9,600.
According to the Complaint, Ms. Ulbrich's mortgage payments
skyrocketed from $1,227.52 per month to $2,695.59 per month after
GMAC purchased this backdated coverage, due to an alleged
"shortage" in her escrow account.  GMAC is now threatening to
foreclose on her home because she cannot afford the increased
payments, even though she previously was current on her mortgage.

"It is outrageous to drive homeowners into foreclosure by force-
placing backdated insurance coverage on their property and
charging them inflated premiums for expired coverage," said
Mr. Richter.  "GMAC received billions of dollars in bailout money
from taxpayers, and this is no way to say 'thank you,'" continued
Mr. Richter.

In her class action Complaint, Ms. Ulbrich seeks relief on behalf
of herself and other similarly-situated GMAC borrowers across the
country.  Ms. Ulbrich asserts claims against GMAC for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  In addition,
Ms. Ulbrich also asserts an unjust enrichment claim against
Balboa, which allegedly accepted premiums for backdated policies
and allegedly paid a kickback to GMAC in return.

The case is entitled Ulbrich v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC and Balboa
Insurance Services, Inc., No. 0:11-cv-62424 (S.D. Fla.).
Plaintiff is represented by Kai Richter, Michelle Drake, and
Timothy Selander from Nichols Kaster, PLLP.  Nichols Kaster has
offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California,
and is currently pursuing several other cases against major banks
for wrongfully force-placing insurance on borrowers, including
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., and RBS Citizens, N.A. (also known as Citizens Bank),
and U.S. Bank, N.A.  Additional information is located at
http://www.nka.comor may be obtained by calling Nichols Kaster,
PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492.


GREAT SOUTHERN BANCORP: Subsidiary Still Faces Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against a subsidiary of Great Southern Bancorp
Inc. is still 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.

On November 22, 2010, a suit was filed against Great Southern Bank
in Missouri state court in Springfield by a customer alleging that
the fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit card and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Missouri's usury laws.  The suit seeks
class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft
fees on their checking accounts.  The Bank has filed for a motion
to dismiss the suit.  At this early stage of the litigation, it is
not possible for management of the Bank to determine the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any potential loss.


HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Defends "Police Employees" Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harleysville Group, Inc., is defending itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System in Delaware, 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 4, 2011, the Company received a class action complaint,
captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Harleysville Group Inc., et al., Case No. 6907VCP. This purported
class action complaint was filed in the State of Delaware Chancery
Court. The complaint contains two counts: (1) a count that alleges
breach of fiduciary duties by the individually-named directors of
the Company; and (2) a count that alleges that Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company aided and abetted such breach of fiduciary
duties.  Both counts relate to the announced merger transaction
between Nationals Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and the Company. The
complaint seeks relief in the form of an injunction, damages and
attorney's fees. The Company is still in the process of reviewing
the complaint, but believes that the plaintiff's allegations are
without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.


HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Defends "Berger" Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harleysville Group, Inc., is defending itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by Eric H. Berger in Delaware, 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 6, 2011, the Company received a class action complaint,
captioned Eric H. Berger, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. Harleysville Group Inc. et al., Case No.
6918-VCP. This purported class action complaint was filed in the
State of Delaware Chancery Court. The complaint contains two
counts: (1) a count that alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the
individually-named directors of the Company; and (2) a count that
alleges that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company aided and abetted
such breach of fiduciary duties. Both counts relate to the
announced merger transaction between Nationals Sub, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and the
Company. The complaint seeks relief in the form of an injunction,
damages and attorney's fees. The Company is still in the process
of reviewing the complaint, but believes that the plaintiff's
allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.


INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES: Overdraft Suit Dismissed in September
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed in Florida relating to
International Bancshares Corporation's overdraft fees was
dismissed in late September, 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 October 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class-action lawsuits, including one filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and one
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida where similar lawsuits against a number of
other banks are currently pending in a multi-district proceeding
known as "In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation."  The Texas
lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on January 12, 2011, when
the parties stipulated to arbitrate the matter.  The Florida
lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on September 30, 2011,
when the parties settled the matter.

The Company says the amount it expensed in connection with the
settlement of the lawsuit was not significant.  The settlement
amount of the Florida lawsuit resolved all pending cases against
the Company connected with overdraft fees or posting order, and no
other substantively similar litigation against the Company or any
of its subsidiary banks is known to exist.

Headquartered in Laredo, Texas, with 275 facilities and more than
440 ATMs, International Bancshares Corporation provides banking
services for commercial, consumer and international customers of
South, Central and Southeast Texas and the State of Oklahoma.  The
Company is an independent commercial bank holding companies
headquartered in Texas.  The Company, through its bank
subsidiaries, is in the business of gathering funds from various
sources and investing those funds in order to earn a return.  The
Company either directly or through a bank subsidiary owns two
insurance agencies, a liquidating subsidiary, a broker/dealer and
a 50% interest in an investment banking unit that owns a
broker/dealer.  The Company's primary earnings come from the
spread between the interest earned on interest-bearing assets and
the interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities.  In addition,
the Company generates income from fees on products offered to
commercial, consumer and international customers.


LENDER PROCESSING: Continues to Defend 7 Fee Splitting Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Lender Processing Services, Inc. continues to defend itself from
seven class action lawsuits alleging that it engaged in unlawful
fee splitting with bankruptcy counsel of creditors, according to
the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company has been named in twelve putative class actions filed
in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi that generally allege that the
defendants engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and
unlawful fee splitting with attorneys representing creditors in
bankruptcy proceedings.  Each of these individual complaints was
filed by the same plaintiff's attorney. Five of these cases have
been dismissed, some with prejudice or on summary judgment. The
remaining cases are in the preliminary stages and none of these
cases has been certified as a class action.

Lenders Processing Services, Inc. is a provider of integrated
technology and services to the mortgage lending industry, with
market leading positions in mortgage processing and default
management services in the U.S.


LENDER PROCESSING: Awaits Ruling on "St. Clair" Suit Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lender Processing Services, Inc. is awaiting a Florida court's
ruling on its motion to dismiss a putative class action entitled
St. Clair Shores General Employees' Retirement System v. Lender
Processing Services, Inc., et al., according to the Company's
November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On December 1, 2010, the Company was served with a complaint
entitled St. Clair Shores General Employees' Retirement System v.
Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al., which was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The putative class action seeks damages for alleged violations of
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
disclosures relating to its default operations. An amended
complaint was filed on May 18, 2011. LPS filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on July 18, 2011 and the plaintiff filed a response
to the Company's motion on September 12, 2011. The Company is
awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss.

Lenders Processing Services, Inc. is a provider of integrated
technology and services to the mortgage lending industry, with
market leading positions in mortgage processing and default
management services in the U.S.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Loses Appeal in Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Crager, writing for The Lufkin News, reports that a 14-
year saga came to an end on Nov. 14 with a ruling by the United
States Supreme Court denying Lufkin Industries' appeal in a Title
VII class-action suit for employment discrimination.

The final payout of $5.5 million in back pay and interest will be
divvied up, according to a ruling by U.S. District Judge Ron Clark
of Beaumont in June 2009 that was upheld in a federal appeals
court in August of this year.

The suit included more than 1,000 black Lufkin Industries
employees claiming they had been denied opportunities for
additional training and routinely skilled over for promotions. It
also claimed the workers were placed in low-end jobs in the
company's foundry division.

The suit was originally filed by Sylvester McClain and Buford
Thomas in 1997.

However, in September, the company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari, or a document filed by the losing party with the
Supreme Court asking a lower court's decision to be reviewed.
That was the petition denied on Nov. 14.

"After 15 years it was time that Lufkin stopped stalling and using
the delaying tactics that it has been doing for quite a while,"
Mr. McClain said on Nov. 14.  "It was time to get the issue
resolved."

Mr. McClain said he worked in the trailer division for 36 years
until the company closed it down, even after the lawsuit was
filed.

"I trusted in my faith in God to certainly have the patience and
strength to follow and see it through," Mr. McClain said.  "I
stayed with the company until it closed the trailer plant.  Since
I retired I have certainly continued my ministry trying to help
people.  The final verdict was long overdue.  I'm glad for the
entire class -- for 1,000 people who suffered under conditions and
that they are receiving just compensation.

In 1999, the case became a class-action suit in 1999.  After years
of mediation, the case went to trial in 2003.

In 2005, U.S. District Judge Howell Cobb ordered Lufkin Industries
to "cease and desist" all racially-based assignment and promotion
practices and to make formal job training equally available to
all, a previous Lufkin News article reported.

Mr. McClain said that decision made Lufkin Industries a better
place, and hopefully other corporations will learn from Lufkin's
mistake.

"Lufkin is a better to place to work, but it goes beyond Lufkin
Industries," Mr. McClain said.  "As other companies and employers
see what this was all about, when they get on the internet and
read the news, then they find out you can not mistreat people
because of race, creed or color without paying a cost."

Lufkin Industries officials did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: No Appeals Filed From Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
No appeals were lodged from an appellate court decision dismissing
the consolidated securities class action captioned
Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association v. MEMC Electronic
Materials, 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.

On September 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association asserting
claims against MEMC and Nabeel Gareeb, MEMC's former Chief
Executive Officer.  On October 10, 2008, a substantially similar
putative class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Donald
Jameson against MEMC, Mr. Gareeb and Ken Hannah, MEMC's former
Chief Financial Officer and currently MEMC's Executive Vice
President and President-Solar Materials.  These cases purportedly
are brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of MEMC's
common stock between June 13, 2008 and July 23, 2008, inclusive.
Both complaints allege that, during the Class Period, MEMC failed
to disclose certain material facts regarding MEMC's operations and
performance, which had the effect of artificially inflating MEMC's
stock price in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").  Plaintiffs further
allege that Messrs. Gareeb and Hannah are subject to liability
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of
MEMC.  Plaintiffs seek certification of the putative class,
unspecified compensatory damages, interest and costs, as well as
ancillary relief.  On December 12, 2008, these actions were
consolidated, and the Court appointed Mahendra A. Patel as lead
plaintiff.  Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
February 23, 2009.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which was fully briefed by the
parties by June 24, 2009.  On March 8, 2010, the Court dismissed
the consolidated class action complaint with prejudice.  On March
31, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Oral argument for this
appeal occurred on April 12, 2011.  After hearing oral argument,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal with prejudice on June 17, 2011.  Plaintiffs did not
appeal the Eighth Circuit's decision to the United States Supreme
Court.

Based in St. Peter, Missouri, MEMC Electronic Materials Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells silicon wafers.  The Company
provides wafers in sizes ranging from 100 millimeters to 300
millimeters.  It offers wafers in three general categories: prime
polished, epitaxial and test/monitor.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a class action complaint in Missouri alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 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 December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of MEMC's 401(k) Savings Plan between
September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive.  The complaint
asserted claims against MEMC and certain of its directors,
employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain fiduciary
duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full
disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of investing in
MEMC's stock and that the Company's stock should not have been
made available as an investment alternative in the Plan.  The
misstatements alleged in the complaint significantly overlap with
the misstatements alleged in a federal securities class action.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the
present, inclusive.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in MEMC's stock, equitable relief and
an award of attorney's fees.  No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun.  The Company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009.  The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses. On March 17, 2010, the court denied the
motion to dismiss.  The MEMC defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for
interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as of
June 16, 2010.  The parties each subsequently filed notices
of supplemental authority and corresponding responses.  On October
18, 2010, the court granted the MEMC defendants' motion for
reconsideration, vacated its order denying the MEMC defendants'
motion to dismiss, and stated that it will revisit the issues
raised in the motion to dismiss after the parties supplement their
arguments relating thereto.  Both parties filed briefs
supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010.  On June 28,
2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal
from the action.  On June 29, 2011, the Court entered an order
withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in this action.  The
parties each have continued to file additional notices of
supplemental authority and responses thereto.

MEMC believes the class action is without merit, and will assert a
vigorous defense.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or
resolution of the foregoing class action proceedings or estimate
the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect to these
proceedings.

Based in St. Peter, Missouri, MEMC Electronic Materials Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells silicon wafers.  The Company
provides wafers in sizes ranging from 100 millimeters to 300
millimeters.  It offers wafers in three general categories: prime
polished, epitaxial and test/monitor.


METLIFE INC: Gov't.'s EME Homer City Environmental Case Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 4, 2011, the U.S. commenced a civil action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against EME Homer City Generation L.P., Homer City
OL6 LLC, and other defendants regarding the operations of the
Homer City Generating Station, an electricity generating facility.
Homer City OL6 LLC, an entity owned by MLIC, is a passive investor
with a noncontrolling interest in the electricity generating
facility, which is solely operated by the lessee, EME Homer City.
The complaint sought injunctive relief and assessment of civil
penalties for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and
Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan. The alleged violations
were the subject of Notices of Violations that the Environmental
Protection Agency issued to EME Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC,
and others in June 2008 and May 2010. On January 7, 2011, the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted the motion by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection and the State of New York to intervene in
the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs. On February 16, 2011, the
State of New Jersey filed an Intervenor's Complaint in the
lawsuit. On January 7, 2011, two plaintiffs filed a putative class
action titled Scott Jackson and Maria Jackson v. EME Homer City
Generation L.P., et al. in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a putative class
of persons who have allegedly incurred damage to their persons
and/or property because of the violations alleged in the action
brought by the U.S.  Homer City OL6 LLC is a defendant in this
action. On October 12, 2011, the court issued an order dismissing
the Government's lawsuit with prejudice. On October 13, 2011, the
court issued an order dismissing the federal claims in the
putative class actions with prejudice and dismissing the state law
claims in the putative class actions without prejudice to re-file
in state court. EME Homer City has acknowledged its obligation to
indemnify Homer City OL6 LLC for any claims relating to the NOVs.
Due to the acknowledged indemnification obligation, this matter is
not included in the aggregate estimate of range of reasonably
possible loss, according to MetLife's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

MetLife is a leading global provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan,
Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.


METLIFE INC: Unit Continues to Defend Total Control Accounts Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s unit continues to defend itself from putative
class action lawsuits arising from its use of retained asset
accounts, known as Total Control Accounts, according to the
Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

                  Total Control Accounts Litigation

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a defendant in lawsuits
related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total
Control Accounts, as a settlement option for death benefits. The
lawsuits include claims of breach of contract, breach of a common
law fiduciary duty or a quasi-fiduciary duty such as a
confidential or special relationship, or breach of a fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

   * Clark, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D.
     Nev., filed March 28, 2008).  This putative class action
     lawsuit alleges breach of contract and breach of a common law
     fiduciary and/or quasi-fiduciary duty arising from use of the
     TCA to pay life insurance policy death benefits.  As damages,
     plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between the
     interest paid to the account holders and the investment
     earnings on the assets backing the accounts. In March 2009,
     the court granted in part and denied in part MLIC's motion to
     dismiss, dismissing the fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
     claims but allowing a breach of contract claim and a special
     or confidential relationship claim to go forward. On
     September 9, 2010, the court granted MLIC's motion for
     summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed this order to the
     United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
     will hear oral argument on the appeal on November 17, 2011.

   * Faber, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
     (S.D.N.Y., filed December 4, 2008).  This putative class
     action lawsuit alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the
     settlement option under group life insurance policies
     violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages,
     plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between the
     interest paid to the account holders and the investment
     earnings on the assets backing the accounts. On October 23,
     2009, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss with
     prejudice. On August 5, 2011, the United States Court of
     Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
     complaint. Plaintiffs have filed a petition for a rehearing
     or rehearing en banc with the Second Circuit.

   * Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D.
     Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to
     federal court on September 7, 2010).  This putative class
     action lawsuit raises a breach of contract claim arising from
     MLIC's use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under
     the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program. As
     damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference
     between the interest paid to the account holders and the
     investment earnings on the assets backing the accounts. In
     September 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
     certification of the breach of contract claim, which the
     court has stayed. On April 28, 2011, the court denied MLIC's
     motion to dismiss.

The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss arising from the TCA matters.

MetLife is a leading global provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan,
Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.


METLIFE INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Roberts" Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s unit, Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company,
continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit
captioned as Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al.
in New York, according to the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The lawsuit titled Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties,
et al. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed January 22, 2007) was filed
by a putative class of market rate tenants at Stuyvesant Town and
Peter Cooper Village against parties including Metropolitan Tower
Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity
Company.  Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company has merged
into MTL and no longer exists as a separate entity. These tenants
claim that MTL, as former owner, and the current owner improperly
deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax abatements. The
lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent overcharges.
Although the tenants allege over $200 million in damages in the
complaint, MTL strongly disputes the tenants' damages amounts. In
October 2009, the New York State Court of Appeals issued an
opinion denying MTL's motion to dismiss the complaint. The lawsuit
has returned to the trial court where MTL continues to vigorously
defend against the claims. The Company believes adequate provision
has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all
probable and reasonably estimable losses for this lawsuit. It is
reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure may be
greater than the liability currently accrued and that future
charges to income may be necessary. Management believes that the
Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole will not be
materially affected by any such future charges.

MetLife is a leading global provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan,
Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.


METLIFE INC: Unit Awaits Outcome on Bid to Dismiss "Haviland" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is awaiting the outcome of its
motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
according to MetLife, Inc.'s November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

The lawsuit captioned Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on
July 22, 2011) was filed by 45 retired General Motors employees
against MLIC and includes claims for conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, and unfair trade
practices, based upon GM's 2009 reduction of the employees' life
insurance coverage under GM's ERISA-governed plan. The complaint
includes a count seeking class action status. MLIC is the insurer
of GM's group life insurance plan and administers claims under the
plan. According to the complaint, MLIC had previously provided
plaintiffs with a "written guarantee" that their life insurance
benefits under the GM plan would not be reduced for the rest of
their lives. MLIC has removed the case to federal court based upon
complete ERISA preemption of the state law claims and on
September 19, 2011, filed a motion to dismiss.

MetLife is a leading global provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan,
Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. continues to defend itself against claims, including
class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of
individual life insurance policies, according to the Company's
November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Over the past several years, the Company has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current
cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble
damages and attorneys' fees. The Company continues to vigorously
defend against the claims in these matters. The Company believes
adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial
statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for
sales practices matters.


MF GLOBAL: Former Employees File Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. de la Merced, writing for DealBook, reports that former
employees of MF Global sued the failed brokerage firm on Nov. 14
in separate lawsuits, arguing that they were laid off in violation
of labor laws and seeking class-action status.

In their complaints, filed in federal bankruptcy court in
Manhattan, the plaintiffs accused MF Global of not following the
terms of a federal law that requires a company to provide 60 days'
written notice of upcoming mass layoffs.  They also cite a similar
New York law that requires 90 days' notice.

MF Global announced on Nov. 11 that it would lay off 1,066
employees in its core brokerage unit, as the firm is eventually
wound down in its Chapter 11 proceeding.  The layoffs, which
account for nearly all of MF Global's employees in the United
States, were made nearly two weeks after the firm filed for
bankruptcy.

The trustee overseeing the liquidation of MF Global's brokerage
unit, James W. Giddens, said last week that the job cuts were
meant "to preserve assets and identify and marshal other property
to maximize the estate in a manner that is fair to all customers
and other creditors."

Both Mr. Giddens and other regulators are trying to account for
money missing from MF Global's customer accounts, a shortfall of
just under $600 million.

Under the terms of the layoffs announced last week, employees did
not receive severance pay, though they will be paid salary through
Nov. 15.  They will also receive health benefits through the end
of the month.

The latest accusations against MF Global were laid out in two
separate lawsuits.  One was brought by Todd Thielmann, a vice
president in credit risk management in New York, and Pierre-Yvan
Desparois, a floor broker in Chicago.  The other was brought by
Natalia Sivova, whose position wasn't disclosed.

The complaint by Mr. Thielmann and Mr. Desparois didn't name as a
defendant MF Global Inc., the legal entity that includes the
brokerage arm where the layoffs were made.  The complaint by
Ms. Sivova does include the brokerage as a defendant.

Another employee, Anthony Abruzzo, sued MF Global and its
brokerage arm on Nov. 11.

The lawsuits seek at least 60 days' worth of unpaid wages, bonuses
and commissions, holiday and vacation pay and pension or 401(k)
contributions.

A spokeswoman for MF Global, Tiffany Galvin, declined to comment.

A spokesman for the trustee overseeing the liquidation of MF
Global's brokerage, Kent Jarrell, said in a statement: "The
trustee acted appropriately in connection with the termination of
employees as part of the court-mandated liquidation and wind down
of MF Global Inc."


MGM RESORTS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit pending in California, 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.

A lawsuit captioned Lori Zaragoza v. MGM MIRAGE, Inc. and MGM
Resorts International, Case No. BC 461912, was filed in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court on May 18, 2011.  This putative
class action complaint alleges that during the one year prior to
the filing, defendant's call center reservation agents monitored
and recorded consumer telephone calls for hotel room and other
hospitality-related bookings, without prior notice to plaintiff
and other California consumers in violation of various provisions
of the California Penal Code.  The plaintiff seeks certification
of a class action, compensatory damages including consequential or
statutory damages pursuant to California Penal Code Section 637.2,
whichever is greater, injunctive relief, prejudgment interest and
costs of suit.  The Company contests that the complaint has merit
and will vigorously defend itself against the claims in this
lawsuit. Based on fact investigation conducted to date in this
case, defendant does not expect to incur a material loss with
respect to the case.

                         About MGM Resorts

MGM Resorts International (NYSE: MGM) --
http://www.mgmresorts.com/-- has significant holdings in gaming,
hospitality and entertainment, owns and operates 15 properties
located in Nevada, Mississippi and Michigan, and has 50%
investments in four other properties in Nevada, Illinois and
Macau.


MIO SUSHI: Faces Class Action Over Fraud & FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the owners of the Mio Sushi chain steal employees' tips, violate
other laws and menace and intimidate anyone who threatens to
report them for it.

A copy of the Complaint in Konkel, et al. v. Kim, et al., Case No.
11-cv-01342 (D. Ore.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/14/RawDeal.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, PC
          240 Sixth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-2931
          Telephone: (503) 697-3427
          E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Denies N.J. AG's Objection to Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has denied New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow's objection
to a $6.5 million settlement reached with financial services
provider Morgan Stanley in a class action lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero wrote on Nov. 9 that he is not
persuaded that the relief requested by Ms. Dow is warranted.  The
settlement resolves allegations against Morgan Stanley stemming
from a bid-rigging scheme, though no proof has been offered that
the company took part in it.

Ms. Dow had argued that the notice of settlement sent to class
members was unfair because it required the class member to decide
whether to remain in the class before it could determine whether
it will receive any payment from the settlement fund, worth $4.95
million.

Also, it asked for unnecessary information from the class member,
Ms. Dow said, involving financial transactions.

"The notice states that a class member will be 'bound by all of
the court's decisions with respect to the settlement,'" a letter
sent by Ms. Dow's office to Judge Marrero in October said.  "The
notice is, however, silent about what 'claims are resolved by this
settlement,' i.e., the scope of the release.

"In order to determine the scope of the release, a class member
has to review the settlement agreement."

The class action lawsuit alleges a conspiracy among brokers and
providers in the sale of municipal derivatives.  More than 30
parties are alleged to have taken part.

Ms. Dow received a notice of preliminary approval of the
settlement in August.  Many New Jersey-based governmental entities
are included in the class.

The interim co-lead plaintiffs attorneys disagreed with Dow's
concerns in a letter sent to Judge Marrero on Nov. 4.  Megan Jones
of Hausfeld LLP wrote that the language in the notice made it
clear what claims were being settled and that Ms. Dow's request is
without precedent in the Second Circuit.

She also compared the released-claims language to that which was
used by some state attorneys general in their notice of the opt-in
settlement with Bank of America.

"The class notice makes clear that all claimants falling within
the settlement class will receive a pro rata payment from the
settlement fund, and provides potential class members with the
means to determine whether they are included in that class," the
letter says.

"Thus, settlement class members are provided with the information
Attorney General Dow asserts is necessary -- whether they have an
eligible claim based on their status as settlement class members.

"To inform settlement class members that they risk receiving no
payment at all because they are not a member of the class (i.e.,
have no eligible claims), as the attorney general suggests, would
potentially mislead class members and is unnecessary."

A Star-Ledger report from Nov. 11 quotes sources who say Ms. Dow
is expected to leave her position by the end of the year to pursue
becoming a judge.


MORGAN STANLEY: Securities-Related Suit in New York Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit related to securities issued by Cheyne Finance,
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 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance.  The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned
to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and
misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the
risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed
securities held by the Cheyne SIV.

On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims
against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law
fraud.  On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  On July 20, 2010, the court granted
plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law
fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in
an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010.  Since the filing of
the initial complaint, various additional plaintiffs have been
added to the case.  The deadline for new plaintiffs to join the
case expired on March 11, 2011.  There are currently 15 plaintiffs
asserting individual claims related to approximately $983 million
of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV.  Plaintiffs have not
provided information quantifying the amount of compensatory
damages they are seeking and are also seeking unspecified punitive
damages.  Based on currently available information, the Company
believes that the defendants could incur a loss up to the amount
of plaintiffs' claimed compensatory damages, once specified,
related to their alleged purchase of approximately $983 million of
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV plus pre- and post-judgment
interest, fees and costs.


MORGAN STANLEY: Seeks Dismissal of "Coulter" Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley filed a motion to dismiss an amended class action
complaint filed on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k)
plan, 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 March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting
claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and
employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain
current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Action of
1974.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December
31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent
given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common
stock during that period.  Plaintiffs are seeking, among other
relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages,
costs, interest and fees.

On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On
October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: Awaits Ruling on "Stratte-McClure" Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley is awaiting a court ruling on the proposed
dismissal of the second amended class action complaint filed
against the Company 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 quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

On January 23, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California ordered that Joel Stratte-McClure, et al.
v. Morgan Stanley, et al., be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, where it is currently
pending.

Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint in this
action seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages
on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who
purchased shares of the Company's stock during the period June 20,
2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of
such purchases.  On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On April 4, 2011, the court presiding over the action granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file
an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations.
On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in
response to the court's order of April 4, 2011.  On August 8,
2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint
against Morgan Stanley 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.

On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act alleging, among other things, that the registration
statements and offering documents related to the offerings of
approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in
2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information
concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these
securitizations, and are seeking, among other relief, class
certification, unspecified compensatory and recessionary damages,
costs, interest and fees.  This case, which is styled West
Virginia Investment Management Board v. Morgan Stanley Capital I
Inc., et al., was filed in the SDNY and has been consolidated with
the case styled, Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi v. Morgan Stanley, et al.  The consolidated cases are
referred to collectively as In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificate Litig.

On September 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On August 17, 2010, the court presiding over the action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a
different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.  On
September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new
plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purports to
assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class
of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage
pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts
collectively containing residential mortgage loans.  The amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and alleges, among other
things, that the registration statements and offering documents
related to the offerings contained false and misleading
information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed
these securitizations. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and
recissionary damages, costs, interest and fees.  On October 11,
2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On September 15, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.  On
September 30, 2011, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
The third amended complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of
a class of investors who purchased residential mortgage pass
through certificates with an original unpaid balance of
approximately $2.8 billion issued by five RMBS trusts in 2006.  On
October 17, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: Agreement Reached in Lehman-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs
to settle an amended class action complaint filed against the
Company 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 quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On February 9, 2009, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the putative
class actions against the Company and other financial institutions
related to their role as alleged underwriters for securities
issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., previously pending in the
United States District Courts for the Western and Eastern
Districts of Arkansas and the Eastern District of New York, to the
SDNY, where they have been consolidated with other securities
claims in the SDNY under the caption In re: Lehman Brothers
Equity/Debt Securities Litigation.  Plaintiffs are asserting
Securities Act claims on behalf of a purported class and allege,
among other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents for certain Lehman offerings in 2007 and 2008 contained
false and misleading statements and seek, among other relief,
class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary
damages, costs, interest and fees.  On April 27, 2009, the Company
and the other underwriter defendants moved to dismiss these
claims.  The Company underwrote over $200 million of the principal
amount of the offerings at issue.

On March 17, 2010, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied without prejudice the
underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and
granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, which they
filed on April 23, 2010.  On July 27, 2011, the court issued an
opinion granting in part and denying in part the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On September 23, 2011, a group of underwriter defendants,
including the Company, reached an agreement in principle with the
class plaintiffs to settle this litigation.  The settlement
agreement has not yet been completed and will be subject to court
approval.


MORGAN STANLEY: Wins Dismissal of Virgin Islands Pension Fund Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated won dismissal of a class action
complaint filed by the Virgin Islands' pension fund, according to
Morgan Stanley'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 December 24, 2009, the Employees' Retirement System of the
Government of the Virgin Islands filed a purported class action
against the Company on behalf of holders of approximately $250
million of AAA rated notes issued by the Libertas III CDO in March
2007. The case is styled Employees' Retirement System of the
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint
asserts claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment and
alleges that the Company made misrepresentations regarding the AAA
ratings of the CDO notes and the credit quality of the collateral
held by the Libertas III CDO, and stood to gain if that collateral
defaulted. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and
costs. On March 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint.  On September 30, 2011, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: Intervenors File Appeal Brief in IndyMac Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed intervenors in the class action lawsuit styled In re
IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation filed an initial
brief in support of their appeal from a court ruling denying their
motion to intervene, according to Morgan Stanley'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 re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in
the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through
certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of
IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over
$1.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings originally
at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied
in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote
approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings
at issue following the court's June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17,
2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in
the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional
offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $1.2 billion of
the principal amount of the additional offerings subject to the
motion to intervene. The Company is opposing the motion to
intervene.

On November 2, 2011, proposed intervenors in In re IndyMac
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation filed their initial
appellate brief in support of their appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the order issued on
June 21, 2011, by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denying their motion to intervene.


NETBANK INC: Judge OKs $12.5MM Investors' Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Palmer at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that U.S. District
Judge Timothy C. Batten on Wednesday approved a $12.5 million
settlement in a class action targeting NetBank Inc. and executives
for allegedly defrauding investors by not disclosing the bank's
true condition before its takeover by federal regulators and
subsequent liquidation.

Law360 relates that Judge Batten approved the terms set in a
stipulation filed by the parties in July, finding that "the
settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate and
in the best interest of the class."

                        About NetBank Inc.

Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, NetBank Inc. --
http://www.netbank.com/-- is a financial holding company of
Netbank, the United States' oldest Internet bank serving retail
and business customers in all 50 states.  NetBank Inc. did
retail banking, mortgage banking, business finance, and provided
ATM and merchant processing services.

The Company filed for chapter 11 protection (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case
No. 07-04295) on Sept. 28, 2007.  Alan M. Weiss, Esq., at
Holland & Knight LLP, represents the Debtor.  Rogers
Towers, Esq. at Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, represents the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

Clifford Zucker serves as the Liquidating Supervisor for NetBank
under the terms of a Second Amended Liquidating Plan confirmed in
Sept. 2008, and is represented by Michael D. Langford, Esq., and
Shane G. Ramsey, Esq., at Kilpatrick Stockton LLP in Atlanta, Ga.

As of Sept. 25, 2007, the Debtor reported total assets of
$87,213,942 and total debts of $42,245,857.  As of August 31,
2008, NetBank, Inc., had total assets of $13,807,207 and total
liabilities of $34,607,868.


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Certification of "Wass" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NPC International, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its opposition to
a certification request for a class of delivery drivers in a class
action complaint alleging labor law violations, 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
27, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Wass and
Mark Smith, et al. v. NPC International, Inc., Case No. 2:09-CV-
2254-JWL-KGS, in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas.  The lawsuit alleges a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of plaintiffs and similarly
situated workers employed by NPC in 28 states, and a class action
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
Plaintiff Smith and similarly situated workers employed in states
in which the state minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum
wage.  The lawsuit alleges among other things that NPC deprived
plaintiffs and other NPC delivery drivers of minimum wages by
providing insufficient reimbursements for automobile and other
job-related expenses incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's
pizza and other food items.

On March 28, 2011, the court granted conditional collective action
certification under the FLSA.  Unlike a class action, a collective
action requires potential class members to "opt in" rather than
"opt out."  On April 27, 2011, a third-party administrator mailed
a notice to approximately 33,615 potential opt-ins.  On or about
July 15, 2011, the third-party administrator mailed a notice to an
additional 5,682 potential opt-ins.  The opt-in period for the
first group closed on July 26, 2011.  The period for the second
group of opt-ins closed on or about October 11, 2011.  As of
October 12, 2011, approximately 5,588 opt-in notices have been
returned.  The parties have not yet briefed whether each notice
was timely filed and reflects eligible drivers.

On March 23, 2011, in response to NPC's summary-judgment motion,
Plaintiffs' filed an expert declaration in relation to NPC's
reimbursement model.  On April 14, 2011, the Court ruled that it
would hold the NPC summary-judgment motion in abeyance until the
merits process is completed.  The Court has set a trial date of
November 1, 2012.

On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a Rule 23 motion seeking
certification of a class of delivery drivers in each of the
following eight states in which the state minimum wage is higher
than the federal minimum wage: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,
Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon and Washington.  Because
Plaintiffs have moved for certification under Rule 23, the classes
they seek would be opt-out classes.  On September 21, 2011, NPC
filed its opposition to plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion. Plaintiffs'
filed their reply on October 21, 2011.

At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of
the lawsuit, any possible loss or possible range of loss
associated with the lawsuit or any potential effect on the
Company's business, results of operations or financial condition.
However, the Company believes the lawsuit is wholly without merit
and will defend itself from these claims vigorously.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, NPC International, Inc.,
is the largest Pizza Hut franchisee operating 1,143 units in 28
states with concentrations in the Midwest, Southern and
Southeastern regions of the United States.


OLYMPUS CORP: Sarraf Gentile Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, against Olympus Corporation.  The action
is brought on behalf of purchasers of Olympus American Depository
Receipts between November 7, 2006 and November 7, 2011, inclusive.
The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a);
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.  Olympus and certain of its directors and officers are
named as defendants.

According to the Complaint, Olympus, a Japanese manufacturer of
imaging systems, falsely represented its finances for over five
years and hid large losses by characterizing them in its
financials as "fees" paid to investment advisers for work on
corporate acquisitions.  Olympus' false statements and material
omissions, according to the Complaint, artificially inflated its
stock price and investors suffered heavy losses after Olympus
disclosed the truth about its financial statements on November 7,
2011.  Investors' American Depository Receipts dropped
dramatically from $13.72 on November 7, 2011, the last day of the
Class Period, to $9.05 on November 8, 2011, or 34%. Olympus' top
executives resigned in what has become a financial scandal in
Japan.  Recently, on its webpage, Olympus admitted discovering
that it had been wrongfully "engaging in activities such as
deferring the posting of losses on investment securities."
Olympus offered its "deepest apologies" to shareholders for the
"inconvenience" caused by the fall of its share price.  In the
U.S., the SEC and FBI are investigating Olympus.

If you purchased Olympus American Depository Receipts during the
Class Period, you have 60 days from Nov. 14 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff, a representative of the proposed
class.  If you want to discuss your legal rights, at no cost and
without obligation, please contact:

        Joseph Gentile, Esq.
        SARRAF GENTILE LLP
        450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1900
        New York, NY 10123
        Telephone: (212) 868-3610
        E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com
        Web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com


ORACLE: Settles Overtime Class Action  for $35 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kunert, writing for Channel Register, reports that Oracle
will cough up $35 million to resolve a class-action dispute with
1,725 of its workers in the US over unpaid overtime and meal
allowances.

The superior court in Alameda County, California last week gave
preliminary backing to the settlement, according to Goldstein,
Demchak, Baller, Borgen and Dardarian -- the legal eagles
representing the claimants.

The case centered on allegations made by quality software
assurance engineers, customer support engineers and project
managers who worked for Oracle and Peoplesoft in Redwood City and
Pleasanton from 2003 to 2006.

"The plaintiffs allege that Oracle failed to pay them and the
certified class required overtime pay and provide proper off-duty
meal periods," the law firm stated.

California County law states that staff working more than eight
hours a day or 40 hours in a week are eligible for time-and-a-
half.  But Oracle wrongly classified the three groups of workers
as administrative roles, making them exempt from the payments.

The software giant did not change its overtime policy for customer
support engineers and project managers until 2007, though quality
assurance bods still do not qualify for overtime and the
settlement for them extends to November 2010.

A final hearing set for March will allow any workers to raise
objections or go after individual claims.

Oracle admits no liability.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. continues to defend itself from several
lawsuits, including purported class actions, alleging, among other
things, that it violated hotel occupancy tax ordinance, according
to the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

         Litigation Relating To Hotel Occupancy Taxes

The Company and its subsidiaries are party to various cases
brought by consumers and municipalities and other U.S.
governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and the
Company's merchant hotel business model. Some of the cases are
purported class actions, and most of the cases were brought
simultaneously against other online travel companies, including
Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline. The cases allege, among other
things, that the Company violated the jurisdictions' hotel
occupancy tax ordinance. While not identical in their allegations,
the cases generally assert similar claims, including violations of
local or state occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer
protection ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition
of a constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable
accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in some
cases, civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety
of forms, including: declaratory judgment, full accounting of
monies owed, imposition of a constructive trust, compensatory and
punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties
and costs, attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been
claimed, an order certifying the action as a class action. An
adverse ruling in one or more of these cases could require the
Company to pay tax retroactively and prospectively and possibly
pay penalties, interest and fines. The proliferation of additional
cases could result in substantial additional defense costs.

   * Montgomery County, Maryland: On July 20, 2011, the U.S.
     District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part
     and denied in part the defendant OTCs' motion to dismiss the
     County's complaint.

   * Town of Breckenridge, Colorado: On July 25, 2011, the Town of
     Breckenridge, Colorado on behalf of itself, and other
     similarly situated Colorado Home Rule Municipalities, filed a
     complaint in the District Court of Summit County, Colorado
     against various OTCs including Orbitz, LLC, Orbitz, Inc.,
     Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com), Trip
     Network, Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com), and Travelport Inc.
     (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.)
     alleging violations of the municipal ordinances, conversion,
     civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment.

   * Hamilton County, Ohio: On July 29, 2011, the U.S. District
     Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted in part and
     denied in part the defendant OTCs' motion to dismiss the
     County's complaint. In addition, the court denied plaintiff's
     motion to certify certain questions to the Ohio Supreme
     Court.

   * Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey: On August 2, 2011, the
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the U.S.
     District Court for the District of New Jersey's dismissal of
     the Township's complaint for lack of prudential standing. In
     addition, the court denied plaintiff's motion to certify
     certain questions to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  On
     August 24, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
     Circuit denied plaintiff's motion for rehearing the court's
     August 2, 2011 decision.

   * City of Baltimore, Maryland: On August 2, 2011, the U.S.
     District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part
     and denied in part the parties' motions for summary judgment.

   * Lawrence County, Pennsylvania: On August 3, 2011, the
     Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of
     the County's claim for back taxes due to its failure to
     exhaust administrative remedies; however, it reversed the
     dismissal of the County's declaratory relief claim.

   * Michigan Counties: On August 17, 2011, the defendant OTCs,
     including Orbitz, LLC, Orbitz, Inc., Trip Network, Inc.
     (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com), and Internetwork Publishing Corp.
     (d/b/a Lodging.com), reached a tentative settlement
     agreement with the counties of Genesee, Calhoun, Ingham, and
     Saginaw, Michigan.

   * City of San Diego, California: On September 6, 2011, the
     Superior Court for the State of California for Los Angeles
     County issued a peremptory writ of mandamus remanding the
     proceedings and directing the City of San Diego's hearing
     officer to withdraw his May 28, 2010 decision ruling that the
     OTCs are "operators" of hotels, and thus, liable for
     transient occupancy tax on the amount each OTC received as
     payment for its online travel related services.

   * City of Jacksonville, Florida: On September 19, 2011, the
     defendant OTCs, including Orbitz, Inc, Orbitz, LLC, Trip
     Network, Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com) and Internetwork
     Publishing Corp., Inc. (d/b/a Lodging.com), reached a
     tentative agreement to settle the remaining claim with
     Jacksonville, Florida.

   * Village of Rosemont, Illinois: On September 26, 2011, Orbitz,
     LLC and Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com) reached a
     settlement agreement with the Village of Rosemont, Illinois.

   * County of Nassau, New York: On September 26, 2011, the County
     of Nassau, New York filed a putative class action complaint
     in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Nassau against
     various OTCs including Travelport Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel
     Distribution Services Group, Inc.), Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a
     Cheaptickets.com), Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a
     Lodging.com), Orbitz LLC, and Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. (f/k/a
     Orbitz, Inc) asserting claims of violations of hotel tax
     laws, conversion, unjust enrichment and imposition of a
     constructive trust.

   * Palm Beach County, Florida: On September 28, 2011, Orbitz,
     Inc, Orbitz, LLC, Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a
     Cheaptickets.com), and Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a
     Lodging.com) reached a tentative settlement agreement with
     the County.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. is an online travel company that uses
innovative technology to enable leisure and business travelers to
search for and book a broad range of travel products and services.
Its brand portfolio includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, The Away
Network and Orbitz for Business in the United States; ebookers in
Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo based in Australia, which have
operations globally.


PHI INC: Appeal in "Superior" Suit Remains Pending in 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit commenced
by Superior Offshore International Inc. remains pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to PHI,
Inc.'s November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Superior Offshore International Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., ERA
Helicopters, LLC, Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group Inc., ERA
Aviation, Inc., and PHI, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00438 on
the docket of the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, is a purported class action filed on June 12, 2009, on
behalf of a class defined to include all direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico from the
defendants at any time from January 1, 2001, through December 31,
2005.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants acted jointly to
fix, maintain, or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter
services during time frame in violation of the federal antitrust
laws.  The plaintiff sought unspecified treble damages, injunctive
relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On September 14, 2010, the
Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss (filed on September 4,
2009) and dismissed the complaint.  On November 30, 2010, the
court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, limited
discovery to the new allegations, and established a schedule for
briefing dispositive motions.  The defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on February 11, 2011.  On June 23, 2011, the
court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, entered
final judgment in favor of the defendants, and dismissed all of
the plaintiff's claims.  On July 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit,
and on October 11, 2011, filed its appeal brief.

Given that plaintiff has not succeeded in advancing its claim
beyond dispositive motions, management currently believes that the
likelihood of loss to the Company from the litigation is remote.


PORSCHE: Faces Class Action Over Defective Boxsters Shaft
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court
class action claims Porsche Boxsters have a defective shaft ("the
IMS") that causes catastrophic engine failure, and that Porsche
knows of the defect but refuses to cover it under warranty.


POTPOURRI MANUFACTURERS: Sued Over Synthetic Cannabinoid
--------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that
after being arrested and charged with felony sale and distribution
of cannabinoid, a Louisiana convenience store owner has filed a
class action against the manufacturers of botanical potpourri,
which warranted that the products were free of the synthetic
cannabinoid.

Cannabinoids are a class of chemical compounds, the most notable
is tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the primary psychoactive compound
of cannabis, or marijuana.

Abdel En Nabut filed suit against Dascents, JNA Manufacturing,
Research Triangle Park Laboratories, Tulane Drug Analysis
Laboratory, LA 1 Wholesale, Mikes Worldwide Imports and India
Imports Inc. on Nov. 5 in federal court in New Orleans.

The defendants are manufacturers, distributors and vendors of
botanical potpourri, bath salt, and sache, which are marketed and
sold through convenience stores in Louisiana.

Mr. En Nabut states that he and his fellow store owners were
warranted that the products sold by them were free of "deleterious
ingredients" and not harmful to consumers.  Specifically, he
states that the defendants stated that the products did not
contain synthetic cannabinoid and provided laboratory
certifications showing that they were not in violation of
Louisiana laws.

The plaintiff and some of class member store owners were arrested
and their stock confiscated by Louisiana authorities and they were
charged with felony sale and distribution of cannabinoid.

The lawsuit is asking an aggregate amount of damages in excess of
$5 million for mental anguish, loss of business, loss of
reputation, uncompensated seizure of merchandise, arrest and
imprisonment or fear, potential loss of licenses and ability to
operate, interest, costs and attorney fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Lawrence D. Wiedemann of Wiedemann
Law Firm in Metairie and Salvatore G. Lovecchio in Boutte.  A jury
trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-02762


RIGHTNOW TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Face Merger-related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
RightNow Technologies, Inc. continues to face two putative class
action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with a subsidiary
of Oracle Corporation, according to the Company's November 4, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 23, 2011, the Company, OC Acquisition LLC referred to
as "Parent" and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle Corporation,
and Rhea Acquisition Corporation, referred to as MergerSubsidiary
and a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent,
entered into a Merger Agreement, pursuant to which, subject to
satisfaction or waiver of the conditions therein, Merger
Subsidiary will merge with and into RightNow, with RightNow
surviving as an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle. Under
circumstances defined in the Merger Agreement, the Company may be
required to pay a termination fee of $59.7 million if the Merger
Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances, including if
the Company accepts a superior acquisition proposal, and, under
certain other limited circumstances, the Company may be required
to pay Parent a separate fee of $18.3 million, which would be
credited against the Termination Fee. The Company may also be
required to reimburse Parent for up to $5.0 million of its out-of-
pocket expenses in connection with the transaction.  A description
of the Merger Agreement is contained in the Company's Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 24, 2011.

Concurrently with entering into the Merger Agreement, certain
directors, executive officers and stockholders of RightNow, who
collectively beneficially own 16.4% of the voting power of
RightNow common stock, entered into Voting Agreements with Parent
pursuant to which they agreed, among other things, to vote their
shares of RightNow common stock for the adoption of the Merger
Agreement and against any alternative proposal and against any
action or agreement that would frustrate the purposes of, or
prevent or delay the consummation of, the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement. A description of the Voting
Agreements is contained in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-
K filed with the SEC on October 24, 2011.

On October 25, 2011, and November 1, 2011, two purported
shareholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits
in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (Israni v.
RightNow Technologies, Inc. et al; and Coyne v. RightNow
Technologies, Inc. et al) naming RightNow and its directors, as
well as Oracle Corporation, OC Acquisition LLC and Rhea
Acquisition Corporation as defendants. The lawsuits concern
Oracle's and Rhea's proposed acquisition of the Company. The
complaints allege that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to take steps to maximize
the value of the Companyto its shareholders, and that Oracle and
Rhea Acquisition allegedly aided and abetted in this breach. The
complaints seek various equitable reliefs, including an injunction
preventing the proposed acquisition, rescission in the event the
acquisition is consummated, and an award of any demands resulting
from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Company intends
to defend these cases vigorously. There can be no assurance,
however, that the Company will be successful in its defense of
these actions. It is not known when or on what basis the actions
will be resolved.

RightNow Technologies, Inc. provides RightNow CXTM, a cloud-based
suite of customer experience software solutions for companies of
all sizes.


SINO-FOREST CORP: RCMP Investigation Won't Affect Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that lawyers
representing plaintiffs in a class action suit against Sino-Forest
Corp. say a rumored RCMP investigation into whether executives of
the company defrauded Canadian investors will have no impact on
how they will move forward with their action against it.

The Globe and Mail reported Nov. 10 that the probe will centre on
whether senior executives committed fraud by overstating the value
of the company's forest assets and its revenue.  However, the RCMP
neither confirmed nor denied a police probe of Sino-Forest.

"It's customary for them not to confirm or deny an investigation
is taking place," said Dimitri Lascaris, a partner at Siskinds
LLP.  Siskinds is one of the firms representing shareholders in
the class action lawsuit against Sino-Forest.  "They may have
actually been conducting some sort of investigation for months
now.  All I can say is based upon past experience, I don't think
investors can rely upon law enforcement in this country acting any
time soon and so we're going to have to do whatever we can in
civil proceedings to come to some kind of remedy."

Siskinds and Koskie Minsky LLP, counsel in the Sino-Forest
securities class action, served a statement of claim on the
company and others in August.  The class action raises questions
about how Sino-Forest conducted its business and the manner in
which it raised capital from public markets.  It alleges Sino-
Forest falsely maintained that its financial statements complied
with Canadian accounting principles and overstated the size and
value of its assets and revenue from the sale of them.

Mr. Lascaris said that while he encourages "governmental
investigation into matters of this nature," there have been
similar investigations with other companies but with little result
in the end.

"I think it's fair to say the number of convictions they've
secured and time they've taken has been unsatisfactory
historically," he said.

Sino-Forest is already being investigated by the Ontario
Securities Commission and by the company's own independent
committee.

The company, which operated in China but traded on the Toronto
Stock Exchange, has been under a black cloud since June, when
short-seller Muddy Waters LLC accused the company of multiple acts
of fraud.  Then in August, the OSC halted trading of the stock and
said that insiders at the company, including former chief
executive Allen Chan, committed acts that they "know or reasonably
ought to know perpetuate a fraud."

Before the fraud allegations surfaced, Sino-Forest had the largest
market value of any forestry firm on the Toronto Stock Exchange.


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Units Defend Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company's subsidiaries continue to defend against a
class action complaint relating to damages brought by Hurricane
Katrina, 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.

Common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief and property
damage allegedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions have become
more frequent, and courts have been debating whether private
parties and states have standing to bring such claims.  In another
common law nuisance case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi dismissed private party claims against
certain oil, coal, chemical, and utility companies alleging
damages as a result of Hurricane Katrina.  The court ruled that
the parties lacked standing to bring the claims and the claims
were barred by the political question doctrine.  In October 2009,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the
district court and held that the plaintiffs did have standing to
assert their nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims and none of
the claims were barred by the political question doctrine.  In May
2010, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the case based on procedural
grounds, reinstating the district court decision in favor of the
defendants.  On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied
the plaintiffs' petition to reinstate the appeal.  This case is
now concluded.  However, on May 27, 2011, a class action complaint
alleging damages as a result of Hurricane Katrina was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by
the same plaintiffs who brought the previous common law nuisance
case involving substantially similar allegations.  The current
litigation was filed against numerous chemical, coal, oil, and
utility companies (including Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power
Company, Gulf Power Company, and Southern Power Company -- all
subsidiaries of The Southern Company) and includes many of the
same defendants that were involved in the earlier case.  Each
Southern Company entity named in the lawsuit believes these claims
are without merit.  The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time.

Atlanta-based The Southern Company --
http://www.southerncompany.com/-- is an energy company serving
the Southeast.  A leading U.S. producer of electricity, Southern
Company businesses include electric utilities in four states and a
growing competitive generation company, as well as fiber optics
and wireless communications.


TEKELEC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tekelec continues to defend itself against a securities class
action lawsuit filed by purchasers of its stock in North Carolina,
according to its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On January 6, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On June 30, 2011, an amended complaint was
filed alleging the same causes of action. The case purports to be
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock
during the period February 11, 2010, to August 5, 2010. The
amended complaint generally alleges violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, claimed
misstatements or omissions regarding the Company's business and
prospects in India and for certain signaling products. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.

The Company says that it is in the very early stages of the
potential litigation, it is unable to predict the outcome of the
case or estimate a range of potential loss related to the matter.
Although the Company denies the allegations in the amended
complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defense, it is
unable to predict the outcome of the case.  The Company notes that
an adverse court determination in the purported class action
lawsuit against it could result in significant liability and could
have a material adverse effect on its business, results of
operations and financial condition.


TEMPLE-INLAND: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action complaint alleging violations of
antitrust laws, the Company disclosed in its November 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 1, 2011.

On September 9, 2010, the Company was one of eight containerboard
producers named as defendants in a class action complaint that
alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America
(N.D. Ill.).  The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning
in August 2005, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase
prices of containerboard products.  The alleged class is all
persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any
defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period August 2005 to November 2010.  The complaint seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class.  Four similar
complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois.  The Company disputes the allegations made
against it and intends to defend vigorously against this
litigation.  However, because this action is in its preliminary
stages, the Company is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss.

There were no significant changes to the status of this litigation
in first nine months 2011, the Company disclosed in its latest SEC
filing.

Organized in 1983, Temple-Inland Inc. manufactures corrugated
packaging and building products.


TEMPLE-INLAND: Defends Class Suits Over IP Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland is defending itself against class action lawsuits
relating to its merger agreement with International Paper Company,
according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2011.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been commenced by
purported Temple-Inland stockholders against Temple-Inland and the
members of the Temple-Inland Board.  Two of these lawsuits,
captioned Raul v. Doyle R. Simons, et al., Case No. 6690 (filed
July 22, 2011) (the "Raul Action"), and Kahn v. Temple-Inland,
Inc., et al., Case No. 6702 (filed July 25, 2011) (the "Kahn
Action"), are pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Pursuant
to an order dated August 5, 2011, the Raul Action and the Kahn
Action were consolidated, with the consolidated action
captioned as In re Temple-Inland, Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
Consolidated Case No. 6702-VCP.  The third putative class action
lawsuit, captioned Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System
v. Doyle R. Simons, et al., Case No. D-1-GN-11-2456 (filed August
16, 2011) (the "Washtenaw Action"), is pending in the District
Court of Travis County, Texas.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the members of the
Temple-Inland Board have breached their fiduciary duties by
refusing to negotiate with IP regarding its proposed acquisition
of Temple-Inland, failing to solicit alternative offers and
adopting the Rights Agreement.  The Raul Action and the Washtenaw
Action also purport to assert claims derivatively on behalf of
Temple-Inland.  The complaints variously seek an order declaring
that the Temple-Inland Board breached its fiduciary duties;
enjoining the company from initiating defensive measures; and
awarding costs and attorneys' fees and, in the Kahn Action,
compensatory damages.  These lawsuits were commenced prior to the
entering into of the Merger Agreement.

A fourth putative class action lawsuit, Buxton v. Temple-Inland
Inc. (filed September 14, 2011), has been filed in the
consolidated action cited.  This lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that the members of the Temple-Inland Board have breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a transaction with IP at an
unfair and grossly inadequate price and that the proxy statement
filed in connection with the transaction with IP is inadequate in
certain respects.

The Company believes the claims made in all these putative
shareholder class actions are without merit, and it intends to
defend them vigorously.

Organized in 1983, Temple-Inland Inc. manufactures corrugated
packaging and building products.


UNITED BANKSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Practices Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Bankshares, Inc., continues to defend itself against two
class action complaints relating to overdraft practices, 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, 2011, United Bankshares, Inc., and United Bank, Inc., of
West Virginia were named as defendants in two putative class
actions.  In the first putative class action, the plaintiffs seek
to represent a national class of United Bank, Inc. of West
Virginia customers allegedly harmed by United Bank's overdraft
practices relating to debit card transactions.  In the second
putative class action, the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
West Virginia residents allegedly harmed by United Bank's
overdraft practices relating to debit card transactions.  These
lawsuits are substantially similar to class action lawsuits being
filed against financial institutions nationwide.  With respect to
the second putative class action, in September of 2011, the West
Virginia state court ruled on a motion to dismiss filed by United
Bankshares, Inc., and United Bank, Inc. of West Virginia.
Although the West Virginia state court denied the motion as to
United Bank, Inc. of West Virginia, the motion was granted,
without prejudice, as to United Bankshares, Inc.  Otherwise, at
this stage of the proceedings, it is too early to determine if
these matters would be reasonably expected to have a material
adverse effect on United's financial condition.  United believes
there are meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in both
proceedings.

United Bankshares, Inc. -- http://www.ubsi-inc.com/-- with dual
headquarters in Washington, D.C. and Charleston, West Virginia, is
a bank holding company with full service banking offices in West
Virginia, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania.  United Bankshares stock is traded on the NASDAQ
National Market System under the quotation symbol "UBSI".


UNITED STATES: Keepseagle Settlement Meeting Set in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
Cherokee Phoenix reports that Native American farmers in northeast
Oklahoma were invited to a series of informational meetings with
representatives from the Keepseagle v. Unites States Department of
Agriculture settlement case.

Hosted by the Cherokee Nation, class action lawsuit
representatives were available from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Nov. 14-16.
in the Tsalagi Community Room, behind the Restaurant of the
Cherokees on the Tribal Complex in Tahlequah.  Representatives
will also be available from 9 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Nov. 17 in the
Tribal Services Conference Room in the Tribal Complex.

Settlement representatives will be providing Native farmers with
information to file discrimination claims against the USDA for
denying them equal access to credit in the USDA Farm Loan Program.

A $760 million settlement with the USDA was reached in the
Keepseagle v. Vilsack class action lawsuit.  The lawsuit claimed
that the USDA denied thousands of Native farmers and ranchers the
same opportunities as white farmers who attempted to get a farm
loan.  The lawsuit includes all Native farmers and ranchers who
attempted to farm between Jan. 1, 1981 and Nov. 24, 1999, while
trying to secure a loan from the USDA.  Farmers must have also
filed an oral or written complaint about discrimination to a USDA
representative or a tribal government.  Native farmers who qualify
as a class member may be eligible for a payment of up to $50,000
or more and forgiveness of some or all outstanding USDA loans.

For more information about the lawsuit, visit
http://www.indianfarmclass.com
For directions to the meetings, call 1-888-233-5506.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Shareholder Class Suit vs. PSI Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. PSI is a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against
Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. ("PSI"), which Universal Health
Services, Inc. acquired in November 2010, and its former directors
in 2009 alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The Company says it is uncertain at this time as to potential
liability and damages but intends to defend the case vigorously.
Should the Company been deemed liable in this matter, the Company
believes it would be entitled to commercial insurance recoveries
for amounts it paid, subject to certain limitations and
deductibles.

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.


VENTAS INC: Continues to Defend NHP-Related Suits in Calif. & Md.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ventas Inc. continues to defend itself against a number of
lawsuits pending in California and Maryland over its acquisition
of Nationwide Health Properties, 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.

In the weeks following the announcement of the Company's
acquisition of NHP on February 28, 2011, purported stockholders of
NHP filed seven lawsuits against NHP and its directors.  Six of
these lawsuits also named Ventas, Inc. as a defendant and five
named the Company's subsidiary, Needles Acquisition LLC, as a
defendant.  The purported stockholder plaintiffs commenced these
actions in two jurisdictions: the Superior Court of the State of
California, Orange County; and the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland.  All of these actions were brought as putative
class actions, and two also purport to assert derivative claims on
behalf of NHP.  All of these stockholder complaints allege that
NHP's directors breached certain alleged duties to NHP's
stockholders by approving the merger agreement with the Company,
and certain complaints allege that NHP aided and abetted those
breaches.  Those complaints that name Ventas, Inc. and Needles
Acquisition LLC allege that the Company aided and abetted the
purported breaches of certain alleged duties by NHP's directors.
All of the complaints request an injunction of the merger. Certain
of the complaints also seek damages.

In the California State Court, these actions were filed
purportedly on behalf of NHP stockholders: on February 28, 2011, a
putative class action entitled Palma v. Nationwide Health
Properties, Inc., et al.; on March 3, 2011, a putative class
action entitled Barker v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et
al.; and on March 3, 2011, a putative class action entitled Davis
v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al., which was
subsequently amended on March 11, 2011 under the caption Davids v.
Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al. Each action names NHP
and members of the NHP board of directors as defendants.  The
Barker and Davids actions also name Ventas, Inc. as a defendant,
and the Davids action names Needles Acquisition LLC as a
defendant.  Each complaint alleges, among other things, that NHP's
directors breached certain alleged duties by approving the merger
agreement between the Company and NHP because the proposed
transaction purportedly fails to maximize stockholder value and
provides the directors personal benefits not shared by NHP
stockholders, and the Barker and Davids actions allege that the
Company aided and abetted those purported breaches.  Along with
other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the
closing of the proposed merger.  On April 4, 2011, the defendants
demurred and moved to stay the Palma, Barker, and Davids actions
in favor of the parallel litigation in the Maryland State Court.
On April 27, 2011, all three actions were consolidated pursuant to
a Stipulation and Proposed Order on Consolidation of Related
Actions signed by the parties on March 22, 2011.  On May 12, 2011,
the California State Court granted the defendants' motion to stay.

In the Maryland State Court, these actions were filed purportedly
on behalf of NHP stockholders: on March 7, 2011, a putative class
action entitled Crowley v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et
al.; on March 10, 2011, a putative class action entitled Taylor v.
Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et. al.; on March 17, 2011, a
putative class action entitled Haughey Family Trust v. Pasquale,
et al.; and on March 31, 2011, a putative class action entitled
Rappoport v. Pasquale, et al. All four actions name NHP, its
directors, Ventas, Inc. and Needles Acquisition LLC as defendants.
All four actions allege, among other things, that NHP's directors
breached certain alleged duties by approving the merger agreement
between the Company and NHP because the proposed transaction
purportedly fails to maximize stockholder value and provides
certain directors personal benefits not shared by NHP stockholders
and that the Company aided and abetted those purported breaches.
In addition to asserting direct claims on behalf of a putative
class of NHP shareholders, the Haughey and Rappoport actions
purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of NHP, asserting
breaches of certain alleged duties by NHP's directors in
connection with their approval of the proposed transaction.  All
four actions seek to enjoin the proposed merger, and the Taylor
action seeks damages.
On March 30, 2011, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the
Maryland State Court entered an order consolidating the Crowley,
Taylor and Haughey actions.  The Rappoport action was consolidated
with the other actions on April 15, 2011.

On April 1, 2011, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the
Maryland State Court entered an order: (i) certifying a class of
NHP shareholders; and (ii) providing for the plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 19, 2011, which the
defendants moved to dismiss on April 29, 2011.  Plaintiffs opposed
that motion on May 9, 2011.  Plaintiffs moved for expedited
discovery on April 19, 2011, and the defendants simultaneously
opposed that motion and moved for a protective order staying
discovery on April 26, 2011.  The Maryland State Court denied
plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and granted defendants'
motion for a protective order on May 3, 2011. On May 6, 2011,
plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Maryland State Court's
grant of the protective order.  The Maryland State Court denied
the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on May 11, 2011.  On
May 27, 2011, the Maryland State Court entered an order dismissing
the consolidated action with prejudice.  Plaintiffs moved for
reconsideration of that order on June 6, 2011.

On June 9, 2011, the Company and NHP agreed on a settlement in
principle with the plaintiffs in the consolidated action pending
in Maryland State Court, which required the Company and NHP to
make certain supplemental disclosures to stockholders concerning
the merger.  The Company and NHP made the supplemental disclosures
on June 10, 2011.  The settlement is subject to appropriate
documentation by the parties and approval by the Maryland State
Court.

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

The Company continues to believe that each of these actions is
without merit.

Ventas, Inc., is a health care real estate investment trust
that owns 240 senior housing facilities, 187 skilled nursing
facilities, 40 hospitals and 135 medical office and other
healthcare facilities in 44 states and two Canadian provinces.
Nationwide Health Properties is a real estate investment trust
which invests in senior housing facilities, long-term care
facilities and medical office buildings.


VULCAN MATERIALS: July 2012 Trial Set in Suits vs. Florida Rock
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in two consolidated class actions alleging antitrust law
violations by Vulcan Materials Company's unit is scheduled for
July 2012, according to the Company's November 4, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries, Inc., has been
named as a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. The lawsuits were filed by several ready-mixed concrete
producers and construction companies against a number of concrete
and cement producers and importers in Florida. There are now two
consolidated amended complaints: (1) on behalf of direct
independent ready-mixed concrete producers, and (2) on behalf of
indirect users of ready-mixed concrete. The other defendants
include Cemex Inc., Tarmac America LLC, and VCNA Prestige Ready-
Mix Florida, Inc. The complaints allege various violations under
the federal antitrust laws, including price fixing and market
allocations. The Company has no reason to believe that Florida
Rock is liable for any of the matters alleged in the complaint,
and the Company is defending the case vigorously. Discovery is
ongoing. Trial is scheduled for July 2012.

Vulcan Materials Company provides the basic materials for the
infrastructure needed to expand the U.S. economy.


VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit in Pending West Virginia Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company continues to face a purported class
action captioned Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et al.,
pending in West Virginia, according to the Company's November 4,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A purported class action case for medical monitoring and personal
injury damages styled Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et
al., is pending in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West
Virginia. The plaintiffs allege various personal injuries from
exposure to perc used in coal sink labs. By Order dated
September 20, 2011, the Court denied class action certification.

Vulcan Materials Company provides the basic materials for the
infrastructure needed to expand the U.S. economy.


WALTER ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Class Action Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a putative civil class action lawsuit against
Walter Coke Inc. is pending, according to Walter Energy Inc.'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 Walter Coke were named in a suit filed by Louise
Moore on April 26, 2011 (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and
Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  This is a putative
civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising from the
alleged presence on properties of substances, including arsenic,
BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of
current and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the
companies and/or their predecessors.  This action is still in the
earliest stages of litigation.

On June 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
eliminating Walter Energy as a defendant and amending the claims
alleged against Walter Coke to relate to Walter Coke's alleged
conduct for the period commencing after March 2, 1995.  Based on
initial evaluation, management believes that both procedural and
substantive defenses are available to the Company and Walter Coke
expects to vigorously defend this matter.  No specific dollar
value has been claimed in the suit's demand for monetary damages.
On June 20, 2011, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss which, was
heard on October 28, 2011.  As of November 7, 2011, a ruling has
not been received.


WALTER ENERGY: Motion for Class Certification Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the motion to certify claims against Western Coal
Corp. as class actions is set for June 2012, according to Walter
Energy Inc.'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 November 2009, Western Coal Corp. was named as a defendant in a
statement of claim issued by a plaintiff who seeks leave of the
Ontario Courts to proceed with a securities class action. This
claim also named Western Coal Corp.'s former President and
director, John Hogg, and two of its non-executive directors, John
Brodie and Robert Chase, as defendants.

The plaintiff subsequently delivered an amended claim that added
new allegations that seeks to have the amended claim certified as
a class action separately from the proposed securities class
action allegations.  The new allegations focused on certain
transactions the plaintiff claims were oppressive and unfair to
the interests of shareholders.  The amended claim included
additional defendants of Western Coal Corp.'s former Chairman,
John Byrne, its remaining non-executive directors John Conlon and
Charles Pitcher, Audley European Opportunities Master Fund
Limited, Audley Capital Management Limited, and Audley Advisors
LLP.

The proposed securities claims allege that those persons who
acquired or disposed of Western Coal Corp. shares between
November 14, 2007 and December 10, 2007 should be entitled to
recover $200 million for general damages and $20 million in
punitive damages.  The plaintiff alleges that Western Coal Corp.'s
consolidated financial statements for the second quarter of fiscal
2008 and the accompanying news release issued on November 14, 2007
misrepresented the financial condition and that Western Coal Corp.
failed to make full, plain and true disclosure of all material
facts and changes.

The plaintiff's oppression claims are advanced in respect of
security holders in the period between April 26, 2007 and July 13,
2009.  The claims are that the defendants caused Western Coal
Corp. to enter into transactions that had a dilutive effect on the
interests of shareholders.  The damages associated with these
alleged dilutive effects have not been developed or quantified.

The plaintiff's motions to proceed with securities claims and also
to certify the securities and oppression claims as class actions
were rescheduled to allow the plaintiff additional time to answer
the Company's position.  This has now been done.  The hearing
dates are set for June 2012.

Western Coal Corp. and the other named defendants continue to, and
will vigorously defend the allegations.  They maintain that there
is no merit to the claims and that the damages are without
foundation and excessive.  Accordingly, the Company has made no
provision for the claims in its financial statements.


                           *********

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  * * *