CAR_Public/111118.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 18, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 229

                             Headlines

ACCURAY INC: Continues to Await Final Judgment in Securities Suit
ADAMS GOLF: Trial Date Set for Feb. 22 in Suit vs. Thilman
AMERICAN APPAREL: Motions to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales Practices
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Gaer" Suit

ASIANINFO-LINKAGE: Appeal in IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over "Excess" Flood Insurance Coverage
BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Defends Securities Lawsuit in Tennessee
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in IPO Suit Remains Pending
BPI SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Diet Supplement Health Risks

BRIGHAM EXPLORATION: Faces Suits Over Proposed Sale to Statoil
CALAMOS ASSET: Appeals From Dismissal of ARPS Suits Still Pending
CENTER FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Deal in Merger-Related Suit
CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
CNET: Coalition of Artists File Class Action

FBR & CO: Appeal in Thornburg Mortgage Class Suit Still Pending
FBR & CO: Brokerage Unit Still Faces Class Action Suit in Colorado
FBR & CO: Brokerage Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Florida
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP: Faces Class Action Over Bus Service Fee
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Block & Leviton Files Class Action

GMX RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Oklahoma
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Former Employees File Class Action
ICG GROUP: Hayes' Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Order Pending
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in "Citiline" Suit in N.Y.
KING ARTHUR: Sued Over Misleading "All Natural" Product Labels

LEASE FINANCE: Accused of Fraud by Small Businesses
LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From "Molina" Suit Award Remains Pending
LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: No Appeals Filed in Dismissed Securities Suit
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Appeal
MAGNESIUM ELEKTRON: Faces Class Action Over 2010 Plant Explosion

MF GLOBAL: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer Files Securities Class Action
MICHAELS STORES: Recalls 29,800 Ashland Brand Glass Vases
MONEY MART: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Compensation
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Taxes
NAT'L BASKETBALL ASST'N: NBA Players Mull Antitrust Class Action

NAT'L BASKETBALL ASST'N: Faces Class Action Over Price-Fixing
NELNET INC: Nov. 22 Hearing Set for Motion to Reconsider Stay
OLYMPUS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Pennsylvania
ORIENT EXPRESS: Final Hearing on Wage Suit Deal Set for Jan. 2012
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $1.5 Million

PROGRESS ENERGY: Expects Court Ruling on Settlement This Month
PROGRESS ENERGY: Units Still Defend Hurricane Katrina Suit
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: MDL Panel Denied Consolidation Bid in Aug.
ROSETTA STONE: Awaits Court Okay of Wage & Hour Suit Settlement
ROSETTA STONE: Securities Class Suit in Virginia Dismissed

ROTO-ROOTER: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Sales Practices
SOUTHERN STAR: Price Litigations I and II Remain Pending
STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Judge Keeps Foster Care Class Certification
STEC INC: Trial in Consolidated Securities Suit Set for July 24
STEC INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.

STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Suits Still in Discovery Stage
STEINER LEISURE: Defends Class Suit vs. Unit in California
STEREOTAXIS INC: Defends Securities Class Action in Missouri
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over VD Testing on Guatemalans
URS CORP: Continues to Defend Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits

VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Merix-Related Suit Settlement
WEB.COM GROUP: Appeals in Consolidated Suit vs. Unit Pending
WELLS REIT: Units Continue to Defend Securities Litigation in Md.
WHIRLPOOL: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dishwashers
WILSHIRE BANCORP: Class Action in California Still Pending

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: T2 G.C., Gramek Penalized for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: Rochefort Fined After Exposing Worker to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Has $65MM Reserve for Claims at Oct. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Completes New Legacy Exposures Study
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Has $8.56MM Sept. 30 Current Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $26.25MM Charge at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corporation Still Has Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Claims v. Dana Drop to 26T at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Records $50MM Insurance Asset at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Still Named in Liability Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $36.71MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Colfax Surged to 22,512 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reserves $413.3MM for Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Named in Pending Asbestos Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Estimates $649MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Named in 1,102 Actions at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Subject to Lawsuits in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola, Aqua-Chem File Claim v. 3 Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Subject to Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Filter Cases Still Pending v. Lorillard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Named in 2T Asbestos, Silica Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Posts $139MM Current Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 104,715 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Posts $50MM Sept. 30 Pre-Tax Charge

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Goulds Pumps Action Set for This Month
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Long-Term Liabilities at $1.552-Bil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds Units Still Subject to Parsons Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 25 Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Subject to Occupational Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Units Continue to Face Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hongersmeier's Case v. Illinois Central Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richter's Lawsuit v. 30 Firms Filed on Oct. 21
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nev. Schools to Comply With Asbestos Regulations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $28,196 Fine on New Beginnings Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J C Irvine Fined for Exposing Workers to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Complaint v. Harron Filed Oct. 19 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waltham Nurse's Death Due to Exposure to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Humberston Man's Kin Gets "Substantial" Payout

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Policeman's Widow Seeks Help in Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Hartlepool Council Boss, Pals Face Jail Time
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz & Luxenberg Gets Payout for Navy Veteran
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Group Lauds AU$2MM Award in Lowes Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Expects to Increase A&E Reserves by $10MM




                          *********

ACCURAY INC: Continues to Await Final Judgment in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Accuray Incorporated continues to await final judgment on a
settlement resolving a consolidated securities class action
complaint, which judgment is expected this month, the Company
disclosed in its November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On July 22, 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.  On August 7, 2009 and August 9, 2009, two
securities class action complaints, both similar to the one filed
on July 22, 2009, were filed against the same defendants in the
same court.  These three actions were consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding its operations and seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.  On August 31, 2010, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and granted
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.  On September 27,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint
names the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors as defendants and generally alleges that the
defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding
its operations.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  On April 28, 2011, the parties filed a
stipulation of settlement with the court, providing for the
settlement of the litigation for a payment of $13.5 million which
will be covered by insurance.  The court preliminarily approved
the settlement on June 10, 2011.  A hearing on the terms of the
settlement was held on September 1, 2011.  A final judgment is
expected in November of this year.

Accuray Incorporated designs, develops and sells the CyberKnife
system, which is an image-guided robotic radiosurgery system used
for the treatment of solid tumors anywhere in the body.


ADAMS GOLF: Trial Date Set for Feb. 22 in Suit vs. Thilman
----------------------------------------------------------
A February 22, 2012, trial date has been set in the lawsuit
commenced by Adams Golf, Inc., against its former insurance
broker, according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company maintains directors' and officers' and corporate
liability insurance to cover certain risks associated with, among
other things, securities law-based claims filed against the
Company or its directors and officers.  During the period covering
the Company's initial public offering, the Company maintained
insurance from multiple carriers, each insuring a different layer
of exposure, up to a total of $50 million.  In June 1999, a class
action lawsuit, which the Company settled in June 2010 and finally
resolved in June 2011, was filed against the Company concerning
its initial public offering.  The Company has met the financial
deductible of its directors' and officers' insurance policy for
the period covered by the lawsuit.  On
March 30, 2006, Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich"),
which provided insurance coverage totaling $5 million for the
layer of exposure between $15 million and $20 million, notified
the Company that it was denying coverage of claims in the class
action lawsuit because it was allegedly not timely notified of the
class action lawsuit.  On October 11, 2007, the Company filed a
lawsuit against its former insurance broker, Thilman & Filipini,
LLC ("T&F"), asserting various causes of action arising out of
T&F's alleged failure to notify Zurich of the class action
lawsuit.  T&F moved to dismiss the Company's lawsuit on the basis
that its lawsuit was premature in that the Company had not been
damaged because it had not paid any sums in satisfaction of a
judgment or settlement of the class action securities litigation.
That motion was denied pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated September 26, 2008.  On November 16, 2009, the Company filed
a Second Amended Complaint reasserting its causes of action
against T&F and adding Zurich as a defendant to the lawsuit,
asserting various causes of action against it arising out of its
denial of coverage for the class action lawsuit.

On June 13, 2011, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the
"State Court"), among other things: (i) granted a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment filed by the Company against Zurich
finding that Zurich had breached its contract with the Company;
(ii) denied Zurich's motion for summary judgment on the Company's
claim for violations of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims
statute; and (iii) dismissed the Company's claims for
misrepresentation and unfair claims settlement practices under
Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code.  These rulings are
interlocutory, which means the State Court is free to alter or
vacate the rulings.  If the rulings stand, the Company would be
entitled to recover from Zurich the sum of: (i) $5 million, (ii)
18% interest on that amount from the date of loss through the
entry of final judgment and (iii) reasonable attorneys' fees.  The
Company is also seeking consequential damages.  The amount of
consequential damages, if any, and attorneys' fees remain to be
resolved at the time of trial.  Given the preliminary nature of
the State Court's rulings, the amount, if any, that the Company
actually recovers from Zurich or its former insurance broker, T&F,
may vary materially from the amounts.  Any final judgment would
also be subject to an appeal, and any ultimate recovery in the
case would be subject to payment of the first $1.25 million of any
sums collected, net of fees and costs of lawsuit, to the class
action plaintiffs pursuant to the Company's settlement agreement
with them.  The trial date is set for February 22, 2012.  At this
point in the legal proceedings, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of the matter with any certainty.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Motions to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit against
American Apparel Inc. are pending, according to the Company's
November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

Four putative class action lawsuits, entitled Anthony Andrade v.
American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx), Douglas
Ormsby v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx),
James Costa v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106516 MMM
(RCx), and Wesley Childs v. American Apparel, et al., Case No.
CV106680 GW (JCGx), were filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on August 25, 2010, August
31, 2010, August 31, 2010, and September 8, 2010, respectively,
against American Apparel and certain of its officers and
executives on behalf of American Apparel shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between December 19, 2006 and
August 17, 2010. On December 3, 2010, the four lawsuits were
consolidated for all purposes into a case entitled In re American
Apparel, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352. On
March 14, 2011, the United States District Court appointed the
firm of Barroway Topaz, LLP to serve as lead counsel and Mr.
Charles Rendelman to serve as lead plaintiff. On April 29, 2011,
Mr. Rendelman filed an Amended Class Action Complaint against
American Apparel, certain of its officers, and Lion, alleging two
causes of action for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act, and Rules 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b), arising
out of alleged misrepresentations contained in its press releases,
public filings with the SEC, and other public statements relating
to (i) the adequacy of the Company's internal and financial
control policies and procedures; (ii) the Company's employment
practices; and (iii) the effect that the dismissal of over 1,500
employees following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
inspection would have on the Company.

Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable
attorneys fees and costs, and equitable relief as the Court may
deem proper. On May 31, 2011, Defendants filed motions to dismiss
the Federal Securities Action. A hearing on the motions was held
on September 12, 2011. The court took the matter under submission.
Discovery is stayed in the Federal Securities Action pending
resolution of motions to dismiss the Federal Securities Action.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company continues to
defend class action lawsuits alleging improper product design and
improper sales practices, according to the Company's November 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims.  The Company is currently a defendant in a
purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity
Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in
the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity
Practices and Sales Litigation, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division
(complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"),
involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar
claims.

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking
class action status for a national class of purchasers of
annuities issued by the Company; however, no class has yet been
certified.  The named plaintiffs in this consolidated case are
Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S.
Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through
Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean
and George Miller.  The allegations generally attack the
suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over
the age of 65.  The plaintiffs seek rescission and injunctive
relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf
of all class members under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust
enrichment and constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages
under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare &
Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq.

The Company disclosed that it participated in mediation sessions
with plaintiffs' counsel during the second and third quarters of
2011 and potential settlement terms are currently being discussed.
However, due to (i) the fact no class has been certified (ii) the
lack of specificity as to legal theories put forth by the
plaintiffs, (iii) the lack of specificity of the remedies sought,
and (iv) the lack of any basis on which to compute estimated
compensatory and/or punitive damages, the Company generally cannot
predict what the outcome of the pending purported class action
lawsuit will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of
this lawsuit will be, or an estimate and/or range of possible loss
related to the pending purported class action lawsuit.  In light
of the inherent uncertainties involved in the pending purported
class action lawsuit, there can be no assurance that such
litigation, or any other pending or future litigation, will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, or results of operations.


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Gaer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Public Education, Inc., continues to await a court ruling
on its motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed by
Donald N. Gaer in West Virginia, according to the Company's
November 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On August 12, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Wallace E. Boston, Jr., Frank B. McCluskey
and Harry T. Wilkins, in the United States Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia (Martinsburg Division), captioned
Douglas N. Gaer v. American Public Education, Inc. et al, C.A. No.
3:10 CV-81.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a
class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's stock
between February 22, 2010, to August 5, 2010.  The plaintiff
alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false
misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's
prospects, the Company's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but
has not, at this time, specified the amount of damages being
sought in this action.  In an order dated November 10, 2010,
Douglas Gaer and the City of Miami Firefighters' and Police
Officers' Retirement Trust were appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
lead plaintiffs' counsel was approved.  On January 25, 2011,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting the same statutory
claims against the Company, Boston and Wilkins.  On or about March
10, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.  On or about April 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss.  On May 16, 2011, the
defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion to
dismiss.  The parties are now awaiting a decision from the Court.

American Public Education, Inc. (NASDAQ: APEI) is an online
provider of higher education focused primarily on serving the
military and public service communities. American Public
University System (APUS), wholly owned by APEI, is comprised of
American Military University (AMU) and American Public University
(APU).


ASIANINFO-LINKAGE: Appeal in IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appellant from the final court approval of a settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit against AsianInfo-Linkage, Inc.,
seeks reconsideration of a ruling that he has no standing to
appeal, according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In December 2001, a securities class action case was filed in New
York City against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. federal
securities laws and was docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York as Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings,
Inc., et al.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly required their
customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to
agree to buy additional shares of the Company's common stock in
the aftermarket as conditions of their purchasing shares in the
Company's IPO.  The lawsuit further claimed that the alleged
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement.  The suit
seeks rescission of the plaintiffs' alleged purchases of the
Company's common stock as well as unspecified damages.  In
addition to the case against the Company, various other plaintiffs
have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially similar class
action cases (collectively, the "IPO Allocation Cases") against
approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO
underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against
the Company, have all been transferred to a single federal
district judge for purposes of case management.

In April 2009, the Company and most of the other issuer defendants
in the IPO Allocation Cases reached a definitive agreement with
the plaintiffs and the underwriter defendants to settle the IPO
Allocation Cases.  The agreement was filed with the court in April
2009 and a final approval was granted by the court in October
2009.  The final approval was subject to appeal until November
2009.  Ten appeals were filed objecting to the definition of the
settlement class and fairness of the settlement, five of which
have been dismissed with prejudice.  Two appeal briefs were filed
by the remaining objector groups, one of which was dismissed and
the other remanded to the District Court to determine whether the
appellant has standing to object to the settlement.  On August 25,
2011, the District Court issued a decision in the IPO Allocation
Cases holding that the last remaining appellant has no standing to
object to the settlement. The last remaining appellant has
appealed.

If the settlement is approved, the Company expects any damages
payable to the plaintiffs to be fully funded by its directors' and
officers' liability insurance policies.  If the litigation
proceeds, the Company intends to continue to defend the litigation
vigorously.  Moreover, if the litigation proceeds, the Company
believes that the underwriters may have an obligation to indemnify
the Company for the legal fees and other costs of defending this
suit and that its directors' and officers' liability insurance
policies would also cover the defense and potential exposure in
the suit.

AsiaInfo-Linkage Inc. is a provider of communications software
solutions and IT related services in China.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over "Excess" Flood Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Bank of America forces homebuyers to buy more flood insurance than
required by law, in violation of loan documents, through a former
subsidiary that pays BofA kickbacks.

A copy of the Complaint in Arnett, et ux. v. Bank of America,
N.A., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01372 (D. Ore.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/15/BofA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Shorr, Esq.
          Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
          Nadine A. Gartner, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          E-mail: sshorr@stollberne.com
                  tdejong@stollberne.com
                  ngartner@stollberne.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net
                  pmadden@bm.net


BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Defends Securities Lawsuit in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a securities class action complaint in Tennessee, the Company
disclosed in its November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In July 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court, Middle District of Tennessee, against the Company and
certain of its officers on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock.  The complaint alleges that the Company
and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, management, future business
prospects and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock,
the safety and efficacy of its product Augment(TM) Bone Graft, its
prospects for FDA approval and inadequacies in Augment's clinical
trials.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

Augment(TM) Bone Graft is a fully synthetic, off-the-shelf bone
growth factor product for the treatment of bone defects and
injuries.

If the Company is not successful in its defense of the class
action litigation, the Company could be forced to make significant
payments to, or enter into other settlements with, its
stockholders and their lawyers, and such payments or settlement
arrangements could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, operating results and financial condition.

The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims in the
class action litigation.  The outcome of these matters is
uncertain, however, and the Company cannot currently predict the
manner and timing of the resolution of the lawsuits, or an
estimate of a meaningful range of possible losses or any minimum
loss that could result in the event of an adverse verdict in the
lawsuits.  In connection with these claims, as of September 30,
2011, the Company recorded $262,500 for estimated legal defense
costs under its applicable insurance policies.

BioMimetic Therapeutics (NASDAQ: BMTI) is a biotechnology company
specializing in the development and commercialization of
clinically proven products to promote the healing of
musculoskeletal injuries and diseases, including therapies for
orthopedics, sports medicine and spine applications.  All Augment
branded products are based upon recombinant human platelet-derived
growth factor (rhPDGF-BB), which is an engineered form of PDGF,
one of the body's principal agents to stimulate and direct healing
and regeneration.


BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in IPO Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the consolidated litigation over initial public
offerings remains pending, according to Bottomline Technologies
(de), Inc.'s November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On August 10, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York: Paul Cyrek v. Bottomline Technologies, Inc.;
Daniel M. McGurl; Robert A. Eberle; FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc.; CIBC World Markets;
and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.  A consolidated amended class action
complaint, In re Bottomline Technologies Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, was filed on
April 20, 2002.

On November 13, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company's subsidiary, Optio Software Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York: Kevin Dewey
v. Optio Software, Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc.; Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.; FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,
Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.; Dain Rauscher Inc.; U.S.
Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.; C. Wayne Cape; and F. Barron Hughes.
A consolidated amended class action complaint, In re Optio
Software, Inc., Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, was
filed on April 22, 2002.

The amended complaints filed in both the actions against the
Company and Optio assert claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
amended complaints assert, among other things, that the
descriptions in the Company's and Optio's prospectuses for their
initial public offerings were materially false and misleading in
describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters of
the offerings, and in not describing certain alleged arrangements
among underwriters and initial purchasers of the common stock from
the underwriters.  The amended complaints seek damages (or, in the
alternative, tender of the plaintiffs' and the class's common
stock and rescission of their purchases of the common stock
purchased in the initial public offering), costs, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees and other expenses.

In July 2002, the Company and Optio joined in an omnibus motion to
dismiss, which challenged the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs'
claims.  The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and
individual defendants named in similar lawsuits.  On February 19,
2003, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss as
to Bottomline and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to
Optio.  In addition, in October 2002, Daniel M. McGurl, Robert A.
Eberle, C. Wayne Cape and F. Barron Hughes were dismissed from
this case without prejudice.  Both Bottomline and Optio authorized
the negotiation of a settlement of the pending claims, and the
parties negotiated a settlement, which was subject to approval by
the court.  On August 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On December 5, 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned
the District Court's certification of the class of plaintiffs who
are pursuing the claims that would be settled in the settlement
against the underwriter defendants.  Plaintiffs filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit on
January 5, 2007, in response to the Second Circuit's decision.  On
April 6, 2007, plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing of the Second
Circuit's decision was denied.  On June 25, 2007, the District
Court signed an order terminating the settlement.  On September
27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in
certain designated focus cases in the District Court.  That motion
was withdrawn.  Neither Bottomline nor Optio's cases are part of
the designated focus case group.

On November 13, 2007, the issuer defendants in the designated
focus cases filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended class action complaints that were filed in those cases.
On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order
denying, in large part, the motions to dismiss the amended
complaints in these focus cases.  On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary approval of a new proposed
settlement between plaintiffs, the underwriter defendants, the
issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer defendants.  On
June 10, 2009, the Court issued an opinion preliminarily approving
the proposed settlement, and scheduling a settlement fairness
hearing for September 10, 2009.  On
August 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval
of the proposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution
of the settlement fund, and certification of the settlement
classes.  The settlement fairness hearing was held on
September 10, 2009.  On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an
opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement
fund, and certification of the settlement classes.  An order and
final judgment was entered on November 25, 2009.  Various notices
of appeal of the Court's order have been filed.  On October 7,
2010, all but two parties who had filed a notice of appeal filed a
stipulation with the court withdrawing their appeals with
prejudice, and the two remaining objectors filed briefs in support
of their appeals.  On December 8, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to
dismiss with prejudice the appeal filed by one of the two
objectors based on alleged violations of the Second Circuit's
rules, including failure to serve, falsifying proofs of service,
and failure to include citations to the record.  On May 17, 2011,
the Second Circuit dismissed one of the appeals and remanded the
one remaining appeal to the District Court for further proceedings
to determine whether the remaining objector has standing.  On
August 25, 2011, the District Court concluded that the remaining
objector lacked standing.  On September 23, 2011, the remaining
objector filed a Notice of Appeal of the District Court's August
25, 2011 Order.  That appeal remains pending.

The Company says it and its subsidiary, Optio, intend to
vigorously defend themselves in these actions.  The Company does
not currently believe that the outcome of these proceedings will
have a material adverse impact on its financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows.


BPI SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Diet Supplement Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims Florida-based BPI Sports' bodybuilding and dietary
supplements "contain a dangerous amphetamine-like ingredient that
poses a serious health risk and has potentially life-threatening
side effects."

Named plaintiffs Clint Eskenski and Camden Brady describe lead
defendant BPI Sports as "an incredibly successful company which
manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells a variety of
purported dietary supplements to consumers.  BPI's best selling
products include '1.M.R' powder and tablets, 'RoxyLean ECA' and
'Rx6' (collectively, the 'products.') These products are purported
dietary supplements which are marketed for use as bodybuilding and
weight loss supplements.  1.M.R is marketed as a pre-workout
bodybuilding supplement.  RoxyLean and Rx6 are marketed as 'fat
burning' weight loss supplements.

"However, the products contain a dangerous amphetamine-like
ingredient that poses a serious health risk and has potentially
life-threatening side effects.  The ingredient, which is
supposedly derived from the oil of the geranium plant, is known by
many names, including '1,3 Dimethylamylamine,' 'Methylhexanamine,'
and 'Geranainine' (hereinafter referred to as 'DMAA').

"At the time plaintiffs Clint Eskenazi and Camden Brady . . .
purchased and used the products, they were unaware the products
contained a dangerous stimulant, DMAA, the use of which is banned
by several athletic organizations, and sale of which is completely
prohibited in certain countries.

"DMAA was patented by Eli Lilly & Company in 1944 and later
marketed, beginning in 1971, under the trademark 'Forthane' for
use as a nasal decongestant and as a treatment for hypertrophied
or hyperplasic oral tissues.  DMAA is a vasoconstrictor and
central nervous system stimulant which is on the World Anti-Doping
Agency ('WADA') and Major League Baseball ('MLB') lists of banned
substances.  The sale of DMAA is totally prohibited in Canada and
New Zealand.  Recently, DMAA has gained popularity with young
people as a designer drug used in 'party pills.'

"BPI failed to inform consumers that DMAA is a dangerous central
nervous system stimulant which is banned by WADA, MLB, Canada and
New Zealand, and that using the products can cause consumers to
test positive for an illegal substance and/or amphetamine use.

"In addition, though DMAA is claimed to be an extract of geranium
oil, most of the DMAA contained in products currently on the
market it wholly 'synthetic' DMAA, completely manufactured in
laboratories, and is not derived from the geranium plant in any
way whatsoever.  In fact, plaintiffs are informed and believe and
on that basis allege that the DMAA in BPI's products is purely
synthetic.  Significantly, recent studies have also concluded that
there is no DMAA whatsoever in geranium oil, that DMAA is not
extracted from geranium oil, and that all DMAA on the market is
synthetic.  Because DMAA is a wholly synthetic substance, it is
not a 'dietary ingredient,' and BPI's products are not 'dietary
supplements' as those concepts are defined by applicable
regulations promulgated by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration."

The plaintiffs say that DMAA has "extremely dangerous side
effects."  Citing a Washington Post news report, the class claims
that Don Caitlin, a "pre-eminent anti-doping scientist," told the
Post that DMAA is chemically similar to amphetamine and ephedrine,
and can fatally raise the heart rate and blood pressure.

"The safety concerns associated with DMAA have been well
documented, including concerns that DMAA is a dangerous and
addictive substance that can cause headache, nausea and stroke. .
. . To make things worse, DMAA is widely used as a 'designer drug'
in dangerous 'party pills,'" the complaint states.

The class claims: "BPI goes a step further in its marketing scheme
by making false, misleading, and unsubstantiated claims regarding
the safety and effectiveness of the products -- claims that BPI
knows are completely without merit or scientific substantiation --
in order to lure unsuspecting consumers into buying the products,"
the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs seek restitution and class damages for consumer law
violations, unfair competition, false and misleading advertising,
breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty.

They are represented in Superior Court by:

          Gregory B. Scarlett, Esq.
          WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, LLP
          5567 Reseda Boulevard
          Suite 330
          P.O. Box 7033
          Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
          Telephone: (818) 705-6800 ext 240
                     (310) 739-5067


Here are the defendants: BPI Sports LLC, BPI Sports Holdings Inc.,
Brian Pharma II LLC, and BPI principals Derek Ettinger and James
Grage.

Neither the law firm nor BPI Sports responded to e-mailed requests
for comment.


BRIGHAM EXPLORATION: Faces Suits Over Proposed Sale to Statoil
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brigham Exploration Company is facing numerous class action
lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition by Statoil ASA, the
Company disclosed in its November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 17, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Statoil ASA
("Statoil") and its indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary Fargo
Acquisition, Inc. ("Purchaser"), pursuant to which Purchaser would
commence an all-cash tender offer to purchase all outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock.  Subject to certain
conditions, after completion of the tender offer, Purchaser would
merge with the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Statoil.  The tender offer was commenced by
Purchaser on October 28, 2011, and on that date the Company filed
a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the
"Schedule 14D-9") with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, in which the Company's Board of Directors unanimously
recommended to the Company's stockholders that they accept the
tender offer and, if necessary under applicable law, vote their
shares to approve the proposed merger.  Under the terms of the
tender offer, each stockholder is entitled to receive $36.50 per
share, net to the stockholder in cash, without interest.  The
tender offer is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2011, unless
extended by Purchaser.

Following the announcement of the tender offer, several separate
Plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits in Texas and
Delaware against the Company and its Board of Directors.  These
lawsuits also include certain claims against Statoil and, in some
cases, Purchaser.  Each lawsuit purports to represent the same
class of individuals, that is, the Company's stockholders.  Six
lawsuits were filed in Travis County, Texas, and six lawsuits were
filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware.  Following
these initial filings, the plaintiffs in the Delaware lawsuits
amended their claims and consolidated their pleadings into one
lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware,
The Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust et al. v. Brigham
Exploration Company, et al.  The Company filed a motion with the
Travis County Court requesting that the Court consolidate the six
lawsuits pending in that court and then stay the consolidated case
in favor of the litigation pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  A hearing on this motion to consolidate and stay the
Texas litigation was scheduled for Wednesday, November 9, 2011.

The Delaware and Texas lawsuits seek certification of a class of
the Company's stockholders and generally allege, among other
things, that (i) members of the Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger Agreement by
failing to maximize stockholder value, agreeing to preclusive deal
protection provisions, engaging in self-dealing, failing to
protect against conflicts of interest and by filing a materially
false and misleading Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC; and (ii) the
Company aided and abetted the Board of Directors' purported
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Delaware and Texas lawsuits
seek, among other relief, an injunction prohibiting the tender
offer and requiring the Company to implement new procedures and
processes to obtain a new merger agreement, the imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of the plaintiffs and the members of
the proposed class upon any benefits improperly received by
defendants as a result of their alleged wrongful conduct,
rescission for any portions of the tender offer already
implemented, damages, costs and attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company believes the Delaware and Texas actions are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.  The six lawsuits
filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware are: Weisberg
v. Brigham Exploration Company et al., Case No. 6957 (filed on
October 20, 2011), Fioravanti v. Brigham Exploration Company et
al., Case No. 6962 (filed on October 21, 2011), Teamsters Allied
Benefit Funds v. Brigham Exploration Company et al., Case No. 6975
(filed on October 25, 2011), The Edward J. Goodman Life Income
Trust and the Edward J. Goodman Generation Skipping Trust v.
Brigham Exploration Company et al., Case No. 6969 (filed on
October 25, 2011), Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v.
Brigham Exploration Company et al., Case No. 6980 (filed on
October 26, 2011), and Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System
v. Brigham Exploration Company et al., Case No. 6982 (filed on
October 26, 2011).  The six lawsuits filed in the District Court
in Travis County, Texas, are: Boytim v. Brigham Exploration
Company et al., Case No. D-1-GN-11-003205 (filed on October 17,
2011), Duncan v. Brigham Exploration Company et al., Case No. D-1-
GN-11-003215 (filed on October 18, 2011), Giske v. Brigham
Exploration Company et al., Case No. D-1-GN-11-003227 (filed on
October 19, 2011), Fioravanti v. Brigham Exploration Company et
al., Case No. D-1-GN-11-003258 (filed on October 24, 2011),
Schwimmer v. Brigham Exploration Company et al., Case No. D-1-GN-
11-00317 (filed on October 28, 2011), and Ohler v. Brigham
Exploration Company et al., Case No. D-1-GN-11-003418 (filed on
November 7, 2011).


CALAMOS ASSET: Appeals From Dismissal of ARPS Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of class action complaints against
Calamos Asset Management Inc. relating to the redemption of
auction rate preferred shares by certain Calamos closed-end funds
remain pending, according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC, among others, were named as
defendants in three separate class action complaints captioned
Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., Russell
Bourrienne et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., and Rutgers
Casualty Insurance Company et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al.
Each complaint relates to the redemption of Auction Rate Preferred
Shares by certain Calamos closed-end funds.  With regard to
Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., plaintiff
moved to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County and
on March 14, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois denied plaintiff's motion to remand and
dismissed the case.  Plaintiff appealed that ruling to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where the case is
now awaiting decision following an oral argument held on
September 22, 2011.  In Russell Bourrienne et al. v John P.
Calamos, Sr. et al., defendants moved to dismiss the complaint,
and on August 4, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted defendant's motion.  Plaintiff
appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, where the Court suspended briefing of the appeal
pending its ruling in Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos,
Sr. et al.  With respect to Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company et
al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., the defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint, and plaintiff moved to remand the case to the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The case is currently
awaiting decision of those motions.

The Company and Calamos Advisors believe that these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against
the allegations in the complaints.


CENTER FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Deal in Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Center Financial Corporation is awaiting a court decision on the
settlement agreement resolving a class action complaint related to
its merger deal with Nara Bancorp Inc., the Company disclosed in
its November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On May 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court against the Company, the Company's directors
and Nara Bancorp alleging, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval
of the proposed merger with Nara Bancorp and that the Company
breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the disclosures
it made regarding the proposed merger.  On July 29, 2011, the
parties to the litigation agreed to settle all claims asserted in
the action, subject to, among other things, the execution of a
stipulation of settlement and court approval.  As part of the
settlement, Nara Bancorp and the Company agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures included in an amendment to the
registration statement for the Nara Bancorp shares to be issued at
the completion of the merger.  In addition, defendants have agreed
to pay up to $400,000 in plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses,
if and to the extent approved by the court.  The court hearing on
the proposed settlement was scheduled for November 16, 2011.  Such
payment would be due only if the merger is consummated and be
payable by the combined company.  If approved by the court, the
settlement also would result in the release by the plaintiff and
the proposed settlement class of all claims that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger agreement,
the merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith (but
excluding any properly perfected claims for statutory appraisal in
connection with the merger, certain claims arising under the
federal securities laws and any claims to enforce the settlement).

Headquartered in Los Angeles, Center Financial Corporation is the
holding company for Center Bank, which has about 15 branches in
Southern California, as well as in Chicago and Seattle. The
Company also operates nearly 10 additional loan production offices
scattered across the U.S. mainland and Hawaii in areas heavily
concentrated with Korean-American businesses and individuals. The
bank focuses on commercial lending, including mortgages, Small
Business Administration loans, and short-term trade finance for
importers/exporters.


CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
China Automotive Systems, Inc., is defending itself against a
class action complaint alleging violations of securities laws, the
Company disclosed in its November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 25, 2011, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
between March 25, 2010, and March 17, 2011.  The complaint alleges
that the Company and certain of its present and former officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules promulgated thereunder, and
seeks unspecified damages.  The Company has not yet responded to
the complaint, but believes the allegations in the complaint are
without merit.  The Company intends to defend itself vigorously
against the claims.

Based in Hubei Province, People's Republic of China, China
Automotive Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: CAAS) is a supplier of power
steering systems and components to China automotive industry,
operating through nine subsidiaries.  Its product offering
encompasses a full range of auto parts incorporated into steering
systems for both passenger automobiles and commercial vehicles.


CNET: Coalition of Artists File Class Action
--------------------------------------------
TorrentFreak reports that a coalition of artists has joined
eccentric billionaire and FilmOn founder Alki David in a new class
action lawsuit against CNET and CBS Interactive.  The complaint
filed at a federal court in Los Angeles claims that through Web
sites like Download.com, these companies have willingly profited
from popularizing online copyright infringements.  The artists
want the CBS chiefs to be held accountable for "soliciting such
widespread theft."

Earlier this year, Alki David and a handful of artists sued CBS
Interactive and CNET for their role in distributing LimeWire and
other P2P and DRM-cracking software.

In July the lawsuit was pulled, but Mr. David promised to come
back later in the year with an even bigger case.  That day has now
arrived.

Together with the "Justice for Artists Coalition" which includes
Dough E Fresh, H-Town, Slick Rick and Ron Brows, Mr. David has
filed a new lawsuit at a federal court in Los Angeles.  In common
with their previous case, the coalition claims that CBS and CNET
profited heavily from distributing and popularizing file-sharing
software such as LimeWire.

"CBS Interactive has quietly made billions by inducing the public
to break the law, by providing them the file-sharing software and
step-by-step guides, on exactly how to do it.  No one has held
Defendant accountable for this.  Until now," the complaint reads.

The artists point out that Download.com was one of the main
distributors of LimeWire, and that CBS-owned sites promoted and
profited from encouraging people to infringe copyrights.

"Defendants have been the main distributer of several of the most
prominent P2P software platforms.  Defendants promoted these P2P
systems in order to directly profit from wide-scale copyright
infringement.  For example, Internet users downloaded more then
[sic] 220 million copies from Defendants' Web site, Download.com,"
it adds.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Mr. David explains that the coalition
wants to hold the bosses at CBS accountable for their alleged
criminal behavior.

"The objective is to get CBS principals up on criminal charges for
soliciting such widespread theft.  These people have not joined
the lawsuit because it's a popularity contest and not because they
are driven by greed or ignorance.  Because their lives have been
hammered by widespread piracy," Mr. David said.

"The CBS agenda is to control the Internet as an outlet for
content distribution by any means possible.  The future for
creative and independent innovation is bleak if this is allowed to
continue.  The art in media enriches us all being exposed to the
choices of a few affect all our lives," he added.

The group of artists currently involved in the class action
lawsuit is expected to expand in the coming weeks and months.
According to Mr. David, there's no shortage of interest.

"We have only scratched the surface.  Many more rights-holders are
coming forward representing tens of thousands of more intellectual
properties but the verification process for identifying ownership
is long and detailed, so we will keep on adding as we go,"
Mr. David commented.

The allegations in the complaint lead the plaintiffs to conclude
that CBS and CNET are guilty of inducing copyright infringement,
contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright
infringement.  In addition to receiving compensation, they want
the defendants to stop promoting P2P software altogether.


FBR & CO: Appeal in Thornburg Mortgage Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling dismissing a consolidated class
action complaint against FBR & Co.'s subsidiary is pending,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

In May 2008, the lead plaintiff in a previously filed and
consolidated action filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint that, for the first time, named Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co., Inc. (now FBR Capital Markets & Co.) and eight other
underwriters as defendants.  The lawsuit, styled In Re Thornburg
Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation and pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico, was
originally filed in August 2007 against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.,
and certain of its officers and directors, alleging material
misrepresentations and omissions about, inter alia, the financial
position of TMI. The amended complaint now included claims under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters
relating to five separate offerings (May 2007, June 2007,
September 2007 and two offerings in January 2008). The allegations
against FBRCM related only to its role as underwriter or member of
the syndicate that underwrote TMI's total of three offerings in
September 2007 and January 2008 - each of which occurred after the
filing of the original complaint -with an aggregate offering price
of approximately $818 million. The plaintiffs sought restitution,
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain
costs and expenses. Although FBRCM is contractually entitled to be
indemnified by TMI in connection with this lawsuit, TMI filed for
bankruptcy on May 1, 2009 and this likely will decrease or
eliminate the value of the indemnity that FBRCM receives from TMI.
On June 2, 2011, the Court granted FBRCM's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint as to FBRCM and then entered
final judgment for FBRCM on July 25, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a
timely notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,
challenging the District Court's findings; briefing on the appeal
will be complete in April 2012.


FBR & CO: Brokerage Unit Still Faces Class Action Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------
FBR Capital Markets & Co., the U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary of
FBR & Co., continues to defend itself from a putative class action
lawsuit filed in Colorado, according to the Company's November 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

FBRCM has been named a defendant in the putative class action
lawsuit MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, L.P. v. United Western
Bancorp, Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado. The complaint, filed in March 2011
against United Western Bancorp, Inc., its officers and directors,
underwriters and outside auditors, alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Bank's September 2009
offering. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act against the lead underwriter of the offering
and FBRCM as a member of the underwriting syndicate. The
underwriters have notified the Bank that they are contractually
entitled to be indemnified by the Bank as to all related expenses
and losses incurred by the underwriters in connection with this
action.


FBR & CO: Brokerage Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
FBR Capital Markets & Co., the U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary of
FBR & Co., continues to defend itself from a putative class action
lawsuit filed in Florida, according to the Company's November 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

FBRCM has been named a defendant in the putative class action
lawsuit Martin J. Fuller vs. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al.
pending in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and
for Palm Beach County, Florida. The complaint, filed in September
2011 against Imperial Holdings, Inc., its officers and directors
and underwriters, alleges material misrepresentations and
omissions in the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with Imperial's February 2011 initial public offering.
The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against the lead underwriters of the offering. The
underwriters have notified Imperial that they are contractually
entitled to be indemnified by Imperial as to all related expenses
and losses incurred by the underwriters in connection with this
action.


FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP: Faces Class Action Over Bus Service Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
The Indy Channel reports that attorney Ron Frazier filed for
class-action certification on Nov. 14 in a lawsuit targeting the
Franklin Township Community School Corp.

The embattled school district partnered this year with the Central
Indiana Educational Service Center to offer bus service at a cost
of $475 per child.  They have collected $433,900 in parent-paid
fees.

Mr. Frazier, who represents parent Lora Hoagland, told RTV6's Kara
Kenney that parents would be divided into two classes, those who
paid the fee and those who didn't.

CIESC is currently transporting 2,700 students.

The State Board of Accounts will conduct an investigation.  If
that agency finds that the school district or CIESC acted
inappropriately, the state could demand repayment of the fees
collected.

Last week, the attorney general's office issued a nonbinding
opinion that third-party bus fees are illegal.

"The attorney general's opinion raises significant questions that
have potential ramifications beyond CIESC programs," wrote
Mary Ann Dewan, executive director of CIESC, in an e-mail to RTV6.

"CIESC is reviewing the opinion thoroughly, as well as all Indiana
school laws and rules."

Ms. Dewan said CIESC plans to continue to provide the service
while determining the appropriate course of action.

Franklin Township School Board members were scheduled to meet in
executive session on Nov. 16 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the bus fee
situation in light of the attorney general's opinion.  The meeting
was not open to the public.


FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Block & Leviton Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP on Nov. 14 filed suit against FriendFinder
Networks, Inc.  FFN's officers, directors and two underwriters --
Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. and Imperial Capital LLC -- are also
named as defendants.  The lawsuit, captioned Greenfield Childrens
Partnership v. FriendFinder Network, Inc. et al., 11-cv-24098, is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired FFN's common stock pursuant to the May 11, 2011
public offering of its common stock.  The complaint asserts that
FFN, its officers, directors and Underwriters made false and
misleading statements and omissions in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus dated May 10, 2011 and May 11, 2011, respectively.

According to the May Offering Documents, after the offering there
would be approximately 26.7 million common shares outstanding.  Of
these shares, at least 20.9 million were subject to a 180 day
lock-up period, during which the shares could not be traded.
These statements are alleged to have been false and misleading
when made because: (i) a material number of the Restricted Shares
were publicly traded during the lock-up period; and (ii) the
Company was suffering from grossly deficient internal controls and
therefore was unable to abide by the terms of the May Offering
Documents.

FFN's stock price has dropped precipitously since the May
Offering, falling over 20% in the first day of trading alone.  At
the time the lock-up period expired, the stock had fallen to less
than $2.00 per share.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than
January 16, 2012, request that the court appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the Class.  You may contact the attorneys at Block &
Leviton to discuss your rights in the case. You may also retain
counsel of your choice and you need not take any action at this
time to be a class member.


GMX RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
GMX Resources Inc. continues to defend itself against a securities
class action complaint filed by retirement communities in
Oklahoma, according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Northumberland
County Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement
System in the District Court in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma,
purportedly on March 10, 2011, against the Company and certain of
its officers along with certain underwriters of the Company's July
2008, May 2009 and October 2009 public offerings.  Discovery
requests and summons were filed and issued, respectively, in late
April 2011.  The complaint alleges that the registration statement
and the prospectus for the offering contained material
misstatements and omissions and seek damages under Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an unspecified equitable
relief.  Defendants removed the case to federal court on May 12,
2011, and filed motions to dismiss on June 20, 2011. Plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the case to state court on June 10, 2011,
and defendants filed an opposition to that motion. The federal
court stayed all further proceedings in this case until after it
decides whether to remand the case to state court. If the case
remains in federal court, plaintiffs are expected to seek to be
appointed lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act and to file an amended complaint thereafter.  The
Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated with the
securities class action case, which is at an early stage.

GMX Resources Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company
historically focused on the development of the Cotton Valley group
of formations, specifically the Cotton Valley Sands layer in the
Schuler formation and the Upper Bossier, Middle Bossier and
Haynesville/Lower Bossier layers of the Bossier formation, in the
Sabine Uplift of the Carthage, North Field of Harrison and Panola
counties of East Texas.


HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Former Employees File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
David Hunn, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
dozens of employees of a collapsed social services nonprofit say
that not only were they not paid for their last weeks of work, but
also that money taken from their previous paychecks for health
insurance, child support and taxes wasn't forwarded to the
agencies due the payments.

The employees have met with board members of the nonprofit Human
Development Corporation of Metropolitan St. Louis, written letters
to government officials and, finally, filed a class action lawsuit
in federal court in hopes they can lay claim to the corporation's
last few dollars, or, if not, hold board members individually
liable.

Some employees say that because of the nonprofit's actions, they
owe hundreds or even thousands of dollars in child support
payments, medical bills or other expenses.

"It's kind of like a snowball effect.  Every time you turn around
there's something HDC isn't paying," said Michele Graham, who
worked as a family support specialist for a year before being laid
off, and is still unpaid for her last two weeks of work.

Shamantolian Johnson, 41, can't find the life insurance plan for
his mother, Gwendolyn, who died in July of liver cancer after
working at the nonprofit for nearly 30 years.  Now he questions
whether the policy even exists.

Sherry Stennis, 56, a grant specialist, owes close to $4,000 in
medical bills, on top of the roughly $1,000 she is owed in pay.
And Yolanda Holmes, 40, an outreach energy assistance supervisor,
owes $49,000 in medical bills after a driver ran a stop sign in
St. Louis.  She and her 15-year-old daughter were rushed to the
hospital.

"I was thinking that insurance bill would be taken care of," she
said.  Then she got another letter saying her policy ended in
July.  "My mouth just dropped open.  According to our paycheck, we
paid for that insurance."

The federal suit said former workers Michael Win, Yolanda Holmes,
Sundy Whiteside, Eleanor Kim Banks and more than 70 co-workers
worked without pay, weren't paid after they were laid off and lost
withholdings never actually used as intended.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 11 in St. Louis by attorneys Russell
Riggan and Andrew Kuhlmann.

It calls the Human Development Corporation's collapse a "massive
failure of corporate governance."

If the court declares it a class-action suit, Mr. Riggan
explained, other employees will be allowed to join.

Board President Charles Barge Jr. said he hadn't seen the lawsuit
but that, indeed, the nonprofit stopped paying insurance when it
closed doors and did not pay taxes on at least one set of
paychecks.  "Money ran out," he said.

He said the board has voted to begin liquidating assets.  "I want
to get the employees paid more than anything else," he said.

The nonprofit had been one of the largest federally authorized
Community Action Agencies in the state, with a staff of about 80
and services to nearly 100,000 area residents a year.

It received about $12 million a year in federal grants to provide
employment, health, rent, utility and emergency food assistance
for low-income residents in the cities of St. Louis and Wellston.
It closed its doors at the end of August.  Letters between the
board and the Missouri Department of Social Services reveal more
than $1 million in overdue payments to employees, contractors and
creditors.

Of that, the nonprofit failed to pay at least $650,000 collected
from the state that should have been used to cover utility costs
for thousands of low-income St. Louisans, the documents show.

In September, President and CEO Ruth A. Smith stepped down,
following accusations that she had paid her live-in boyfriend
$10,000 a month to do maintenance and janitorial work.

The state has since transferred program responsibilities to
Community Action Agency of St. Louis County Inc.

Some of the agency's debts, Mr. Barge said, have now been paid
off.  But employees, he admitted, still haven't gotten checks.
Last month, 30 of them met to put pressure on the board.

They penned letters to U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, Gov. Jay Nixon,
city Aldermanic President Lewis Reed, Mayor Francis Slay and all
of the agency's board members, said Kim Banks, who said she was
appointed by the group as a spokeswoman for the effort.

"We sat back for a month and a half, and said, let's just wait and
see if the board is going to try to do what's right by us," she
said.  "I am frustrated."

As far as employees can piece together, she said, withholdings
stopped getting paid at the end of July.

"Everyone who's had either a doctor's appointment or surgery in
the month of August is now receiving a bill from that particular
visit," she said.

And meetings with the agency board were not helpful, she said:
"Because one thing I can say is they were pretty clueless.  They
kept telling us, 'We had no idea it was this bad.'"

Spokespeople for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Missouri
told the Post-Dispatch the company last received full payment from
the nonprofit in July, and cut services.

"It is the employer's responsibility to communicate to employees
that their health benefits are no longer covered by the employer,"
an Anthem spokeswoman said in an e-mail.

State leaders added that there's little they can do.

"It's an issue between the corporation, the board and its
employees," said Seth Bundy, spokesman for the Department of
Social Services.

In fact, he said, the nonprofit owes the state more than $680,000
for energy bill payments.

"It's a sad story.  It really is," said Mr. Riggan.
"Unfortunately, this kind of stuff seems to have all too often,
especially in this economy."


ICG GROUP: Hayes' Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Order Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Hayes' appeal from the ruling that he lacked standing to
object to a global settlement in the consolidated lawsuit relating
to initial public offerings remains pending, according to ICG
Group, Inc.'s November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In May and June 2001, certain of ICG's present directors, along
with ICG, certain of its former directors, certain of its present
and former officers and its underwriters, were named as defendants
in nine class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
plaintiffs and the putative classes they seek to represent include
present and former stockholders of the ICG.  The complaints
generally allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, based on, among
other things, the dissemination of statements allegedly containing
material misstatements and/or omissions concerning the commissions
received by the underwriters of the initial public offering and
follow-on public offering of ICG as well as failure to disclose
the existence of purported agreements by the underwriters with
some of the purchasers in these offerings to buy additional shares
of ICG's stock subsequently in the open market at pre-determined
prices above the initial offering prices.  The plaintiffs seek for
themselves and the alleged class members an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.  The claims in these cases have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes (together with claims
against other issuers and underwriters) before one judge in the
Southern District of New York federal court.

In April 2002, a consolidated, amended complaint was filed against
these defendants which generally alleges the same violations and
also refers to alleged misstatements or omissions that relate to
the recommendations regarding ICG's stock by analysts employed by
the underwriters.  In June and July 2002, defendants, including
ICG defendants, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints on
numerous grounds.  ICG's motion was denied in its entirety in an
opinion dated February 19, 2003.  In July 2003, a committee of
ICG's Board of Directors approved a proposed settlement with the
plaintiffs in this matter, which was preliminarily approved by the
District Court overseeing the litigation in February 2005.  A
final fairness hearing on the settlement was held on April 24,
2006.  On December 5, 2006, however, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the certification of plaintiff classes in six
actions related to other issuers that had been designated as test
cases with respect to the non-settling defendants in those matters
(the "Focus Cases") and made other rulings that drew into question
the legal viability of the claims in the Focus Cases.  The Court
of Appeals later rejected the plaintiffs' request that it
reconsider that decision.  As a result, on June 25, 2007, the
District Court approved a stipulation and order terminating the
proposed settlement.  While the Court of Appeals decision did not
automatically apply to the case against ICG, the defendants moved
for, and the Court granted, an order that would apply the decision
to all cases, including the consolidated action against ICG.  On
August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended "master"
complaint containing allegations purportedly common to all
defendants in all actions and filed amended complaints containing
specific allegations against the six issuer defendants in the
Focus Cases.  In addition, on September 27, 2007, the plaintiffs
again moved to certify classes in each of the Focus Cases.  The
defendants in the Focus Cases moved to dismiss the amended
complaints.  Rulings on both the motion to certify the Focus Cases
as class actions and to dismiss those cases remain outstanding.
The District Court has approved a stipulation extending the time
within which the plaintiffs must file amended pleadings containing
specific allegations against the other issuer defendants,
including ICG, and the time within which those defendants must
move, answer or otherwise respond to those specific allegations.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a proposed global settlement of all claims asserted in
the coordinated class action securities litigation on behalf of
the class plaintiffs in the respective actions against the various
issuer and underwriter defendants, including all claims asserted
against ICG.  The motion further seeks certification of settlement
classes as to each action against the defendants, including ICG.
ICG has assented to the proposed settlement, which does not
require any monetary contribution from ICG and would be funded by
various underwriter defendants and the defendants' insurers.  On
June 10, 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement and of the form of notice of the proposed
settlement to be provided to members of the proposed settlement
class.  The District Court scheduled a hearing for September 10,
2009, to determine whether to approve the proposed settlement.

The final hearing was held on September 10, 2009.  On October 5,
2009, the District Court granted final approval of the proposed
global settlement, subject to the rights of the parties to appeal
the settlement within 30 days of such approval.  Pursuant to the
terms of the approved settlement, ICG is not required to make any
monetary contribution to fund the required settlement payments,
which are being funded by various underwriter defendants and the
defendants' insurers.

On October 23, 2009, three members of the settlement class who had
been shareholders of an issuer other than ICG filed a petition
seeking leave to appeal the District Court's final approval to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals on an interlocutory basis.  No
judicial ruling or action has been taken on the motion.  On or
before November 6, 2009, three notices of appeal were filed with
respect to the District Court's order granting final approval of
the global settlement.  On
December 14, 2009, the District Court entered a final judgment
approving and giving effect to the global settlement as it related
to the consolidated actions against ICG.  The final judgment
created a settlement class of plaintiffs comprised of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock and call options
of ICG during the period of August 4, 1999, through December 6,
2000, provided for the distribution of settlement proceeds to the
members of the class and approval of attorneys' fees to class
counsel consistent with the terms of the global settlement, barred
prosecution of all settled claims by members of the class and
their representatives, released the defendants and other protected
persons from such claims and dismissed all claims against ICG and
other defendants in the consolidated amended action with
prejudice.

The appeals referenced in the November 6, 2009 notices of appeal
have been docketed in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
By order dated April 7, 2010, the District Court directed that the
appealing class members identify the specific class, by company,
to which they purport to belong.  The District Court's order
further directed the clerk of the court to enter the appealing
class members' notices of appeal only in those cases as to which
the appealing class members identify themselves as members of the
class certified.  No such notice of appeal has been entered in the
action against ICG.  Separately, on June 17, 2010, the District
Court entered an order requiring the appellants to post a bond in
the amount of $25,000, jointly and severally, as a condition of
pursuing their appeals from the October 5, 2009 order approving
the global settlement.  The bond was posted and a briefing
schedule with respect to the appeals was set.  The distribution of
settlement proceeds is currently being held in abeyance.

Since September 2010, four of the six individuals or groups that
filed appeals from the class settlement have dropped their
appeals, leaving two, a pro se appeal by James Hayes and an appeal
filed by Theodore Bechtold, an attorney filing on his own behalf.
Each filed opening briefs challenging the settlement and/or class
certification on a variety of grounds.  Responsive briefs from the
appellees were due to be filed by December 17, 2010.  On December
8, 2010, however, the plaintiff-appellees (class counsel defending
the class settlement) moved to dismiss the Bechtold appeal on a
variety of technical grounds.

On June 20, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Bechtold
appeal and remanded the Hayes appeal to the District Court for a
determination as to whether the sole remaining appellant objector
has standing to pursue an appeal.  By order dated August 25, 2011,
the District Court held that Hayes lacked standing to pursue an
appeal and, on September 23, 2011, Hayes filed a notice of appeal
of that decision.  No schedule has been set for further
proceedings in connection with this latest appeal.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in "Citiline" Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the consolidated class action lawsuit
captioned Citiline Holdings, Inc., et al. v. iStar Financial,
Inc., et al.

In April 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York naming the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers as defendants and alleging violations of
federal securities laws.  Both suits were purportedly filed on
behalf of the same putative class of investors who purchased
Common Stock in the Company's December 13, 2007 public offering.
The two complaints were consolidated in a single proceeding on
April 30, 2008.

On November 17, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings, Inc. were appointed Lead Plaintiffs to pursue
the Citiline Action. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on February 2, 2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between December 6, 2007 and March 6, 2008 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint named as defendants the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers, and certain investment banks who
served as underwriters in the Company's Offering.  The Complaint
reasserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act, and added claims for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs allege the defendants made certain material
misstatements and omissions relating to the Company's continuing
operations, including the value of the Company's loan portfolio
and certain debt securities held by the Company.  The Complaint
seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorney's fees, and rescission of the
public offering.  No class has been certified. The Company and its
current and former officers filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint on April 27, 2009 and, on March 26, 2010, the Court
issued its order granting, in part, the dismissal of certain
Securities Act claims against certain of the Company's current and
former officers, but denying the motion as to all claims asserted
against the Company.  Accordingly, the discovery process has
commenced.  The Company believes the Citiline Action has no merit
and intends to continue defending itself vigorously against it.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

New York-based iStar Financial Inc. (NYSE: SFI) provides custom-
tailored investment capital to high-end private and corporate
owners of real estate, including senior and mezzanine real estate
debt, senior and mezzanine corporate capital, as well as corporate
net lease financing and equity.  The Company, which is taxed as a
real estate investment trust, provides innovative and value added
financing solutions to its customers.


KING ARTHUR: Sued Over Misleading "All Natural" Product Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tamar Davis Larsen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. King Arthur Flour Company, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-
05495 (N.D. Calif., November 14, 2011) is a class action brought
on behalf of a nationwide class and a California sub-class of
consumers who, from November 14, 2007, through the present,
purchased King Arthur's "All Natural" breakfast, dessert, and
bread mix products marketed and sold as being "All Natural" even
though they contained synthetic ingredients.

As a result of this false and misleading labeling, King Arthur was
able to sell these purportedly "All Natural" products to thousands
of unsuspecting consumers in California and throughout the United
States and to profit handsomely from these transactions, Ms.
Larsen contends.  She adds that King Arthur's conduct gives rise
to common law fraud, violates the California Business and
Professions Code and violates the Consumers Legal Remedies Act of
the California Civil Code.

Ms. Larsen is currently a resident of Berkeley, California.
During the past two years, Ms. Larsen purchased King Arthur's All
Natural Classic Buttermilk Pancake Mix, King Arthur's All Natural
Multi-Grain Pancake Mix, King Arthur's All Natural Blueberry Sour
Cream Scone Mix, and King Arthur's All Natural Belgian Waffle Mix.

King Arthur is America's oldest flour company, founded in Boston
in 1790.  King Arthur is a leading flour producer in the United
States, and sells a variety of flours, baking mixes, baking
ingredients, bakeware, and decorating tools and kits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, #400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  wlison@stemberfeinstein.com


LEASE FINANCE: Accused of Fraud by Small Businesses
---------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, small businesses accuse purveyors of merchant
credit-card services and credit-card swiping machines of brazen
frauds, through forgery, lies and altered contracts, which cost
businesses thousands of dollars in hidden fees.

Merchant card services enable businesses to accept and process
credit and debit card payments.  Typically such businesses lease,
or less commonly, buy the card-swiping machines.

Lease Finance Group and Northern Leasing Systems are the lead
defendants.

Named plaintiffs Sarah Teague, a chiropractor, and retailers
Robert Avila, owner of Constantine Creations, and Machelle
Schomaker, owner of Thing-A-Ma-Jigs, accuse the independent sales
organizations that lease the machines of fraud, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract and other violations.

These include "willfully orchestrating false representations about
potential savings in transaction costs, fraudulently altering
signed contracts purportedly entered into by businesses for such
services, wrongfully taking unauthorized fees and other charges
from banks accounts, charging exorbitant and unconscionable rates
for the leasing of credit card machines, and failing to notify
customers of their practices."

The plaintiffs say that to get their signatures on lease
contracts, the defendants falsely promise small business operators
low transaction fees for processing services.

But after the business owners sign the agreements, the defendants
"alter the contract by adding pages that were never shown to the
applicants and by filling in blank areas with new terms," the
plaintiffs say.  "These newly added pages and terms include
purported provisions for early termination fees, liquidated
damages, liability limitations, arbitration clauses, and choice-
of-law and choice-of-forum provisions.

"Sometimes, defendants go so far as to forge the initials or
signatures of small business owners on the newly added pages or
filled in areas."

The plaintiffs add: "the altered contracts contain unconscionable
provisions, including long-term leases that require small business
owner to pay wildly inflated monthly rental fees for credit card
processing terminals and inflated early-termination fees, and
require small business owners to personally guarantee the
contracts.  The contracts also authorize defendants to debt
payments purportedly due under the agreements directly from the
consumer's bank account.

"Once class members' signatures are obtained (or fraudulently
inserted through electronic or written forgery), defendants
electronically debit class members' bank accounts for the higher-
than-disclosed processing rates, inflated rental fees, and other
unauthorized charges."

Named as defendants are Lease Finance Group LLC; Northern Leasing
Systems Inc.; Lease Source - LSI, LLC; Lease Source Inc.; MBF
Leasing LLC; Jay Cohen; Leonard Mezei; Sara Krieger; Encore
Payment Systems LLC; Merchant Services Inc.; Universal Merchant
Services LLC; Jason Moore; and Trans Tech Merchant Group.

The plaintiffs seek restitution, disgorgement, an injunction and
class damages for consumer fraud, false advertising in violation,
common law fraud, unjust enrichment, deceit, fraud and
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and
breach of contact.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Krishnan Chittur, Esq.
          CHITTUR & ASSOCIATES, PC
          286 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-370-0447
          E-mail: kchittur@chittur.com


LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From "Molina" Suit Award Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International, Inc.'s appeal from a trial court judge's
award of $8.3 million in damages to class members in the lawsuit
commenced by Ron Molina remains pending, according to the
Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On August 31, 2005, former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit, captioned Molina v. Lexmark, in the
California Superior Court for Los Angeles under a California
employment statute which in effect prohibits the forfeiture of
vacation time accrued.  This statute has been used to invalidate
California employers' "use or lose" vacation policies.  The class
is comprised of less than 200 current and former California
employees of the Company.  The trial was bifurcated into a
liability phase and a damages phase.  On May 1, 2009, the trial
court Judge brought the liability phase to a conclusion with a
ruling that the Company's vacation and personal choice day's
policies from 1991 to the present violated California law.  In a
Statement of Decision, received by the Company on August 27, 2010,
the trial court Judge awarded the class members approximately $8.3
million in damages which included waiting time penalties and
interest but did not include post judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.  On November 17, 2010, the trial court Judge
partially granted the Company's motion for a new trial solely as
to the argument that current employees are not entitled to any
damages.  On March 7, 2011, the trial court Judge reduced the
original award to $7.8 million.  On June 21, 2011, the class
members filed a motion for attorneys' fees seeking $5.7 million.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award.  The appeal is
pending.

The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is
probable.  The range of potential loss related to this matter is
subject to a high degree of estimation.  In accordance with the
accounting guidance for contingencies, if the reasonable estimate
of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a
better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued.
Because no amount within the range of potential loss is a better
estimate than any other amount, the Company has accrued $1.8
million for the Molina matter, which represents the low-end of the
range.  At the high-end of the range, the class has sought $16.7
million, which does not include post judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees which may be assessed against the Company.  Thus,
it is reasonably possible that a loss exceeding the $1.8 million
already accrued may be incurred in this matter, ranging from $0 to
$14.9 million, excluding post judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.

Established in 1991, Lexmark International, Inc. --
http://www.lexmark.com/-- is a developer, manufacturer and
supplier of printing, imaging and document workflow solutions for
the office.  The Company also operates in the office imaging and
ECM markets.  Lexmark's products include laser printers, inkjet
printers, multifunction devices, dot matrix printers and
associated supplies, solutions and services and ECM software
solutions and services.


LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: No Appeals Filed in Dismissed Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation disclosed in its
November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that
no appeals were filed from the dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company in New
Jersey.

The Company and several executive officers have been named as
defendants in two purported securities class action lawsuits.  The
complaints, which were both filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, allege that the Company and the other
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business and
prospects in violation of federal securities laws.  Each plaintiff
seeks damages for the purported class.  The complaints were filed
on August 13, 2010 and September 19, 2010, and are respectively
captioned, Donald J. and Mary S. Moreaux v. Lincoln Educational
Services Corp., et al., and Robert Lyathaud v. Lincoln Educational
Services Corp., et al.  On November 24, 2010, the Court
consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Lincoln
Educational Services Corp. Securities Litigation and appointed a
lead plaintiff.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
February 14, 2011.  On April 15, 2011, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss all of the claims asserted therein.  On September 6,
2011, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.  As of
November 8, 2011, plaintiffs have not filed a notice of appeal.


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to dismiss an appeal in the consolidated
litigation relating to its initial public offering, according to
the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action lawsuit
captioned "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al." (01-CV-
6770) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court") against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters
involved in the Company's initial public offering.  The complaint
in this action asserted, among other things, that omissions
regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares
in Lionbridge's initial public offering to the underwriters'
customers.  In March 2002, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing
without prejudice the claims against Lionbridge and its officers
and directors (the case remained pending against the underwriter
defendants).

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but also
Lionbridge and certain of its officers and directors.  The amended
complaint asserts claims under both the registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws relating to, among other
allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating
shares in the Company's initial public offering and the
disclosures contained in the Company's registration statement.  On
July 15, 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective
motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to
all or most of the issuer defendants.  In October 2002, the claims
against officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.
In February 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motion to
dismiss, ruling that the claims under the antifraud provisions of
the securities laws could proceed against the Company and a
majority of the other issuer defendants.

In June 2003, Lionbridge elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
the proposed settlement had been approved by the Court, it would
have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against Lionbridge and against any other of the
issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.  This proposed settlement was conditioned on, among
other things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims
against Lionbridge and against the other issuers who had agreed to
the settlement would be certified for class action treatment for
purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors
included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by
the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be
excluded from the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision in In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation that six purported class action lawsuits
containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted
against the Company may not be certified as class actions due, in
part, to the Appeals Court's determination that individual issues
of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to
the proposed classes.  On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a
petition seeking rehearing en banc of the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals' decision.  On April 6, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied
the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of the Court's December 5,
2006 ruling but noted that the plaintiffs remained free to ask the
District Court to certify classes different from the ones
originally proposed which might meet the standards for class
certification that the Court of Appeals articulated in its
December 5, 2006 decision.  In light of the Court of Appeals'
December 5, 2006 decision regarding certification of the
plaintiffs' claims, the District Court entered an order on
June 25, 2007, terminating the proposed settlement between the
plaintiffs and the issuers, including Lionbridge.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the
six focus cases.  The issuer defendants and the underwriter
defendants separately moved to dismiss the claims against them in
the amended complaints in the six focus cases.  On March 26, 2008,
the District Court issued an order in which it denied in
substantial part the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009.  On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement.  Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement.  Ten appeals were filed
objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness
of the settlement, five of which were dismissed with prejudice on
October 6, 2010.

On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed four of the
remaining appeals and remanded the final appeal to the District
Court to determine whether the appellant has standing to object to
the settlement.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court ruled that
the last remaining objector lacks standing to object to the
settlement.  That objector has appealed that ruling to the Court
of Appeals, and the plaintiffs have moved to dismiss that appeal.
The appeal and motion are currently pending.

The Company says the litigation process is inherently uncertain
and unpredictable, however, and there can be no guarantee as to
the ultimate outcome of this pending lawsuit.  While Lionbridge
cannot guarantee the outcome of these proceedings, the Company
believes that the final result of this lawsuit will have no
material effect on its consolidated financial condition, results
of operations, or cash flows.


MAGNESIUM ELEKTRON: Faces Class Action Over 2010 Plant Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that an October 2010
explosion at a Magnesium Elektron casting plant spewed chemicals
that polluted the air in two cities, according to a class action
in Madison County Court.

Lead plaintiffs John Williams and Monica Harris-Williams say the
Oct. 4, 2010 explosion at the company's Madison, Ill., plant
released a large plume of magnesium oxide particulates and other
contaminants into the air.  They say a 6-year-old evacuee from
near the plant vomited from breathing the contaminants.

"Plaintiffs John Williams and Monica Harris-Williams also detected
an unpleasant odor in the air and eventually noticed a thin film
of contamination covering their vehicle and house," the complaint
states.  "In addition, both John Williams and Monica Harris-
Williams detected the unpleasant odor from inside their home."

The Illinois attorney general sued Magnesium Elektron for the
explosion on Oct. 20, 2010.  That complaint claims that Magnesium
Elektron violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and
caused air pollution in sufficient quantities and duration to be
injurious to human, animal and plant life.

The class includes all residents of Madison or Venice, Ill. It
seeks damages for negligence, trespass and nuisance and wants
Elektron ordered to clean up the contamination.

A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. Magnesium Elektron
North America, Inc., Case No. 11-L-1163 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/15/Magnesium.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          Steven J. Stolze, Esq.
          Kevin D. Wilkins, Esq.
          HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER & STOLZE, L.L.C.
          300 N. Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111


MF GLOBAL: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP on Nov. 15 disclosed that it has filed
a class action suit against Jon S. Corzine, J. Randy MacDonald,
Henri J. Steenkamp and certain other individuals that alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of MF Global Holdings Ltd. during the
period May 20, 2010, through October 28, 2011, inclusive,
including investors who purchased MF Global common stock
previously traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"MF" and purchasers of the Company's debt securities.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  A copy of the complaint may be
obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The complaint alleges that in March 2010, Mr. Corzine, a former
CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and former Governor of New
Jersey, became Chairman and CEO of MF Global and that after
Mr. Corzine became Chairman and CEO of MF Global, the Company
increased its risk and used its own money to trade, including
making investments in European sovereign debt that has plummeted
in value.  Reportedly, Mr. Corzine's strategy was to transform the
Company from a futures broker into a boutique investment bank.

The complaint further alleges that Mr. Corzine's push into more
risky and principal trading with the Company's money was central
to MF Global's profit-growing plan and transformation, and that
Mr. Corzine and the other defendants represented that they could
grow and transform the business without taking on excessive risk,
while maintaining adequate capital and liquidity.  Further, it is
alleged that while making this transformation, Mr. Corzine and the
other defendants failed to disclose that the Company was
undercapitalized, exposed to excessive risk due to massive bets on
debt issued by certain European governments, and did not have
proper risk controls in place to manage these risks.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements to
investors by misrepresenting and failing to disclose that: (a) MF
Global was materially undercapitalized; (b) MF Global lacked
adequate capital to support its transformation and expansion into
risky and principal transactions, including investments in
European sovereign debt; (c) MF Global had been warned by
regulators that it was operating out of compliance with regulatory
capital requirements; (d) MF Global's internal and risk controls
were not as represented and inadequate to allow the Company to
properly balance risks and rewards as it underwent its
transformation and expansion into risky and principal
transactions; (e) MF Global's liabilities were materially
understated on MF Global's balance sheet due to the Company's
temporary reduction of its short-term borrowings each quarter
shortly before reporting its quarterly financial results, a
technique known as "window dressing"; (f) MF Global was masking
its true risk levels by materially reducing short-term borrowings
each quarter shortly before reporting its quarterly results; (g)
MF Global's reported financials were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (h) MF
Global was suffering from serious liquidity pressures based on its
exposure to European sovereign debt; and (i) MF Global was
diverting customer funds to support its own risky and principal
transactions, including investments in European sovereign debt.

The Complaint alleges that the truth began to emerge on
October 24, 2011, when Moody's slashed MF Global's credit-rating
to Baa3, or nearly junk status, citing the Company's significant
risk exposure to European debt.  The complaint further alleges
that on October 25, 2011, the Company disclosed more than $6
billion in European sovereign debt exposure.  It is alleged that
following Moody's downgrade and MF Global's release of quarterly
results, including $6.3 billion in European sovereign debt, MF
Global's common stock price declined by about 50% from a close of
$3.68 per share on October 21, 2011 to close at $1.86 per share on
October 25, 2011 on heavy trading volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than January 3, 2012 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to
share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP -- http://www.kaplanfox.com/--
specializes in prosecuting investor class actions and actions
involving financial fraud.  The firm has with offices in New York,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

        Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
        KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
        850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
        New York, New York 10022
        Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                   (212) 687-1980
        Fax: (212) 687-7714
        E-mail: pmayer@kaplanfox.com

        Laurence D. King, Esq.
        KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
        350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
        San Francisco, CA 94104
        Telephone: (415) 772-4700
        Fax: (415) 772-4707
        E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


MICHAELS STORES: Recalls 29,800 Ashland Brand Glass Vases
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Michaels Stores Inc. of Irving, Texas, announced
a voluntary recall of about 28,000 Ashland(TM) Glass Vases in the
United States of America and 1,800 in Canada.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The glass vases can break or fracture when a consumer picks them
up, posing a laceration hazard.

The firm has received four reports of the vase shattering, causing
lacerations to the hands for all four.  One person had surgery,
two got stitches.

The vase is rectangular and made of clear glass.  It is 12 inches
tall, 8 inches wide and 2.5 inches deep.  The SKU number "425827"
and UPC number "6-927619-661665" are printed on a label on the
bottom of the vase.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12040.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Michaels Arts & Crafts Stores from January 2008
through October 2011 for about $20.

Consumers should stop using the vase and return it to a Michaels
Arts & Crafts store for a full refund.  To avoid the risk of
breakage and possible injury, handle the vase with care.  For
additional information, contact Michaels at (800) 642-4235 Monday
through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Sunday from 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central Time or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.michaels.com/


MONEY MART: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Janelle Jasso, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Money Mart Express, Inc., a
Utah corporation; Dollar Financial Group, Inc., a New York
corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-11-
515048 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., October 12, 2011)
asserts two claims for relief stemming from the Plaintiff's
employment with the Defendants, based upon their alleged failure
to comply with the requirements set forth in California
Labor Code, including failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and
failure to pay overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
accurate wage statements and maintain required records and to pay
minimum wage.

Money Mart is a Utah corporation, while Dollar Financial is a New
York corporation.  The Defendants' corporate headquarters are
located in Berwyn, Pennsylvania.  The names and identities of the
Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants removed the lawsuit on November 14, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Defendants argue that the removal is
proper because the lawsuit involves 100 or more putative class
members, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and at least
one member of the putative class is a citizen of a state different
from that of at least one defendant.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-05500 to the proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin K. Riley, Esq.
          C. Griffith Towle, Esq.
          Brian Villarreal, Esq.
          Simon R. Goodfellow, Esq.
          BARTKO, ZANKEL, TARRANT & MILLER
          A Professional Corporation
          900 Front Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1152
          E-mail: briley@bztm.com
                  gtowle@bztm.com
                  bvillarreal@bztm.com
                  sgoodfellow@bztm.com


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------
Todd A. Heywood, writing for The Michigan Messenger, reports that
two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit on
Nov. 14 on behalf of Michigan's 83 counties alleging that the
Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars
in property title transfer taxes.

Curtis Hertel, Jr., the Ingham County Register of Deeds, and
Branch County Registrar Nancy Hutchins filed the suit, which
alleges that the company and numerous banks failed to pay property
transfer taxes when the title to the company was transferred to
another owner in the MERS system.

"MERS created a shadow registry system that has made it very
difficult for the public and for government offices like mine to
keep track of who owns what mortgage," Mr. Hertel said.  "They
have also stated they were created to avoid fees in my office.
When we began the investigation into robo-signing I asked my
attorneys to research MERS foreclosures to see if there were
patterns of irregularity.  This lawsuit is a direct result of that
investigation.  I believe there has been a systematic attempt to
avoid paying taxes by MERS and the banks that use MERS."

Mr. Hertel alleges the company has created a "shell game" designed
to dodge taxes.

"MERS has transformed the entire mortgage industry into a giant
shell game", said Mr. Hertel.  "The current servicer of a mortgage
is no longer a matter of public record, and once a property is
foreclosed, the real games begin, as deeds and other paperwork are
filed in such a way to avoid transfer taxes at every step.
Property ownership is clouded, and the simple task of collecting
transfer tax has been turned into this legal battle, largely
because of the involvement of MERS."

The lawsuit also targets three foreclosure attorneys -- Marshall
Isaacs from Orlans Associations and Ellen Coon and Jeanne Kivi of
Trott and Trott.  Both Orlans and Trott and Trott have come under
fire in recent months for participating in robo-signing.  Both
organizations are also significant Republican donors in Michigan.

Also of interest, David Trott's Attorney's Title company is named
as a defendant.  Mr. Trott owns what is considered the largest
foreclosure law firm in the state.  Linda Orlans' title agency
eTitle is also named.  Ms. Orlans runs Orlans Associates.

"I am seeking repayment of both state and county transfer tax.
Without discovery it's hard to tell you an exact number,"
Mr. Hertel said.  "I am positive its in the millions of dollars
for both of them."

This is not the first lawsuit Mr. Hertel has filed in relation to
recovering millions of dollars of unpaid taxes arising from the
title transfers.  Earlier this year, he sued Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac and numerous banks over what he alleges is an improper claim
to an exemption, thus, requiring the entities to pay millions of
dollars in property title transfer taxes.

"I hope everything we are doing gives the banks, MERS and
foreclosure firms pause," Mr. Hertel said.  "We could avoid a lot
of these situations if they just worked with individual citizens
instead of pushing people into the foreclosure process."


NAT'L BASKETBALL ASST'N: NBA Players Mull Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for The Associated Press, report that NBA
players rejected the league's latest offer on Nov. 14 and began
disbanding their union, likely jeopardizing the season.

"We're prepared to file this antitrust action against the NBA,"
union executive director Billy Hunter said.  "That's the best
situation where players can get their due process."

And that's a tragedy as far as NBA Commissioner David Stern is
concerned.

"It looks like the 2011-12 season is really in jeopardy,"
Mr. Stern said in an interview aired on ESPN.  "It's just a big
charade.  To do it now, the union is ratcheting up, I guess, to
see if they can scare the NBA owners or something.  That's not
happening."

Mr. Hunter said players were not prepared to agree to Mr. Stern's
ultimatum to accept the current proposal or face a worse one,
saying they thought it was "extremely unfair." And they're aware
what the fight will cost them.

"We understand the consequences of potentially missing the season
but it's a risk worth taking," union Vice President Maurice Evans
said.

Dissolving their union gives players a chance to win several
billions of dollars in triple damages, in an antitrust lawsuit.

Union President Derek Fisher, flanked at a press conference by
dozens of players , said the decision was unanimous.  But there
were surely players throughout the league who would have preferred
if union leadership put the proposal to a vote of the full
membership.

Mr. Hunter said the NBPA was in the process of converting to a
trade association and that all players will be represented in a
class-action suit against the NBA by attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and
David Boies, who were on opposite sides of the NFL labor dispute
-- Mr. Kessler working for the players, and Mr. Boise for the
league.

Mr. Stern was not impressed with his legal adversaries.

"Mr. Kessler got his way, and we're about to go into the nuclear
winter of the NBA," he told ESPN.  "If I were a player I would be
wondering what it is that Billy Hunter just did."

The sides still can negotiate during the legal process, but
Mr. Hunter said the bargaining process had "completely broken
down."  Players and owners have been talking for two years but
couldn't reach a deal, the players feeling the league's desire to
improve competitive balance would hurt their free agency.

And beyond that, the owners' desire for a 50-50 split of
basketball-related income -- after players were guaranteed 57%
under the old deal -- meant players were shifting at least $280
million per year to the owners.

"This deal could have been done.  It should have been done,"
Mr. Hunter said.  "We've given and given and given, and they got
to the place where they just reached for too much and the players
decided to push back."


NAT'L BASKETBALL ASST'N: Faces Class Action Over Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that four professional players
with the National Basketball Association filed a federal class
action on Nov. 15 against the league and 30 clubs, which they say
have conspired to engineer an illegal boycott and price-fixing
arrangement.

The named plaintiffs are James Caron Butler, a free agent who last
played with the Dallas Mavericks, the Detroit Pistons' Ben Gordon,
and the Minnesota Timberwolves' Anthony Tolliver and Derrick
Williams.

They demand an injunction and damages for breach of contract.

A copy of the Complaint in Butler, et al. v. National Basketball
Association, et al., Case No. 11-cv-03352 (D. Minn.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/15/11-15%20NBA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barbara Podluck Berens, Esq.
          Just Rae Miller, Esq.
          BERENS & MILLER, P.A.
          3720 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-6171
          E-mail: Bberens@berensmiller.com


NELNET INC: Nov. 22 Hearing Set for Motion to Reconsider Stay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on a motion for reconsideration of the stay of a
lawsuit against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, a subsidiary of Nelnet,
Inc., is set for November 22, 2011, according to the Company's
November 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC
("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of the Company, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "District
Court").  The complaint alleges that Peterson's sent six
advertising faxes to the named plaintiff in 2008-2009 that were
not the result of express invitation or permission granted by the
plaintiff and did not include certain opt out language.  The
complaint also alleges that such faxes violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), purportedly
entitling the plaintiff to $500 per violation, trebled for willful
violations for each of the six faxes.  The complaint further
alleges that Peterson's had sent putative class members more than
10,000 faxes that violated the TCPA, amounting to more than $5
million in statutory penalty damages and more than $15 million if
trebled for willful violations.  The complaint seeks to establish
a class action for two different classes of plaintiffs: Class A,
to whom Peterson's sent unsolicited fax advertisements containing
opt out notices similar to those contained in the faxes received
by the named plaintiff; and Class B, to whom Peterson's sent fax
advertisements containing opt out notices similar to those
contained in the faxes received by the named plaintiff.  As of
November 8, 2011, the District Court has not established or
recognized any class.

On February 16, 2011, Peterson's filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the District Court on April 15,
2011, shortly after a similar motion to dismiss that had been
granted in an unrelated case involving alleged TCPA violations
related to faxes was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit (the "Appeals Court"), which has jurisdiction over
the District Court.  On April 29, 2011, Peterson's filed an answer
to the complaint, but also filed a motion for reconsideration of
the motion to dismiss.  On May 17, 2011, the Appeals Court granted
a petition for rehearing of the motion to dismiss in the unrelated
TCPA fax case, and on May 31, 2011, Peterson's filed a motion for
stay pending the outcome of that rehearing.  On September 12,
2011, the motion for stay was granted, and the motion for
reconsideration was denied by the District Court. On September 20,
2011, the named plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of
the District Court's order, which is set for hearing on
November 22, 2011.

Peterson's intends to continue to contest the suit vigorously.
Due to the preliminary stage of this matter and the uncertainty
and risks inherent in class determination and the overall
litigation process, the Company believes that a meaningful
estimate of a reasonably possible loss, if any, or range of
reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot currently be made.


OLYMPUS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Olympus, the scandal-plagued
Japanese corporation, faces a shareholder class action accusing it
of hiding losses "in the form of inflated fees," including the
$687 million it paid an adviser for a $2 billion acquisition of a
company that soon went belly up.

A copy of the Complaint in Graham v. Olympus Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-07103 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/15/Olympus.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel B. Allanoff, Esq.
          Meredith Cohen, Esq.
          GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK, P.C.
          1521 Locust Street, 8th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-5182

               - and -

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1900
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 868-3610

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          VIANALE & VIANALE LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 392-4750


ORIENT EXPRESS: Final Hearing on Wage Suit Deal Set for Jan. 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final fairness hearing on the settlement negotiated by Orient-
Express Hotels Ltd.'s restaurant, '21' Club, to resolve a wage-
and-hour class action complaint has been scheduled for January
2012, according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

'21' Club is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit
brought by private banqueting service staff seeking to recover
alleged retained gratuities and overtime wages pursuant to New
York State and US federal wage and hour laws.  In August 2011, the
parties agreed in principle to settle the case by OEH paying
plaintiffs $2,000,000, which has been accrued.  In September, the
court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a final
fairness hearing in January 2012.  Funding of the settlement will
occur promptly after court approval.  Additionally, OEH has
accrued $500,000 in legal and tax costs associated with the
lawsuit and settlement.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Orient-Express Hotels, Ltd., together with
its subsidiaries, operates in the leisure market worldwide. The
Company owns and invests in individual deluxe hotels, restaurants,
tourist trains, and river cruise businesses.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $1.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lana Birbrair at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that Pilgrim's Pride
Corp. agreed on Nov. 14 in Texas to pay $1.5 million to settle a
securities fraud class action accusing it of misleading investors
about the company's financial well-being months before it filed
for bankruptcy protection.

According to Law360, Pilgrim's Pride and the plaintiffs agreed to
settle all claims in the suit and filed a stipulation and
agreement of settlement in which the chicken company denied any
wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.5 million within 10 days to avoid
further litigation.

                       About Pilgrim's Pride

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is
one of the largest chicken companies in the United States, Mexico
and Puerto Rico.  The Company's fresh chicken retail line is sold
throughout the US, throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern and
central regions of Mexico.  The Company exports commodity chicken
products to 90 countries.  The Company operates feed mills,
hatcheries, processing plants and distribution centers in 15 U.S.
states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.

Pilgrim's Pride and six of its subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 08-45664) on Dec. 1, 2008.  The
Company's subsidiaries in Mexico and certain subsidiaries in the
United States were not included in the filing and operated outside
of the Chapter 11 process.

Attorneys at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP served as bankruptcy
counsel.  Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, was the Company's investment
bankers.  Kurtzman Carson Consulting LLC served as claims and
notice agent.  Kelly Hart and Brown Rudnick represented the
official equity committee.  Attorneys at Andrews Kurth LLP
represented the official committee of unsecured creditors.

On Dec. 10, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Joint Plan of
Reorganization filed by the Debtors.  The Plan was premised on the
sale of the business to JBS SA.  Under the Plan, creditors are
paid in full.  Existing owners retained 34% of the equity.  The
Company emerged from its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on Dec.
28, 2009.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Expects Court Ruling on Settlement This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc., expects a court decision by the end of
November with respect to its settlement agreement to resolve class
action lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition by Duke
Energy Corporation, according to the Company's November 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) and
Progress Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
Merger Agreement).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Progress
Energy will be acquired by Duke Energy in a stock-for-stock
transaction (the Merger) and continue as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Duke Energy.

During January and February 2011, Progress Energy and its
directors were named as defendants in eleven purported class
action lawsuits with ten lawsuits brought in the Superior Court,
Wake County, N.C., and one lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, each in
connection with the Merger (we refer to these lawsuits as the
"actions").  The complaints in the actions allege, among other
things, that the Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of
fiduciary duty by the individual defendants, in that it allegedly
does not provide for full and fair value for Progress Energy's
shareholders; that the Merger Agreement contains coercive deal
protection measures; and that the Merger Agreement and the Merger
were approved as a result, allegedly, of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
Merger Agreement.  The complaints in the actions also allege that
Progress Energy aided and abetted the individual defendants'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  As relief, the plaintiffs in
the actions seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of the
Merger. The defendants believe that the allegations of the
complaints in the actions are without merit and that they have
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims made in the
actions.

Additionally, the complaint in the federal action was amended in
early April 2011 to include allegations that the defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with statements
contained in the Registration Statement.  Given the new
allegations invoking federal securities laws, the defendants
intend to move, plead, or otherwise respond to the amended federal
complaint consistent with the provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, which now governs the federal action.

On March 31, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent a
derivative demand letter to Mr. William D. Johnson, Chairman,
President and CEO of Progress Energy, demanding that the Progress
Energy board of directors desist from moving forward with the
Merger, make certain disclosures, and engage in an auction of the
Company.  Also on March 31, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr.
Johnson a substantially identical derivative demand letter on
behalf of two other purported Progress Energy shareholders.

On April 13, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent
another derivative demand letter to Mr. Johnson further demanding
that the Progress Energy board of directors desist from moving
forward with the Merger unless certain changes are made to the
Merger Agreement and additional disclosures are made.  Also on
April 13, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr. Johnson a substantially
identical derivative demand letter on behalf of two other
purported Progress Energy shareholders.

On April 25, 2011, the Progress Energy board of directors
established a special committee of disinterested directors to
conduct a review and evaluation of the allegations and legal
claims set forth in the derivative demand letters.  The special
committee investigated the allegations and legal claims and
determined there was no basis to pursue the claims.

By order dated June 17, 2011, the court consolidated the state
court cases.  On June 21, 2011, the plaintiffs in the state court
actions filed a verified consolidated amended complaint in the
consolidated state court actions alleging breach of fiduciary duty
by the individual defendants, and that Progress Energy aided and
abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The verified consolidated amended complaint further alleges
that the Registration Statement and amendments filed on April 8,
April 25, and May 13, 2011, failed to disclose material facts,
giving rise to plaintiffs' claims.

On July 11, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow its shareholders
to vote on the proposals required in connection with the Merger at
its special meeting of its shareholders, Progress Energy entered
into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs in the
consolidated state court actions and other named defendants to
settle the consolidated action and all related claims that were or
could have been asserted in other actions, subject to court
approval.  If the court approves the settlement contemplated in
the memorandum of understanding, the claims will be released and
the consolidated amended complaint will be dismissed with
prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding, Progress Energy agreed to make available additional
information to its shareholders in advance of the special meeting
of shareholders of Progress Energy held on August 23, 2011, in
Raleigh, N.C. to vote upon the proposal to approve the plan of
merger contained in the Merger Agreement.  In addition, Progress
Energy has agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses of
plaintiffs' counsel not to exceed $550,000 and ultimately
determined by the court.  At a hearing on July 29, 2011, the court
indicated that it would provide preliminary approval of the
settlement so that the special meeting of the shareholders to vote
on the merger could proceed as scheduled on August 23, 2011.

On October 27, 2011, a final hearing was held to consider the
settlement and plaintiffs' application to the court for attorneys'
fees and expenses.  A court order is expected by the end of
November.  The details of the settlement were set forth in a
notice sent to Progress Energy's shareholders of record that were
members of the class as of July 5, 2011.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.  The settlement will not affect the merger
consideration to be paid to shareholders of Progress Energy in
connection with the proposed Merger.

The Company adds that it cannot predict the outcome of these
matters.

Progress Energy, Inc., is a holding company headquartered in
Raleigh, N.C., subject to regulation by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Units Still Defend Hurricane Katrina Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend a class
action lawsuit arising from damages relating to losses suffered by
victims of Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's November
8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In May 2011, Carolina Power & Light Company, doing business as
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., and Florida Power Corporation,
doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., were named in a
complaint of a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  Plaintiffs claim
that PEC and PEF, along with numerous other utility, oil, coal and
chemical companies, are liable for damages relating to losses
suffered by victims of Hurricane Katrina.  Plaintiffs claim that
defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the frequency
and intensity of storms such as Hurricane Katrina.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claim is without merit;
however, it cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Progress Energy, Inc. is a holding company headquartered in
Raleigh, N.C., subject to regulation by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: MDL Panel Denied Consolidation Bid in Aug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A multidistrict litigation panel denied in August 2011 certain
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate all federal actions relating to
the installation of fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way,
according to Qwest Communications International Inc.'s
November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against the
Company on behalf of landowners on various dates and in various
courts in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois (where there is a federal and a state court
case), Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington.  For the most part, the
complaints challenge the Company's right to install its fiber-
optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.  The complaints allege that
the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not
include the right to permit the Company to install its fiber-optic
cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent.  Most
of the actions purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide
classes in the named plaintiffs' respective states, although two
of the currently pending actions purport to be brought on behalf
of multi-state classes.  Specifically, the Illinois state court
action purports to be on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa,
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, and
the Indiana state court action purports to be on behalf of a
national class of landowners.  In general, the complaints seek
damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as
punitive damages.  On July 18, 2008, a federal district court in
Massachusetts entered an order preliminarily approving a
settlement of all of the actions, except the action pending in
Tennessee.  On September 10, 2009, the court denied final approval
of the settlement on grounds that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction.  On December 9, 2009, the court issued a revised
ruling that, among other things, denied a motion for approval as
moot and dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The parties are now engaged in negotiating settlements on a state-
by-state basis, and have filed and received preliminary approval
of a settlement in Alabama federal court, and Tennessee state
court.  Preliminary and final approval also has been granted in a
federal court action in Illinois, to which the Company is a party,
and in a similar action in Idaho, to which the Company is not a
party.  One group of plaintiffs filed a motion with the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation seeking consolidation of all
the federal actions, which the Company and all other defendants,
as well as a second group of plaintiffs, opposed.  On August 8,
2011, the multi-district litigation panel denied the motion.


ROSETTA STONE: Awaits Court Okay of Wage & Hour Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosetta Stone Inc. is awaiting court approval of the proposed
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against the Company in
California, according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On or about April 28, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda for damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the matter of Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rosetta Stone Ltd. and DOES 1 to 50. The complaint alleges that
plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated who are or were
employed as salaried managers by the Company in its retail
locations in California are due unpaid wages and other relief for
the Company's violations of state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs
moved to amend their complaint to include a nationwide class on
January 21, 2011. On March 16, 2011, the case was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division. On October 27, 2011, a mediation of
the case was held.  In November 2011, the plaintiffs' attorneys
and the Company agreed to the mediator's proposed settlement
terms. As of September 30, 2011, the Company reserved $0.6 million
with respect to the proposed settlement. Approval of the proposed
settlement by the court is pending.  The Company disputes the
plaintiffs' claims and have not admitted any wrongdoing with
respect to the case.


ROSETTA STONE: Securities Class Suit in Virginia Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
A district court in Virginia granted in September a motion for
leave to voluntarily dismiss claims against Rosetta Stone Inc.,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

On March 24, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between February 25, 2010 and February 28, 2011,
against the Company and certain of its present and former officers
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia alleging violations of federal securities law in
connection with various public statements and alleged material
omissions made by the Company. The complaint names as defendants
Rosetta Stone Inc., Tom P.H. Adams, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Brian D. Helman, former Chief Financial Officer, and
Matthew C. Sysak, Vice President and Controller. On September 19,
2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia granted plaintiff's motion for leave to voluntarily
dismiss its claims with prejudice.  Although no settlement was
paid, the Company incurred legal fees and other costs in the
defense of these claims.


ROTO-ROOTER: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Sales Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Welbes, writing for Twin Cities, reports that a lawsuit filed
on Nov. 14 claims that Roto-Rooter uses deceptive sales practices
in its drain-cleaning service, following a number of consumer
complaints that have swirled around Minneapolis for months.

"We have three individuals who have stepped forward," said Gordon
Rudd, the Minneapolis-based attorney who filed the civil suit in
Hennepin County District Court.  "But based upon reports, we
believe there have been many people" who have had similar
problems, he added.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status.  And a separate
investigation of the complaints by the city of Minneapolis has
found an additional 30 customers allegedly were defrauded.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed on Nov. 14 are Dawn Mills of
Crystal and LuAnn and Michael Cosgrove of Minneapolis.  The suit
claims that Roto-Rooter violated state "truth-in-repair" laws and
other statutes and seeks unspecified damages.

"It was the Sunday before Christmas (last year) and I had a
houseful of relatives from out of town" when the sewer backed up,
Mills said on Nov. 14 in an interview.  With sewage in her laundry
room, she said Roto-Rooter was the first service she thought to
call.

A Roto-Rooter employee first quoted her a price of $234 to remove
the clog, but that didn't get the job done.  A $500 camera
inspection followed, the suit claims, which found a broken sewer
line that would cost $8,750 to repair.

Roto-Rooter offered to finance the fix through Wells Fargo Home
Project Visa, the suit claims.  Ms. Mills' boyfriend signed the
finance agreement when she was at work.  Ms. Mills still owes
$6,414, the suit says.  She's currently paying $165 a month on
that debt, Ms. Mills said, with payments that will run for another
four years.

An inspector from the city of Crystal, who looked at the work on
Dec. 27, according to the suit, told Ms. Mills she overpaid for
the work.

"They took advantage at my being at a disadvantage," she said
Monday.

In a written statement on Nov. 14, Roto-Rooter said that it
doesn't comment on pending litigation.  The statement also said
the company has an ongoing commitment to addressing service
inquires and that customers can call 1-800-768-6911 to have their
questions answered.

Roto-Rooter Services Co. is based in West Des Moines, Iowa, and
its parent company, Chemed Corp., is in Cincinnati.

The Cosgroves had a similar experience with a drain repair at
their Minneapolis home in February.

They were quoted a price of $259 to fix their clogged sewer line,
which wasn't successful.

A camera inspection followed, and then a recommendation to fix a
problem where two pipes met, including excavation work outside.
That job would cost $5,235, LuAnn Cosgrove was told.  She wanted
to wait, the suit says, but after hearing her basement could flood
with sewage, she agreed to the repair.

A city of Minneapolis inspector later looked at the DVD of the
camera inspection and said the Cosgroves had overpaid for an
"unnecessary" repair, the suit claims.

A number of consumer complaints in Minneapolis, stretching back to
last year, prompted the city investigation.  The city's inquiry is
still active and being handled by the Minneapolis Police
Department, a spokesman said on Nov. 14.

A search warrant filed in Hennepin County on Oct. 11 indicates
that Minneapolis police have searched Roto-Rooter offices in
Plymouth, seizing customer files and DVDs of drain lines.

The investigators also obtained invoices from a pipe company that
served as a subcontractor for Roto-Rooter.


SOUTHERN STAR: Price Litigations I and II Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action, Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, District Court, Stevens
County, Kansas, or Price Litigation I, filed May 28, 1999, the
named plaintiffs, or Plaintiffs, have sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Corp.  Asserting theories of civil
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment,
their Fourth Amended Class Action Petition alleges that the
defendants have under measured the volume of, and therefore have
underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured
for Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages,
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the
right to plead for punitive damages.  On August 22, 2003, an
answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central.  Despite a
denial by the Court on April 10, 2003 of their original motion for
class certification, the Plaintiffs continued to seek the
certification of a class.  The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class
certification for a second time was fully briefed and the Court
heard oral argument on the motion on April 1, 2005.  On
September 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' most recent
motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to
reconsider that ruling on October 2, 2009.  The defendants,
including Central, filed a response in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on January 18, 2010.  The
Plaintiffs filed a reply, and oral argument, which was presented
before a different judge, was heard on February 10, 2010.  By
order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier denial of class
certification.  The Plaintiffs did not file for interlocutory
review of the March 31, 2010 order; however, it is unknown at this
time whether the Plaintiffs intend to proceed with the merits of
their claims, absent class certification or plan to move to
dismiss the lawsuit.

In the putative class action, Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23, District Court, Stevens
County, Kansas, or Price Litigation II, filed May 12, 2003, the
named Plaintiffs from Case No. 99 C 30 have sued the same
defendants, including Southern Star Central Corp.  Asserting
substantially identical legal and/or equitable theories, as in
Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the defendants have
under measured the British thermal units, or Btu, content of, and
therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained
from or measured for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages.  On
November 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.  The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification,
along with Plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price
Litigation I, was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument
on this motion on April 1, 2005.  On September 18, 2009, the Court
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on October 2,
2009.  The defendants, including Central, filed a response in
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on
January 18, 2010.  The Plaintiffs filed a reply, and oral
argument, which was presented before a different judge, was heard
on February 10, 2010.  By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court
denied the Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the
earlier denial of class certification.  The Plaintiffs did not
file for interlocutory review of the March 31, 2010, order;
however, it is unknown at this time whether the Plaintiffs intend
to proceed with the merits of their claims, absent class
certification or plan to move to dismiss the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Judge Keeps Foster Care Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ginnie Graham, writing for Tulsa Word, reports that a federal
judge decided on Nov. 15 to keep the class certification in a
lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services for
alleged abuses in its foster-care system but continued to hear
arguments in a summary judgment motion.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell heard arguments on Nov. 13 by
DHS attorneys to de-certify the class based on a June Supreme
Court decision on a sex discrimination suit against Wal-Mart.

The lawsuit was filed by nine foster children in February 2008 and
it was expanded to a class-action in May 2009.

DHS had argued, using the recent Supreme Court ruling, that the
class lacked common traits.

Judge Frizzell ruled in favor of keeping the class certification,
citing support for evidence based on two questions to examine at
trial:

* Whether DHS has a policy or practice of failing to adequately
monitor the safety of foster children, causing significant harm
and risk or harm to their safety, and

* Whether DHS is subjecting foster children to "an impermissible
level" of risk of abuse and neglect while in state custody.

DHS has also asked for a summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs
have not generated evidence during discovery to support their
claims and that DHS has significantly changed its policies and
procedures since the suit's filing.

Arguments continued on Nov. 15.

Also, motions to limit the scope of evidence at trial are pending.

Trial is set for February.

The lawsuit points to high caseloads as a reason leading to
abuses, and it alleges the commission overseeing DHS has failed to
provide enough oversight to protect children.

"I understand they serve as volunteers, yet they have a duty,"
Judge Frizzell said.  "Ultimately, the responsibility is that of
the commission."

Attorney Bob Nance, representing DHS, noted that the commissioners
are volunteers and have the responsibility of setting policies and
rules.

"And they can make inquiries," Judge Frizzell said.  "I find it
astounding that in three years no commissioners can recollect at a
meeting an inquiry of caseworker caseloads."

"I'm not sure if no commissioner said that," said Mr. Nance.

"Then point to it in the record . . . We've been at this for three
years," Judge Frizzell said.

Mr. Nance argued that it would be easy to play "gotcha" with
commissioners on specific facts, pointing to the vastness of the
agency and volunteer nature of the job.

"The fact they don't ask what the caseloads are has not caused any
harm to the children," Mr. Nance said.

Depositions of commissioners for the lawsuit found that none of
the commissioners were told by DHS officials of the loss of
accreditation in child welfare, which is a state law.

Some commissioners also testified they had not read or only
skimmed a critical legislative audit and they had not read or kept
up with the federal lawsuit.

Commissioners came under public scrutiny earlier this year during
some high-profile child death cases where DHS workers were
involved.

Gov. Mary Fallin appointed two new members, former Oklahoma City
district attorney Wes Lane and businessman Brad Yarbrough, who
took over as commission chairman last month.

Commissioners Steven Dow and Aneta Wilkinson attended the hearing
Nov. 14.  All commissioners were present on Nov. 15 at the request
of the court as part of the settlement conference, which was not
open to the public.


STEC INC: Trial in Consolidated Securities Suit Set for July 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new trial date for a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit against STEC, Inc., has been scheduled for July 24, 2012,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

From November 6, 2009, through March 2, 2010, seven purported
class action complaints were filed against the Company and several
of its senior officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The Court
consolidated the complaints and appointed Lead Plaintiffs.  The
Court did not consider the sufficiency of Lead Plaintiff's initial
consolidated complaint and instead replaced the former Lead
Plaintiffs with a new Lead Plaintiff.  The new Lead Plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint that the Court dismissed
without prejudice.  Thereafter, the new Lead Plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of all persons and
entities who acquired the Company's common stock between June 16,
2009 and February 23, 2010.  The second amended complaint alleges
claims against the Company and several of its senior officers and
directors for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and claims against
several of its senior officers and directors for violations of
Section 20A and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  In addition,
the second amended complaint alleges claims against the Company,
several of its senior officers and directors, and four of its
underwriters for violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933, and claims against several of the
Company's senior officers and directors for violations of Section
15 of the Securities Act.  The second amended complaint seeks
compensatory damages for all damages sustained as a result of the
defendants' alleged actions and further seeks reasonable costs and
expenses, rescission, counsel fees, and other relief the Court
deems just and proper.  The defendants filed motions to dismiss
and on June 17, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the
underwriters' motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims without
prejudice and denying the Company's motion to dismiss the Exchange
Act claims.  As a result, the discovery stay imposed by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was lifted.  The
defendants answered the second amended complaint on July 15, 2011.
At a status conference on October 11, 2011, the Court revised the
schedule of pre-trial deadlines and set a new trial date of July
24, 2012.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.  No amounts have been recorded in the
consolidated financial statements for this matter as the Company
believes it is too early in the proceedings to determine an
outcome.

No amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial
statements for this matter as the Company believes it is too early
in the proceedings to determine an outcome.

STEC, Inc., is a global provider of solid-state drives (SSDs)
using NAND Flash that are designed specifically for enterprise
systems and applications that require high input and output
capabilities with low latencies for fast access to critical user
data.  It designs and develops SSD controllers, enhance them with
proprietary firmware and combine them with multi-sourced Flash
media to form high-performance SSDs, which provide a level of IO
performance not currently possible with traditional hard disk
drives.  The Company sells its SSDs to leading global enterprise
hardware original equipment manufacturers, which integrate them
into products used in a variety of industries including cloud
computing, financial services, virtualization, Web 2.0,
government, transportation, defense and transaction processing.


STEC INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEC Inc. continues to defend itself against a securities class
action complaint in the Superior Court of Orange County,
California, according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On July 1, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and several of its senior officers and
directors in the Superior Court of Orange County, California.  The
complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of its
senior officers and directors, and four of its underwriters for
violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, and further alleges claims against several of the
Company's  senior officers and directors for violations of Section
15 of the Securities Act.  The complaint seeks compensatory
damages and rescission or a rescissory measure of damages where
applicable, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees
and expert fees, and other relief the Court may deem just and
proper.  On August 4, 2011, the defendants removed the action to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The plaintiffs moved to remand and on October 7,
2011, the Court entered an order remanding the case back to the
Superior Court of Orange County, California.  The Company has not
yet filed its response to the complaint.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

STEC, Inc., is a global provider of solid-state drives (SSDs)
using NAND Flash that are designed specifically for enterprise
systems and applications that require high input and output
capabilities with low latencies for fast access to critical user
data.  It designs and develops SSD controllers, enhance them with
proprietary firmware and combine them with multi-sourced Flash
media to form high-performance SSDs, which provide a level of IO
performance not currently possible with traditional hard disk
drives.  The Company sells its SSDs to leading global enterprise
hardware original equipment manufacturers, which integrate them
into products used in a variety of industries including cloud
computing, financial services, virtualization, Web 2.0,
government, transportation, defense and transaction processing.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Suits Still in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 17, 2008, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and eight other steel
manufacturing companies were served with a class action antitrust
complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago by Standard Iron Works of
Scranton, Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the United States, starting in 2005, by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products.  Seven
additional lawsuits, each of them materially similar to the
original, have also been filed in the same federal court, each of
them likewise seeking similar class certification.  All but one of
the Complaints purport to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products between
January 1, 2005, and the present.  The other Complaint purports to
be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all indirect
purchasers of steel products within the same time period.  In
addition, on December 28, 2010, the Company and the other co-
defendants were served with a substantially similar complaint in
the Circuit Court of Cocke County, Tennessee, purporting to be on
behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee.  The
case has been removed to federal court.  All Complaints seek
treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief.  On January 2,
2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a Joint Motion
to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits.  On June 12,
2009, however, the Court denied the Motion.  The parties are
currently conducting discovery.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and it is
aggressively defending these actions.  Due to the uncertain nature
of litigation, the Company cannot presently determine the ultimate
outcome of this litigation, however the Company has determined,
based on the information available at this time, that there is not
presently a "reasonable possibility" (as that term is defined in
ASC 450-20-20), that the outcome of these legal proceedings would
have a material impact on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations, or liquidity.

Although not presently necessary or appropriate to make a dollar
estimate of exposure to loss, if any, in connection with the
matter, the Company says it may in the future determine that a
loss accrual is necessary.  Although the Company may make loss
accruals, if and as warranted, any amounts that it may accrue from
time to time could vary significantly from the amounts it actually
pays, due to inherent uncertainties and the inherent shortcomings
of the estimation process, the uncertainties involved in
litigation and other factors.  Additionally, an adverse result
could have a material effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations and liquidity.


STEINER LEISURE: Defends Class Suit vs. Unit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited is defending a class action lawsuit
commenced in California against a subsidiary, according to the
Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In April 2011, a Complaint was filed in California Superior Court,
Los Angeles Central Division, against Bliss World LLC and related
entities (Yvette Ferrari v. Bliss World LLC, et al) on behalf of
an employee of Bliss claiming violations of various California
requirements relating to the payment of wages.  The action was
presented as a class action, although Plaintiff has not yet filed
a Motion for Class Certification.  This matter seeks unspecified
damages.  The Company says that the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome resulting in a loss is reasonably possible, but it is
unable to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential
loss in this matter.


STEREOTAXIS INC: Defends Securities Class Action in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Stereotaxis, Inc., is defending itself against a purported
securities class action lawsuit in Missouri, according to the
Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 7, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company, Michael P. Kaminski and Daniel J. Johnston in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
Kevin Pound, a purported shareholder of the Company. The complaint
alleges that, during the period from February 28, 2011 through
August 9, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial condition and future business prospects, in violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs,
attorneys' fees and equitable/injunctive relief. The Company has
not yet formally responded to the complaint. Based on an initial
review of the complaint, the Company believes the complaint is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
However, litigation is inherently uncertain and it is too early in
this proceeding to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or to
reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, related thereto. As
is typical in this type of litigation, additional complaints
containing substantially similar allegations may be filed in the
future. In addition, the Company has obligations, under certain
circumstances, to indemnify the individual defendants with respect
to claims asserted against them and otherwise to the fullest
extent permitted under Delaware law and the Company's bylaws and
certificate of incorporation.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over VD Testing on Guatemalans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Wetzstein, writing for The Washington Times, reports that
the Obama administration faces a deadline of early next year to
respond to a sweeping new class-action lawsuit alleging that U.S.
public health officials in the years after World War II
deliberately infected hundreds of Guatemalan prisoners, soldiers
and psychiatric patients with venereal diseases without informing
them of the infections -- or treating most of them.

The lawsuit was filed earlier this month by Mateo Gudiel Pinto and
seven other named plaintiffs, as well as an unknown number of
other Guatemalans who have yet to be identified but were injured
by the experiments, which ran from 1946 to 1948, and possibly to
1953.

President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius "have all
publicly apologized for the wrongs," Terrence Collingsworth of
Conrad & Scherer LLP, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said on
Nov. 14.  "The proper response in this case is for the Department
of Justice to offer a concrete and just remedy as soon as
possible."

The lawsuit, filed Nov. 10 in U.S. District Court in the District
of Columbia before U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, requires
a response from the federal government and co-defendant,
Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), by Jan. 9.  The suit
names Mrs. Sebelius and seven other public-health officials as
defendants.

A Justice Department spokesman said on Nov. 14 the agency could
not comment on the lawsuit.  A spokeswoman for PAHO said the
organization was coordinating with federal officials on the
matter.

According to a September fact-finding report by the Presidential
Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, at least 1,308
Guatemalans who were prisoners, soldiers or psychiatric patients
were infected with a venereal disease, sometimes via paid sex
workers, and sometimes by U.S. doctors who used their medical
skills to transfer germs.  Only 678 of the infected persons were
found to have received any treatment for their syphilis, gonorrhea
or chancroid, the report said.

Another group of people, including 1,384 children and 51 leprosy
patients, underwent other kinds of testing.  In all, the
experiments involved at least 5,128 persons, the report said.

The lawsuit says none of these persons gave informed consent, and
Guatemalan officials permitted access to vulnerable populations in
exchange for money, supplies or other benefits.

The case is comparable to the infamous 40-year Tuskegee syphilis
experiments, in which U.S. public health doctors deliberately
didn't treat syphilis infections in hundreds of poor black men so
that the doctors can observe how the disease progressed, said
Piper Hendricks, an attorney for the plaintiffs at Parker Waichman
Alonso LLP.

"Just like Tuskegee, there was no remedy [for the victims] until
they filed a class-action" lawsuit, she said.  "We're following
that pattern again, and hoping to have a positive response from
the government sooner, rather than later."


URS CORP: Continues to Defend Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
URS Corporation continues to defend itself and a subsidiary
against lawsuits related to Hurricane Katrina, including the
failure of New Orleans levee, according to the Company's
November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary
acquired by the Company on November 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created by the hurricane
overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the
Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.

Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant.  Other defendants
include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the
Orleans Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Company.  Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including
the WGI Ohio cases, have been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District
Court").  The plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in
their design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans
levees.  The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who
claim to have incurred damages arising out of the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina.  The allegation against the Company is
that the work it performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal
damaged the levee and floodwall and caused and/or contributed to
breaches and flooding.  The plaintiffs allege damages of $200
billion and demand attorneys' fees and costs.  WGI Ohio did not
design, construct, repair or maintain any of the levees or the
floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane Katrina.  WGI
Ohio performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a
contractor for the federal government and has pursued dismissal
from the lawsuits on a motion for summary judgment on the basis
that government contractors are immune from liability.

On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the
Company performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a
contractor for the federal government and are therefore immune
from liability, which was appealed by a number of the plaintiffs
on April 27, 2009, to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals ("Court of Appeals").  On September 14, 2010, the Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision
and WGI Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further litigation.  On August 1, 2011, the
District Court held that the defense of government contractor
immunity is not available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an
issue for appeal.

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

WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously;
however, the Company cannot provide assurance that it will be
successful in these efforts.  The potential range of loss and the
resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time.


VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Merix-Related Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viasystems Group, Inc., continues to await court approval of its
agreement to settle for $1.5 million a consolidated lawsuit over
its acquisition of Merix Corporation, according to the Company's
November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 13, 2009, and November 5, 2009, respectively, Asbestos
Workers Pension Fund and W. Donald Wybert, both former
shareholders of Merix Corporation, filed putative class action
complaints in Oregon state court (Multnomah County), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, against Merix, the
members of its board of directors and Viasystems.  The complaints,
which were substantively identical and sought to enjoin the Merix
Acquisition, alleged, among other things, that Merix's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Merix's shareholders by
attempting to sell Merix to Viasystems for an inadequate price and
that Viasystems aided and abetted those breaches.

On November 23, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases.  On or about December 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which largely
mirrored the original complaints, but also added Maple Acquisition
Corp. (the merger vehicle) as a defendant and alleged that Merix'
proxy statement for the Merix Acquisition was materially
deficient.

On January 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the Merix Acquisition, scheduled to take place
on February 8, 2010.  On January 29, 2010, the defendants filed
oppositions to plaintiffs' motion, and, on February 2, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their reply.  On February 5, 2010, following oral
arguments, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion.  The Merix
Acquisition was consummated on February 16, 2010.

After the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the
transaction, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, dated
April 19, 2010, naming only Merix's former board members as
defendants.  In June 2011, the Defendants and the plaintiffs
agreed to settle the case for $1.5 million.  The settlement is
currently pending court approval, and a hearing was scheduled for
November 10, 2011.  The Defendants are insured by Merix's
directors and officers liability insurance coverage.  The Company
has exhausted the self-insured retention of the D&O Insurance and
therefore all settlement funds and any expenses related to this
matter will be paid by the D&O Insurance.  The Company anticipates
the case will be settled in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Viasystems Group, Inc., is a worldwide provider of complex multi-
layer, printed circuit boards (PCBs) and electro-mechanical
solutions (E-M Solutions).  Its PCBs serve as the "electronic
backbone" of almost all electronic equipment, and its E-M
Solutions products and services include integration of PCBs and
other components into finished and semi-finished electronic
equipment, for which it also provides custom and standard metal
enclosures, cabinets, racks and sub-racks, backplanes, cable
assemblies and busbars.


WEB.COM GROUP: Appeals in Consolidated Suit vs. Unit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the consolidated class action lawsuit involving Web.com
Group, Inc.'s subsidiary remain pending, according to the
Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In November 2001, Register.com Inc. ("Register.com"), its
Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer and former Vice
President of Finance and Accounting Richard D. Forman and its
former President and Chief Executive Officer Alan G. Breitman (the
"Individual Defendants") were named as defendants in class action
complaints alleging violations of the federal securities laws in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the
operative complaint, was filed in the Southern District of New
York on April 19, 2002.

The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act") and Sections
10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "1934 Act") against Register.com and Individual Defendants.
The essence of the complaint is that defendants issued and sold
Register.com's common stock pursuant to the Registration Statement
for the March 3, 2000 Initial Public Offering ("IPO") without
disclosing to investors that certain underwriters in the offering
had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.  The complaint also alleges that the
Registration Statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the
underwriters allocated Register.com shares in the IPO to customers
in exchange for the customers' promises to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices above the IPO
price, thereby maintaining, distorting and/or inflating the market
price for the shares in the aftermarket.  The action seeks damages
in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On
July 15, 2002, Register.com moved to dismiss all claims against it
and the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002, the Court
dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without
prejudice.  This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a)
control person claims without prejudice, since these claims were
asserted only against the Individual Defendants.  On February 19,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against
Register.com.  On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit vacated a
decision by the district court granting class certification in six
of the approximately 300 nearly identical actions that are part of
the consolidated litigation, which are intended to serve as test,
or "focus" cases.  The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which
do not include Register.com.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied the petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but
noted that the plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify
more narrow classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in Register.com's case, reached a settlement.  It
provides for releases of existing claims and claims that could
have been asserted relating to the conduct alleged to be wrongful
from the class of investors participating in the settlement.  The
insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will
make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including
Register.com.  On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final
approval to the settlement.  Two appeals are proceeding.
Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss both appeals.  Four additional
appeals that had been filed have been withdrawn.

The Company says it intends to continue to defend the action
vigorously if the settlement does not survive the appeal.  Due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.  The Company has
notified its underwriters and insurance companies of the existence
of the claims.  The Company presently believes, after consultation
with legal counsel, that the ultimate outcome of this matter will
not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations,
liquidity or financial position.

Web.com Group, Inc., is a provider of online marketing for small
businesses.


WELLS REIT: Units Continue to Defend Securities Litigation in Md.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc., affiliates
continue to defend themselves against a securities class action
lawsuit in Maryland.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc., filed a putative class action and derivative complaint,
presently styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.
Securities Litigation, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F.
Wells, III, the Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors;
Wells Capital, Inc.; Wells Management Company, Inc., the Company's
former property manager; certain affiliates of Wells Estate Real
Estate Fund, Inc.; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain
individuals who formerly served as officers or directors of
Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, violations of the federal proxy rules and breaches of
fiduciary duty arising from the Piedmont REIT internalization
transaction and the related proxy statement filed with the SEC on
February 26, 2007, as amended.  The complaint sought, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages and nullification of the
Piedmont REIT internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT
proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in
acquiring Piedmont REIT.  On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal
proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to
obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.  The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization
transaction.  On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised
certain defenses to the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On September 20,
2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.  A trial date has not
been set.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action.  The Company states that
any financial loss incurred by Wells Capital, Wells Management, or
their affiliates could hinder their ability to successfully manage
the Company's operations and portfolio of investments.

Wells REIT II is a Maryland corporation that has elected to be
taxed as a real estate investment trust or REIT for federal income
tax purposes.  Wells REIT II engages in the acquisition and
ownership of commercial real estate properties, including
properties that are under construction, are newly constructed, or
have operating histories.


WHIRLPOOL: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dishwashers
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Whirlpool and Sears sold
defective dishwashers with electronic control boards that overheat
and spontaneously burst into flames, a class action filed in the
U.S. District Court of the Central District of California claims.

The case is Steve Chambers; Lynn Van Der Veer; David Brown v.
Whirlpool; Sears, Roebuck & Co.


WILSHIRE BANCORP: Class Action in California Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed against Wilshire Bancorp
Inc. in California is still pending.

On March 29, 2011, Wilshire Bancorp Inc., the Company's former
Chief Executive Officer, and its current Chief Financial Officer
were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, in a case entitled Michael Fairservice v. Wilshire
Bancorp, Inc. et al.  The complaint arises out of the Company's
announcement that it had concluded an internal investigation in
connection with the activities of its former senior marketing
officer and implemented remedial procedures in response to that
investigation.  The internal investigation was conducted by the
Company's audit committee with assistance of outside independent
professional firms and the Company's internal audit department,
and was undertaken following questions from the FDIC regarding the
loan files originated by that marketing officer and after the
execution of a search warrant related to loan files involving the
former officer, as well as to address activities of the former
officer that had previously come to the attention of management.
The scope of the Company's internal investigation focused on loan-
related and other business activities of the former senior
marketing officer. As part of its investigation, management
discovered a deficiency in the operating effectiveness of loan
underwriting, approval, and renewal processes for those loan
originations and asset sales associated with the former officer.
Specifically, these processes lacked effective supervision and
oversight by the Company's former Chief Executive Officer.  The
Company's former Chief Executive Officer, who was responsible for
overseeing these matters, resigned following the reporting of
these activities to the Company's Board of Directors.

The purported class action complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that Wilshire Bancorp had deficiencies in its
underwriting, origination, and renewal processes and procedures;
was not adhering to its underwriting policies; lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and, as a result, its financial
statements were materially false and misleading.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, among other remedies.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


                           *     *     *

According to the Troubled Company Reporter on July 5, 2011,
Moody's Investors Service downgraded Pilgrim's Pride's Corporate
Family and Probability of Default ratings to B2 from B1 and senior
unsecured note rating to Caa1 from B3 given the lack of
improvement in chicken prices and its consequent impact on
Pilgrim's Pride's financial performance, including expectations
for modest EBITDA at best for 2011. Moody's concern is somewhat
mitigated by the covenant relief provided by Pilgrim's lenders and
the cash advance of $50 million from JBS USA (a PIK subordinated
loan provided by a sister company). The SGL-3 speculative grade
liquidity rating was affirmed. The outlook is stable.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: T2 G.C., Gramek Penalized for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has cited two Chicago companies -- T2 G.C. LLC
(d/b/a T2 Construction) and Gramek Construction Inc. -- for
failing to protect workers from asbestos hazards at a job site in
May 2011, according to an OSHA press release dated Nov. 4, 2011.

T2 Construction faces proposed fines of US$141,600 and Gramek
Construction faces proposed fines of US$138,600, for a combined
total of US$280,200.

T2 Construction was the general contractor at the Chicago job
site, which involved a 90-year-old, 80,000-square-foot building.
T2 oversaw the activities of demolition contractor Gramek
Construction, including the removal of floor tile and pipe
insulation that allegedly contained asbestos.

OSHA Regional Administrator Michael Connors, in Chicago, said,
"Failing to conduct an asbestos assessment and require workers to
wear personal protective equipment when working with material
potentially contaminated by asbestos shows a blatant disregard for
their health and safety.

"Safe and healthful working conditions should be paramount on
every job site, and OSHA is committed to protecting workers,
especially when employers fail to do so."

T2 Construction was cited for two willful health violations
including failing to have a competent person conduct an initial
assessment prior to commencing Class I and Class II asbestos work,
and failing to ensure compliance with the asbestos standard as the
general contractor.

A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or
voluntary disregard for the law's requirement or plain
indifference to employee safety and health.

Additionally, T2 Construction was cited for 14 serious violations
involving asbestos control procedures like failing to conduct air
and exposure monitoring, failing to follow specific engineering
controls and practices, failing to remove tile intact, allowing
dry sweeping of dust and residue, failing to provide hygiene
facilities for workers conducting asbestos removal and failing to
ensure that employees wore adequate personal protective clothing
while performing asbestos work.

A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability
that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard
about which the employer knew or should have known.

Gramek Construction was cited for one willful health violation for
failing to have a competent person conduct an initial assessment
prior to commencing Class I and Class II asbestos work.

Gramek also was cited for 24 serious health and safety violations,
18 of which involved violations of asbestos control procedures
such as failing to conduct air and exposure monitoring, failing to
follow specific engineering controls and practices, allowing dry
sweeping of dust and residue, failing to implement a respiratory
protection program, failing to provide hygiene facilities for
workers conducting asbestos removal and failing to ensure that
employees wore adequate personal protective clothing for asbestos
work.

The remaining six serious safety violations were cited for lack of
fall protection and training as well as electrical hazards.

Each company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations
and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with
OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the
independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

The citations issued to T2 Construction can be viewed at
http://is.gd/TMsVAe

The citations issued to Gramek Construction can be viewed at
http://is.gd/o7DDPI


ASBESTOS ALERT: Rochefort Fined After Exposing Worker to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Cardiff, Wales, letting agent -- Rochefort Shugar Ltd -- has
been sentenced after a handyman was exposed to asbestos-containing
material while carrying out work on a client's property, according
to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated Oct. 28,
2011.

The self-employed handyman from Cardiff, who does not wish to be
named, regularly carried out work on properties managed by
Rochefort Shugar and, on Oct. 15, 2010, was sent to a domestic
property in Sully to fix a leaking porch roof.

As he was removing a sheet of material from the underside panel of
the damaged roof, the handyman realized it was asbestos-containing
insulation board.  The sheet was broken during removal and the
surrounding area was contaminated with asbestos debris.

The HSE prosecuting, told Barry Magistrates' Court the removal of
the panel and the sweeping up and bagging of the debris would have
resulted in the significant release of asbestos fibers into the
air.

The handyman wore two dust masks while removing the board on
Oct. 15, 2010, but did not undergo any decontamination procedures
and was not wearing a protective, disposable suit.  The court
heard the fibers could have contaminated his hair, skin and
clothing and may also have been inhaled.

The HSE investigation found the handyman had not been given any
indication asbestos was present in the property.  No risk
assessment was carried out or method statement compiled, and
Rochefort Shugar made no attempt to ensure he was competent to
identify or work with asbestos.

A licensed asbestos contractor was later called in to
decontaminate the area, to ensure no further people were put at
risk of exposure to the substance.

Rochefort Shugar Ltd. of Tudor House, 16 Cathedral Road, Cardiff,
was found guilty of breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined GBP1,500 and with
GBP2,500 costs.

HSE Inspector, Steve Richardson said, "There are specific rules
and laws regarding hazardous substances like asbestos.  If we do
not enforce these laws, people's health can be put at serious
risk.  Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and should be treated with
extreme caution.

"Those in charge of maintenance and repair of buildings must
ensure work is carried out by competent tradesmen, and that
consideration is given to the presence of hazards such as
asbestos.  More information on risk assessment can be found on the
HSE website and the Hidden Killer website."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Has $65MM Reserve for Claims at Oct. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord LLC's long-term reserve for asbestos claims was US$65
million as of both Oct. 1, 2011 and March 31, 2011, according to a
Company press release dated Nov. 1, 2011.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos claims was US$65
million as of both Oct. 1, 2011 and March 31, 2011.

Milwaukee-based Rexnord LLC is comprised of two strategic
platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management, with
about 7,400 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Completes New Legacy Exposures Study
---------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., during the third quarter of 2011,
completed a new ground-up study of its legacy asbestos and
environmental exposures, according to a Company press release
dated Oct. 28, 2011.

The previous study was based on experience through 2007.
Reasonable estimates of potential adverse scenarios continue to be
within the US$2.5 billion reinsurance cover issued by National
Indemnity Insurance (NICO), a Berkshire Hathaway company.

The point estimate of incurred losses ceded to NICO increased from
US$2.2 billion to US$2.3 billion.  There was no impact to book
value.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd.'s
underwriting companies offer specialty insurance products sold
through independent agencies, regional and national brokers,
wholesalers and managing general agencies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Has $8.56MM Sept. 30 Current Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$8,563,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010,
according to a Company press release dated Oct. 31, 2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$21,159,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$8,563,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  The
Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$20,733,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Rogers, Conn.-based Rogers Corporation produces specialty
materials and components that enable high performance and
reliability of consumer electronics, power electronics, mass
transit, clean technology, and telecommunications infrastructure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $26.25MM Charge at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motors Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities were
US$26,248,000 as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$24,792,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company press release dated
Nov. 1, 2011.

The Company's accrued asbestos liabilities amounted to
US$25,533,000 as of June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 12, 2011)

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc.
manufactures and distributes engine management and air
conditioning replacement parts for auto aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corporation Still Has Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation is subject to claims, administrative and legal
proceedings like lawsuits that relate to contractual allegations,
tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries (including
asbestos claims), antitrust matters and employment-related
matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Eaton Corporation is a diversified power
management company with 2010 sales of US$13.7 billion.  The
Company has about 73,000 employees in over 50 countries and sells
products to customers in more than 150 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Claims v. Dana Drop to 26T at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 26,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at Sept. 30, 2011, compared with
30,000 at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Oct. 27, 2011 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company had about 27,000 active pending asbestos personal
injury liability claims at June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 19, 2011)

Moreover, about 11,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled
and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or
without payment.

The Company has accrued US$93 million for indemnity and defense
costs for settled, pending and future claims at Sept. 30, 2011,
compared with US$101 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

Maumee, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline
products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power
technologies (sealing and thermal management products) and genuine
service parts for vehicle manufacturers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Records $50MM Insurance Asset at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, at Sept. 30, 2011, had recorded US$50
million as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for
the pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability
claims, compared with US$52 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2010.

During the second quarter of 2011, the Company reached an
agreement with an insurer to settle a long-standing claim pending
in the liquidation proceedings of the insurer and recorded the
estimated fair value of the recovery.

As a result, other income includes a US$6 million credit for this
recovery of past outlays related to asbestos claims.  During the
first nine months of 2010, the Company recorded US$1 million of
expense (before tax) (US$2 million during the first quarter,
offset by a US$1 million credit during the second quarter) to
correct amounts primarily related to asbestos receivables at
Dec. 31, 2009.

Maumee, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline
products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power
technologies (sealing and thermal management products) and genuine
service parts for vehicle manufacturers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Still Named in Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corporation, from time to time, faces product liability
lawsuits related to the prior sale or use of products containing
asbestos or other restricted materials.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed on Oct. 27, 2011 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Melbourne, Fla.-based Harris Corporation is an international
communications and information technology company serving
government and commercial markets in more than 150 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries have been named
as defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at formerly
owned facilities.

No significant asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 27, 2011.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Goodrich Corporation serves
regional/business aircraft, original equipment and aftermarket,
helicopters, military, and space markets through its three
aerospace divisions.  Its Actuation and Landing Systems unit makes
fuel systems, aircraft wheels, brakes, landing gear, and flight
control systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $36.71MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's accrued asbestos liability amounted to
US$36,709,000 as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$37,875,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27,
2011.

The Company's accrued asbestos liability was US$37,098,000 as of
July 1, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2011)

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$376,626,000 as
of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$391,776,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010.

The Company's current asbestos insurance asset was US$32,848,000
as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$34,117,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010.  Long-term asbestos insurance asset was US$320,737,000 as of
Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$340,234,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$30,430,000 as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$46,108,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2010.  Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$9,370,000 as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$12,784,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2010.

Fulton, Md.-based Colfax Corporation manufactures positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves.  Its subsidiaries supply
products under brands like Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation,
Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Colfax Surged to 22,512 at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation faced 22,512 unresolved asbestos claims during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with 24,799 during
the nine months ended Oct. 1, 2011, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 27, 2011.

The Company faced 22,020 unresolved asbestos claims during the six
months ended July 1, 2011, compared with 25,270 claims during the
six months ended July 2, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19,
2011)

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, the Company recorded
2,799 claims filed and 5,051 claims resolved.  During the nine
months ended Oct. 1, 2011, the Company recorded 2,952 claims filed
and 3,448 claims resolved.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants
in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos.  Those
components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not
manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the
subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos.

The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained
asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the
subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy.

The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company
considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each
claim.  The annual average settlement payment per asbestos
claimant has fluctuated during the past several years.  To date,
the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no payment.

Of the 22,512 pending claims as of Sept. 30, 2011, about 3,600 of
such claims have been brought in the Supreme Court of New York
County, N.Y.; about 1,000 of such claims have been brought in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan;
about 200 of such claims have been brought in the Superior Court,
Middlesex County, N.J.; and about 100 claims have been brought in
various federal and state courts in Mississippi.

The remaining pending claims have been filed in various other
state and federal courts.

Fulton, Md.-based Colfax Corporation manufactures positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves.  Its subsidiaries supply
products under brands like Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation,
Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reserves $413.3MM for Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has established reserves of US$413.3 million as
of Sept. 30, 2011, and US$429.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 for
the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability
cost it believes its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15
years.

The Company has established reserves of US$418.9 million as of
July 1, 2011 for the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-
related liability cost it believes its subsidiaries will pay
through the next 15 years.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2011)

The Company has also established recoverables of US$353.6 million
as of Sept. 30, 2011 and US$374.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 for
the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable during the same
time period.

Net of these recoverables, the expected cash outlay on a non-
discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims over
the next 15 years was US$59.7 million as of Sept. 30, 2011 and
US$55.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

In addition, the Company has recorded a receivable for liability
and defense costs previously paid in the amount of US$37.5 million
as of Sept. 30, 2011 and US$51.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, for
which insurance recovery is deemed probable.

The Company also has reflected in Other accrued liabilities $22.1
million and $23.3 million as of Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010,
respectively, for overpayments by certain insurers and unpaid
legal costs related to defending itself against asbestos-related
liability claims and legal action against the Company's insurers.

Fulton, Md.-based Colfax Corporation manufactures positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves.  Its subsidiaries supply
products under brands like Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation,
Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Named in Pending Asbestos Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is still a defendant in lawsuits that seek
to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or
distributed by the Company's heritage companies in the past.

Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were primarily encapsulated and used as internal components of
process equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that
any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the
use of this equipment.

Irving, Tex.-based Flowserve Corporation is principally engaged in
the worldwide design, manufacture, distribution and service of
industrial flow management equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Estimates $649MM Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated says the liability for the amended Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation plan of reorganization and the non-PCC
asbestos claims was estimated to be US$649 million at Sept. 30,
2011, compared with an estimate of the liability of US$633 million
at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company says the liability for the amended PCC plan and the
non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be US$644 million at
June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2011)

The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50% of the capital
stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation PCC.  Over a period of
more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been
named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about
11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits
alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's
asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in
excess of US$1 million dollars per claim.

The Company has defended those claims on the basis of the separate
corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts supporting
claims of direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos products.

The Company is also currently involved in about 10,200 other cases
(about 38,600 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and similar
amounts of monetary damages per case.  Those cases have been
covered by insurance without material impact to the Company to
date.

The Company, with other relevant parties, has been involved in
ongoing efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would
resolve the concerns and objections of the relevant courts and
parties.  In 2003, a plan was agreed to by various parties (the
2003 Plan), but, on Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an
order denying the confirmation of that 2003 Plan.

On Jan. 29, 2009, an amended plan of reorganization -- which
addressed the issues raised by the Court when it denied
confirmation of the 2003 Plan -- was filed with the Bankruptcy
Court.

The proposed resolution of PCC asbestos claims under the Amended
PCC Plan would have required the Company to contribute its equity
interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a
Belgian corporation, and to contribute a fixed series of payments,
recorded at present value.

On June 16, 2011, the Court entered an Order denying confirmation
of the Amended PCC Plan.  The Court's memorandum opinion
accompanying the order rejected some objections to the Amended PCC
Plan and made suggestions regarding modifications to the Amended
PCC Plan that would allow the Plan to be confirmed.

The Company and other parties have filed a motion for
reconsideration, objecting to certain points of this order.
Certain parties to the proceeding filed specific plan
modifications in response to the Court's opinion and the Company
supported these filings.

Objections to the modifications are to be filed by Oct. 28, 2011
and responses to the objections by Nov. 16, 2011.  The Court has
set a hearing on the objections for Nov. 30, 2011.

Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Incorporated specializes in glass and
ceramics.  The Company creates and makes keystone components that
enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile
emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Named in 1,102 Actions at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2011, was a party to 1,101
pending asbestos cases involving an aggregate of 8,081 claimants,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2011.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company was a party to about 1,102
pending cases involving an aggregate of about 8,229 claimants
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2011)

The cases allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, the Company reported
379 claims filed, 479 claims dismissed, and 19 claims settled.
The average settlement amount per claim was US$15,653 and total
defense costs were US$1,890,000.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.  Total settlement costs (exclusive of
defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over
20 years ago, have been about US$6.1 million.

Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based TriMas Corporation manufactures and
distributes products for commercial, industrial and consumer
markets.  The Company is engaged in six reportable segments with
diverse products and market channels: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace
& Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent
North America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Subject to Lawsuits in Miss.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. is one of several unrelated
defendants in 30 lawsuits filed in Louisiana and Mississippi state
courts alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or
utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's
case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard the
Company's offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing
drilling mud had already ceased before the Company acquired any of
the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits.

The Company said it believes that it is not liable for the damages
asserted and it expect to receive complete defense and indemnity
with respect to a majority of the lawsuits from Murphy Exploration
& Production Company under the terms of the Company's 1992 asset
purchase agreement with them.

The Company also believes that it is not liable for the damages
asserted in the remaining lawsuits under the terms of its 1989
asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and the
Company has filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas state
court against NuStar Energy LP, the successor to Diamond M
Corporation, seeking a judicial determination that the Company did
not assume liability for these claims.

Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides contract
drilling services to the energy industry worldwide.  Its current
fleet of 46 offshore drilling rigs consists of 32 semi-
submersibles, 13 jack-ups and one drillship.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola, Aqua-Chem File Claim v. 3 Insurers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company and its former Aqua-Chem, Inc. subsidiary
filed suit against three insurers in Wisconsin state court to
enforce a coverage-in-place settlement or to obtain a declaratory
judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's interpretation of
a court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

During the period from 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-Chem,
now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.  During that time, the Company
purchased over US$400 million of insurance coverage, which also
insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future costs for
certain product liability and other claims.

A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers.
Several years after the Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem
received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of
some of the gaskets.

Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits in
or around 1985 and currently has about 40,000 active claims
pending against it.  In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the
Company that it believed the Company as obligated for certain
costs and expenses associated with its asbestos litigations.

Aqua-Chem demanded that the Company reimburse it for about US$10
million for out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses.  Aqua-Chem
also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation
to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses that are
excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or for which
there is no insurance.

The Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims, and the Company said it
believes it has no obligation to Aqua-Chem for any of its past,
present or future liabilities, costs or expenses.  Furthermore,
the Company believes it has substantial legal and factual defenses
to Aqua-Chem's claims.

The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the
outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of
Aqua-Chem.

In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a
declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and
16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations.

During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation,
Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with several of the
insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an
escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos
claims against Aqua-Chem.

On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed.  The judgment
directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and
severally liable for 100% of Aqua-Chem's losses up to policy
limits.  The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation.

The Georgia litigation remains subject to the stay agreement.  The
Company and Aqua-Chem continued to negotiate with various insurers
that were defendants in the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation over those insurers' obligations to defend and
indemnify Aqua-Chem for the asbestos-related claims.

The Company anticipated that a final settlement with three of
those insurers would be finalized in May 2011, but such insurers
repudiated their settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-
Chem and the Company filed the lawsuit.

Atlanta, Ga.-based The Coca-Cola Company owns or licenses and
markets more than 500 non-alcoholic beverage brands, primarily
sparkling beverages but also a variety of still beverages such as
waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice drinks, ready-to-drink
teas and coffees, and energy and sports drinks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Subject to Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging
bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2011.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos.  The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

As of Sept. 30, 2011, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about
5,300 plaintiffs and claimants.  Based on an analysis of the
lawsuits pending as of Dec. 31, 2010, about 76% of plaintiffs
either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case
of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the
jurisdictional minimum of the trial court.

About 22% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of US$15
million or less, and two percent of plaintiffs specifically plead
damages greater than US$15 million but less than US$100 million.
Less than one percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of
US$100 million or greater but less than US$122 million.

In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country.  The Company said it believes that as of Sept. 30, 2011
there are about 500 claims against other defendants which are
likely to be asserted some time in the future against the Company.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of Sept.
30, 2011, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about 385,000
plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim
of about US$7,900.  Certain of these dispositions have included
deferred amounts payable over a number of years.  Deferred amounts
payable totaled about US$14 million at Sept. 30, 2011 (US$26
million at Dec. 31, 2010) and are included in the foregoing
average indemnity payment per claim.

On March 11, 2011, the Company received a verdict in an asbestos
case in which conspiracy claims had been asserted against the
Company.  Of the total nearly US$90 million awarded by the jury
against the four defendants in the case, almost US$10 million in
compensatory damages were assessed against all four defendants,
and US$40 million in punitive damages were assessed against the
Company.

The Company continues to deny the conspiracy allegations in this
case and will vigorously challenge this verdict, if necessary, in
the appellate courts, and, therefore, has made no change to its
asbestos-related liability as of Sept. 30, 2011.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container
manufacturer and preferred partner for many of the world's leading
food and beverage brands.  The Company employs more than 24,000
people at 81 plants in 21 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Filter Cases Still Pending v. Lorillard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in three asbestos-related Filter
Cases, including two that also name its Lorillard Tobacco Company,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2011.

As of Oct. 21, 2011, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 40
Filter Cases.

Claims have been brought against the Company and Lorillard Tobacco
by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard
Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years
ago.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of about US$22.5 million in settlements
to finally resolve 74 claims.  The related expense was recorded in
selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated
statements of income.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, verdicts have been returned in two Filter
Cases, Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al., which was tried
in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, and
Lenney v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., tried in the
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County.  The jury in
the Cox case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco.

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their
appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the Cox case is
concluded.  In the Lenney trial, the jury found in favor of the
plaintiffs as to their claims for compensatory damages and damages
for loss of consortium, but it determined that plaintiffs were not
entitled to an award of punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or
Hollingsworth & Vose.

Under the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company
and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. -- the manufacturer of the filter
material -- Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments, and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material.

The final judgment entered by the trial court awarded plaintiffs a
total of about US$1.1 million in compensatory damages, damages for
loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose.

Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose have noticed an appeal
to the California Court of Appeals.  As of Oct. 21, 2011, about 12
Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on
courts' trial calendars.  Trial dates are subject to change.

Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard, Inc. manufactures and sells
cigarettes.  Its principal products are marketed under the brand
names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold with
substantially all of its sales in the United States of America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Named in 2T Asbestos, Silica Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company is presently named as a defendant
in 2,000 suits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted
certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica,
asbestos, and/or coal dust.

These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2011.

The Company is unable to estimate total damages sought in these
lawsuits as they generally do not specify the injuries alleged,
the amount of damages sought, and potentially involve multiple
defendants.

Cranberry Township, Pa.-based Mine Safety Appliances Company
develops, manufactures, and supplies products that protect
people's health and safety.  Its safety products are used by
workers in the fire service, homeland security, construction, and
other industries, as well as the military.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Posts $139MM Current Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's current asbestos liability amounted to US$139
million as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$117 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

Current asbestos-related assets were US$131 million as of
Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$105 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a global multi-
industry leader in high-technology engineering and manufacturing,
operating through three segments: Defense & Information Solutions
(Defense segment), Fluid Technology (Fluid segment) and Motion &
Flow Control (Motion & Flow segment).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 104,715 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation faced 104,715 pending asbestos claims during the
nine month-period of 2011, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Oct. 28, 2011.

During the nine-month period of 2011, the Company report 4,220 new
claims, 1,009 settlements, and 2,071 dismissals.

The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been
joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product
liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure.

These claims allege that certain products sold by the Company or
its subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos.  To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable.  In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT
companies were distributors for other manufacturers' products that
may have contained asbestos.

Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
product as a source of asbestos exposure.  In addition, in a large
majority of claims pending against the Company, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate any injury.  Many of those claims have been
placed on inactive dockets (including 39,680 claims in
Mississippi).

White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a global multi-
industry leader in high-technology engineering and manufacturing,
operating through three segments: Defense & Information Solutions
(Defense segment), Fluid Technology (Fluid segment) and Motion &
Flow Control (Motion & Flow segment).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Posts $50MM Sept. 30 Pre-Tax Charge
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation recorded a pre-tax asbestos charge of US$50
million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared
with US$331 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

The Company recorded a pre-tax asbestos charge of US$85 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$358
million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The total asbestos liability as of Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31,
2010 include US$139 million and US$117 million presented within
accrued liabilities, respectively and related assets of US$131
million and US$105 million represented within other current assets
for the respective periods.

At Sept. 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, about US$230 million and
US$292 million of the liability and US$229 million and US$285
million of the asset related to a business which the Company
disposed of a number of years ago that is reported as a
discontinued operation.

In September 2010, the Company executed an amended cost sharing
agreement with the entity that acquired the disposed business.
The amended agreement provides for a sharing of the claims settled
between 2010 and 2019 naming the Company or the entity which
acquired the disposed business.

In the future years, the liability for sharing the claims
gradually transitions away from the Company such that the Company
will have no responsibility for claims in 8 to 9 years.  The
amended cost sharing agreement also provides for the sharing of
certain insurance policies.

White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a global multi-
industry leader in high-technology engineering and manufacturing,
operating through three segments: Defense & Information Solutions
(Defense segment), Fluid Technology (Fluid segment) and Motion &
Flow Control (Motion & Flow segment).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Goulds Pumps Action Set for This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation says that a trial on several insurers' coverage
obligations for Company unit Goulds Pumps, Inc. is scheduled for
November 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company commenced an action, Cannon
Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Sup. Ct., Los Angeles
County, seeking recovery of costs related to asbestos product
liability losses.  During this coverage litigation, the Company
entered into coverage-in-place settlement agreements with ACE,
Wausau and Utica Mutual dated April 2004, September 2004, and
February 2007, respectively.

These agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's
legacy asbestos liabilities.  The Company continues to negotiate
coverage in place agreements with other insurers.  Where those
negotiations are not productive, the Company will request that a
trial be scheduled.

White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a global multi-
industry leader in high-technology engineering and manufacturing,
operating through three segments: Defense & Information Solutions
(Defense segment), Fluid Technology (Fluid segment) and Motion &
Flow Control (Motion & Flow segment).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Long-Term Liabilities at $1.552-Bil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.552 billion as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$1.559
billion as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company press release
dated Oct. 28, 2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets were US$819
million as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$930 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010.

Net asbestos-related costs were US$59 million during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$341 million during
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Net asbestos-related costs were US$91 million during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$368 million during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a global multi-
industry leader in high-technology engineering and manufacturing,
operating through three segments: Defense & Information Solutions
(Defense segment), Fluid Technology (Fluid segment) and Motion &
Flow Control (Motion & Flow segment).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds Units Still Subject to Parsons Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to be
party to litigation involving asbestos, of which the case is
styled Parsons v. A C & S, Inc.

In Parsons, which was filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court,
Ohio County, W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers,
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR,
seeking to recover US$1 million in compensatory and punitive
damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in
both compensatory and punitive damages.

The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.  The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.

In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc. is the holding
company for cigarette maker (RJR Tobacco) and smokeless tobacco
manufacturer (American Snuff Company).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like many industrial manufacturers, Columbus McKinnon Corporation
is involved in asbestos-related litigation, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability
including related legal costs to range between US$7 million and
US$17 million using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 18 to 30 years from the end of the current fiscal year.

The Company's estimation of its discounted asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles is about US$11
million, which has been reflected as a liability in the condensed
consolidated financial statements as of Sept. 30, 2011.

Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of about US$1 million over the next 12 months.

Amherst, N.Y.-based Columbus McKinnon Corporation designs, markets
and manufactures material handling products and services, which
efficiently and safely move, lift, position and secure material.
Key products include hoists, rigging tools, cranes, and actuators.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 25 Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 25 pending asbestos
cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2011.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
asbestos-containing materials.

To date, eight asbestos cases have been dismissed.  The Company
has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date.

The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
asbestos and silica cases since inception was about US$100,000,
the majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under the
terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in 1992.

New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and
technology-based company that develops, produces and markets
worldwide a broad range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and
synthetic mineral products and supporting systems and services.
The Company has two reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and
Refractories.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Subject to Occupational Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation is still involved in occupational
claims -- including asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as
well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive motion.

These claims are often not caused by a specific accident or event
but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time.
Many such claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades.

Norfolk, Va.-based Norfolk Southern Corporation's Norfolk Southern
Railway unit transports freight over a network consisting of about
20,000 route miles in 22 states in the eastern, southeastern, and
mid-western U.S. and in Canada (Ontario and Quebec).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Units Continue to Face Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries are defendants in various
legal actions, including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos, incidental to its past and current business activities.

The Company's condensed balance sheets included liabilities for
these legal actions of US$16.1 million as of Sept. 30, 2011, about
US$18.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and US$18.9 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company's liabilities for asbestos-related actions were
US$17 million as of June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 5, 2011.

Clayton, Mo.-based Olin Corporation is a manufacturer concentrated
in two business segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester.
Chlor Alkali Products produces chlorine and caustic soda,
hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium
hydroxide.  Winchester produces and distributes sporting
ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military
ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hongersmeier's Case v. Illinois Central Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald D. Hongsermeier, on Oct. 19, 2011, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against Illinois Central Railroad Company in St. Clair
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Hongsermeier claims he worked as a hostler, fireman and
engineer for Illinois Central from 1953 until 1991.  During his
career, he was exposed to asbestos dust or fibers, according to
the complaint.

In his three-count complaint (Case No. 11-L-590, Mr. Hongsermeier
seeks compensatory damages and a judgment of more than US$50,000,
plus costs and other relief the court deems just.

William P. Gavin, Esq., of the Gavin Law Firm in Belleville, Kip
A. Harbison, Esq., of Glasser and Glasser in Norfolk, Va. and
William J. Moody, Esq., of The Moody Law Firm in Portsmouth, Va.
will be representing Mr. Hongsermeier.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richter's Lawsuit v. 30 Firms Filed on Oct. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kay Richter of Wisconsin, on Oct. 21, 2011, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 30 defendant corporations in St. Clair County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In her complaint, Mrs. Richter alleges the defendant companies
caused her recently deceased husband, Robert E. Richter Sr., to
develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-containing
products throughout his career.

Mr. Richter worked as a mechanic at Jones Auto Garage from 1964
until 1969, as a mechanic at Wunnicke Transfer Auto Garage from
1969 until 1978 and as a mechanic at Boscobel Track and Roller
Auto Garage from 1980 until 2000, the suit states.

Ultimately, the disease caused Mr. Richter to die on Feb. 27,
2010, leaving his family without his support and society.  In
addition, Mr. Richter's next-of-kin incurred funeral and burial
costs, according to the complaint.

In her five-count complaint, Mrs. Richter seeks compensatory
damages of more than US$100,000, economic damages of more than
US$50,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of more than
US$50,000, plus other relief the court deems just.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
Edwardsville represents Mrs. Richter.  Erik Karst, Esq., J. Kyle
Beale, Esq., and Matthew T. Wright, Esq., of Karst and von Oiste
in Houston will serve of counsel in Case No. 11-L-598.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nev. Schools to Comply With Asbestos Regulations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
inspections, charter schools in Nevada have hired accredited
inspectors to prepare a management plan for each school, and
conduct further inspections, according to an EPA press release
dated Oct. 31, 2011.

Under AHERA, local education agencies must appoint a designated
person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure
compliance with federal regulations.

Finally, schools with asbestos-containing materials must conduct
periodic surveillance and re-inspections, properly train the
maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records documenting
those activities in its management plan.

For more information on asbestos in schools visit:
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbestos_in_schools.html


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $28,196 Fine on New Beginnings Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a total
of US$28,196 in penalties to parties involved in a June 2011
unlicensed asbestos removal at the New Beginnings Christian Center
of Salem's facility at 4675 Portland Road in Salem, Ore.,
according to a DEQ press release dated Nov. 3, 2011.

New Beginnings leases the building from owners Charles and Wilma
Wyant of Salem.

DEQ levied a total of US$21,836 in penalties to the Wyants for
failing to conduct an asbestos survey of the building before the
asbestos removal project began (a US$11,036 penalty) and for
allowing unlicensed individuals to perform an asbestos abatement
project (a US$10,800 penalty).

DEQ also issued a US$6,360 penalty to New Beginnings Christian
Center of Salem for conducting an asbestos abatement project
without being licensed.

In late June 2011, the operators of New Beginnings started
renovating the building, removing about 4,500 square feet of
asbestos-containing vinyl floor tile and associated material.  The
persons conducting the work were unlicensed to perform asbestos
abatement projects in Oregon.

Reportedly, the workers removed the material by chipping and
scraping it off the surface, sweeping it into open piles.  A
licensed asbestos abatement contractor would have taken measures
to wet down the asbestos materials and, to ensure that asbestos
fibers were not in danger of being released, would have contained
the work area and had proper engineering controls in place.

Before the floor tile removal work began, however, the Wyants did
not notify their tenants that the building contained asbestos and
also did not conduct a survey ahead of time to determine whether
the building contained asbestos, potentially exposing the
individuals removing the floor tile to harmful asbestos fibers.

In assessing the penalties to the Wyants, DEQ noted concerns that
it had issued Mr. Wyant a US$10,532 penalty in October 2006 for
the same violations regarding asbestos removal work at a
commercial building he owned in Salem.  Mr. Wyant ended up paying
the full penalty, plus interest, for those violations during the
remodeling of the former Chalet Restaurant at 3875 Market St. SE.

In assessing the New Beginnings penalty, DEQ took into account the
religion center's efforts to minimize the violations by promptly
hiring a licensed asbestos abatement contractor to clean up the
remaining asbestos-containing waste.  Because the center
immediately self-disclosed the violations, DEQ reduced the
otherwise-applicable civil penalty by half.

The Wyants did not formally appeal their most recent penalties by
their Oct. 19, 2011 deadline but have met with DEQ to discuss
resolving the case.

New Beginnings Christian Center of Salem appealed its penalty on
Oct. 24, 2011 and is also in discussion with DEQ about resolving
the matter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J C Irvine Fined for Exposing Workers to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted J C Irvine Limited
following an investigation that revealed that work on the
refurbishment of the former Ace Electrics building in The Strand
in Swansea, Wales, was being carried out without an asbestos
survey, according to an HSE press release dated Oct. 27, 2011.

Swansea Magistrates heard that, between the dates of April 27,
2010 and May 12, 2010, asbestos containing materials were
disturbed by construction workers employed by the defendant,
releasing asbestos fibers into the air.

The HSE was informed that employees were carrying out work in a
contaminated building, and inspectors visiting the site on May 12,
2010 served an immediate Prohibition Notice.

The subsequent investigation found that J C Irvine Limited failed
to ensure that the refurbishment work was planned in such a way as
to reduce the risk to health and safety.  It also failed to ensure
that its employees were not exposed to asbestos fibers.

J C Irvine Limited of Oldway, Bishopston, Swansea, pleaded guilty
to breaching Regulation 23(1)(a) of the Construction (Design &
Management) Regulations 2007 and Regulation 5 of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006.  It was fined GBP12,000 and ordered to
pay full costs of GBP2,148.50.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector, Hayley Healey said,
"Construction and maintenance workers are in the most at-risk
groups from asbestos-related diseases due to the nature of their
work.  The widespread occurrence of asbestos as a product in
buildings constructed or refurbished prior to 2000, means that
inadvertent disturbance of asbestos-containing materials can be
frequent and regular where asbestos products have not been
adequately identified or managed.

"This prosecution should act as a reminder to those in the
construction industry of the importance of ensuring that an
asbestos survey, and its findings, are available prior to work
being carried out and that the correct control measures are in
place to ensure that exposure to asbestos is prevented, so far as
is reasonably practicable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Complaint v. Harron Filed Oct. 19 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new complaint, filed on Oct. 19, 2011 in West Virginia court,
for CSX Transportation's six-year fraud lawsuit against
radiologist Ray Harron, Robert Peirce, Louis Raimond and Mark
Coulter casts Mr. Harron as a crook who fakes diagnoses by
thousands, The West Virginia Record reports.

Marc Williams of Huntington, W.Va., filed the complaint, writing
that Mr. Harron lost his medical license in seven states.  Mr.
Williams wrote that Mr. Harron invoked Fifth Amendment privilege
against self incrimination 392 times in a deposition, and once
before a Congressional subcommittee.

The original complaint named former CSX employee Robert Gilkison
as lead defendant, alleging he arranged mass screenings of
potential plaintiffs.  He beat the railroad's claims but coughed
up evidence that he concealed income from Mr. Peirce in order to
receive Railroad retirement benefits.

Earlier in 2011, Mr. Gilkison paid US$200,000 to settle a claim of
cheating the government.  The new complaint omits him as defendant
but paints his pension into the picture.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Peirce supplied Mr. Harron with X-
rays from James Corbitt after Mr. Corbitt had spent time in prison
and paid the government almost US$200,000 in restitution.

The complaint alleges that union leader Charles Little pleaded
guilty to racketeering charges for his role in providing
plaintiffs to Mr. Peirce.

U.S. District Judge Frederick Stamp presides over the case.  He
granted summary judgment to Mr. Peirce and Mr. Harron in 2009,
finding a statute of limitations had run out on the railroad's
claims.  CSX appealed, arguing Judge Stamp should have allowed it
to amend the complaint.

Fifth Circuit judges agreed last December 2010, directing Judge
Stamp to allow a new complaint.  Rather than file the one Judge
Stamp rejected, CSX lawyers prepared a new one.  They moved for
leave to file it in July 2011, and Mr. Peirce opposed the motion.

Mr. Stamp granted the motion on Oct. 18, 2011, and CSX filed the
complaint the next day.  Mr. Williams wrote that the defendants
schemed "to deliberately fabricate and prosecute objectively
unreasonable, false and fraudulent asbestos claims against CSX."
He alleged a pattern and practice of bribery, fraud, conspiracy
and racketeering.

Mr. Williams wrote that Mr. Peirce paid Mr. Harron per X-ray,
rather than per hour.  Mr. Williams wrote that according to Mr.
Peirce, Mr. Harron's rate of positive readings was 65 percent.  He
wrote that bankruptcy trusts stopped paying claims that relied on
his readings.  He quoted New York regulators who found Mr. Harron
"used his medical license to engage in ongoing fraud on the
courts."

Mr. Williams identified 11 cases in which Mr. Harron reversed a
diagnosis from negative to positive after a second X-ray, though
the X-rays revealed no changes.  Turning to the lawyers, he wrote
that they coached plaintiffs and supplied sample answers to
questions CSX would ask.

Mr. Williams wrote that in 2000, they sued in Marshall County for
2,012 plaintiffs, including 1,822 from other states.  In 2001,
they sued in Marshall County for 917 plaintiffs, including 736
from other states.

In 2002, they sued in Marshall County for 100 plaintiffs,
including 77 from other states.  In 2003, they sued in Harrison
County for 1,438 plaintiffs, including 1,326 from other states.

Mr. Williams wrote that in 2005, U.S. District Judge Janis Jack
found Mr. Harron diagnosed silicosis on thousands of X-rays he had
previously diagnosed as positive for asbestosis.  He wrote that
the lawyers continued relying on Mr. Harron after Judge Jack
exposed him.

In 2006, they sued in Harrison County for 253 plaintiffs,
including 251 from other states.  In 2006, they sued in Harrison
County for 605 plaintiffs, including 535 from other states.

Mr. Williams wrote that in 2009, Circuit Judge Arthur Recht
ordered Mr. Peirce plaintiffs to certify they were aware of their
suits and believed the suits were well founded in fact.  The
lawyers moved to dismiss claims of all but two plaintiffs and
Judge Recht granted the motion.

Mr. Williams sought compensatory damages for the cost of
processing, defending and settling claims of the 11 whose results
Mr. Harron reversed.  He sought punitive damages, alleging
intentional, willful, wanton, malicious and reckless conduct.  He
sought triple damages.

Mr. Williams practices at Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough.
Robert Massie, of the same firm, worked on the complaint.  So did
Samuel Tarry and Mitchell Morris, of McGuire Woods in Richmond,
Va.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waltham Nurse's Death Due to Exposure to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 71-year-old nurse Shirley
Burns, of Waltham, Lincolnshire, England, was related to workplace
exposure to asbestos, the Grimsby Telegraph reports.

Mrs. Burns died in May 2011 at St Andrew's Hospice, Grimsby, after
doctors told her there was nothing they could do to help her beat
mesothelioma.

The district coroner for North East Lincolnshire, Paul Kelly,
overruled consultant pathologist Dr. William Peters who, following
a post-mortem examination, said the mesothelioma was the "rare and
spontaneous" result of natural causes.

Instead, Mr. Kelly, said he believed it was the result of exposure
to asbestos -- and therefore industrially related -- after hearing
Mrs. Burns worked in the London training hospitals.

The hospitals hit the national press recently after a number of
cases concerning hospital staff dying from mesothelioma came
through coroners' courts.  The common link appears to be the
tunnels used by doctors and nurses to get from one area of the
hospital to another.

Mrs. Burns, wife of Peter for 36 years and mother to two sons,
Antony and Karl Leeming, was born in Louth and trained as a nurse
in Grimsby's Spring Field Hospital before completing her training
in London's Royal Brompton Hospital.

During this time, Mrs. Burns lived with her best friend and the
pair would walk through tunnels while at work.  She described them
as dirty and dusty with insulated piping running around them.

Mr. Burns was surprised at the verdict after speculating with his
wife before her death that she may have been exposed to asbestos
while travelling and living in Australia on a ten-bob ticket.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Humberston Man's Kin Gets "Substantial" Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
The family of 80-year-old Arthur Prestidge -- of Humberston,
Lincolnshire, England, and had died of mesothelioma -- is to
receive "substantial" asbestos compensation from Mr. Prestidge's
former employers, Humber Graving Docks, the Grimsby Telegraph
reports.

An inquest held in Cleethorpes in 2010 concluded Mr. Prestidge had
died from mesothelioma.  He was exposed to asbestos while working
as a welder and boilermaker from 1951 to 1986, stripping toxic
lagging from pipes aboard ships.  He died in August 2010.

In his memory and for justice, Mr. Prestidge's family sought
compensation with the help of the General, Municipal and
Boilermakers Union GMB, to which the pensioner belonged.

Mr. Prestidge, a grandfather to three and great-grandfather to
two, had seen many of his former colleagues suffer from asbestos-
related disease.  His son, David Winter, of Scartho -- who is also
a member of the union -- told how he was devastated when his
father was diagnosed.

Mr. Winter brought the claim on behalf of his mother, Mr.
Prestidge's wife of 56 years, Rosemary.  The union instructed
claims specialists Thompsons Solicitors to investigate a case for
compensation, and Mr. Winter has spoken out to let others know
that justice can be achieved.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Policeman's Widow Seeks Help in Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Dodd, the widow of Frank Dodd -- a former policeman of
Birmingham, England -- is appealing for help from Mr. Dodd's
fellow police officers in her claim for asbestos compensation, the
Sunday Mercury reports.

The 73-year-old Mrs. Dodd has claimed Mr. Dodd, who at the age of
73, had died from an asbestos-related cancer that he may have
contracted at a Birmingham police station.  Mr. Dodd joined West
Midlands Police in 1956 before retiring in 1990.

Mr. Dodd first began to suffer symptoms of mesothelioma -- a form
of lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure -- in March 2009.  He
was diagnosed in July 2009 before dying less than two months
later.

In 2010, the Deputy Coroner for Birmingham, Sarah Elaine Ormond-
Walshe, recorded a verdict that Mr. Dodd had died as a result of
an industrial illness.

Hayley Hill, of Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, who represents Mrs.
Dodd, said, "We're keen to speak to anyone who worked at
Steelhouse Lane police station in the 1970s, as there are
confirmed reports there was asbestos present in the building
during this period."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Hartlepool Council Boss, Pals Face Jail Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Skirving, a 50-year-old former council boss of Hartlepool,
England, and three business associates have been told they will be
jailed after pocketing more than GBP100,000 of taxpayers' cash in
an elaborate asbestos-related building scam, the Peterlee Mail
reports.

Police have also vowed to get back their ill-gotten gains after
the quartet were found guilty of the con in which bogus invoices
were put through council coffers.

Mr. Skirving, who was head of Darlington Borough Council's
asbestos department, conspired with 45-year-old Martin Dougherty
and 43-year-old James Burns to create bogus invoices totaling
GBP109,494.

A fourth man, 38-year-old Graeme Storey, was convicted of
attempting to pervert the course of justice after he lied to
police that he had carried out work as part of the scam.  A jury
took just hours to unanimously convict the four men.

The fraud saw Mr. Skirving put 15 invoices through the local
authority for GBP75,754 which was paid to Mr. Dougherty's one-man
firm MBN Roofing and Builders.  It was for labor said to have been
done by the firm on jobs in Hartlepool, Billingham and
Middlesbrough.

Mr. Burns was paid GBP33,740 after submitting invoices for the
hire of a cherry picker platform in connection with asbestos
removal contracts in Owton Manor, Hartlepool, overseen by Mr.
Skirving.

However, the prosecution said the cherry picker was not necessary
for asbestos removal and the platform and labor was not carried
out to the extent the trio claimed.

Mr. Skirving, Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Burns were found guilty of
conspiracy to defraud Darlington Borough Council between October
2007 and April 2009 after a five-week trial at Teesside Crown
Court.

Judge Peter Armstrong said, "You have been convicted by the jury
for fraud involving public money, as far as Darlington Borough
Council is concerned, and you Storey of telling lies to the police
to bolster that fraud.  The amounts involved are serious and you
can expect, I'm afraid, custodial sentences."

The jury of eight women and four men returned unanimous guilty
verdicts on all charges after around five hours of deliberation.
Mr. Skirving's department had been awarded numerous contracts to
remove asbestos as part of wider housing regeneration schemes
across Teesside.

The trial heard how Mr. Skirving told Mr. Burns and Mr. Dougherty
what to invoice the council for in connection with lucrative
contracts.  The prosecution said the fraud was conceived between
the friends in the pub and on the golf course.

Prosecutor, Rosalind Scott Bell, said the money will attempt to be
clawed back under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Mr. Skirving, of Grange Road, Mr. Burns, of Wansbeck Gardens, Mr.
Dougherty, Westbrooke Avenue and Mr. Storey, of Hart Lane, all
Hartlepool, will be sentenced in around three weeks time.  All
four men were released on bail.

A spokesman for Darlington Borough Council said, "I can confirm
that Michael Skirving worked for us and that he left of his own
accord in 2009.  It would be inappropriate to comment further."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz & Luxenberg Gets Payout for Navy Veteran
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mass torts law firm Weitz Luxenberg P.C. recently obtained a
substantial settlement for a client in an asbestos case, according
to a Weitz Luxenberg press release dated Oct. 27, 2011.

The man was exposed to the asbestos from the 1950s to the 1980s
while serving in the U.S. Navy aboard the USS California and later
working as a journeyman electrician in the Rochester, N.Y., area.
The man was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2010.  He died
modest more than one year later in April 2011.

Weitz Luxenberg attorneys Michael Fanelli, Esq., and John
Richmond, Esq., represented the Navy veteran in proceedings
against numerous makers of pumps, valves, turbines, joint
compound, and stump tile -- all products employing asbestos in
their manufacture.  The case was filed in Rochester [index number
2010-003487, Monroe Country Supreme Court].

At trial, several practiced witnesses testified on behalf of the
plaintiff, whose lengthy, tragedy-filled deposition was read to
the jury.

Weitz Luxenberg's trial team presented numerous corporate
liability ID along with a "day-in-the-life" video depicting the
plaintiff's pain and distress brought about by mesothelioma.

All but one of the manufacturers settled before the presentation
of the plaintiff's case.  The lone holdout agreed to settle after
hearing the plaintiff's evidence.

Mr. Fanelli said, "This was a hard case as the client was
extremely sick during his deposition.  But, using his videotaped
deposition and the depositions of his co-workers, we were able to
show that he was exposed to asbestos throughout his career as an
electrician and during his service in the Navy."

The settlement award passes to the client's estate following his
April 2011 death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Group Lauds AU$2MM Award in Lowes Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Diseases Society has applauded the ruling to award
mesothelioma sufferer Simon Lowes more than AU$2 million in
asbestos damages, ABC News reports.

The Supreme Court heard Mr. Lowes was exposed to the asbestos in
the 1970s when he was taken by his parents to the Castledare
Miniature Railway in the Perth suburb of Wilson.  The court found
that the building company James Hardie's negligence in dumping the
asbestos waste there was a major contributor to his cancer.

The president of the Asbestos Diseases Society, Robert Vojakovic,
says the money is deserved but no amount of compensation could
repair the damage caused.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Expects to Increase A&E Reserves by $10MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. completed its annual
asbestos and environmental reserve review in the third quarter of
2011 and as a result expects to increase its A&E reserves by about
US$10 million on a pre-tax basis, according to a Company press
release dated Oct. 24, 2011.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is
an international underwriter of specialty insurance and
reinsurance products in the property and casualty market.


                           *********

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  * * *