CAR_Public/111121.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 21, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 230

                             Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Arkansas Securities Lawsuit Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: "Silverstrand" Plaintiffs File Appeal
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Two Suits Over Allos Merger
AVX CORP: Class Action Lawsuit in South Carolina Still Pending
BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over "Bait-and-Switch Tactics"

BNY MELLON: Still Defends Medical Capital-Related Class Suits
BNY MELLON: Still Defends Suits Over Foreign Exchange Matters
BNY MELLON: Still Defends Suits Over Securities Lending Program
BNY MELLON: Unit Still Defends Suits Over Madoff Investment
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 1st Circuit Affirms Consolidated Suit Dismissal

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Motion to Stay Class Action Suit Pending
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Enters Into Confidential Deal to Settle Suits
BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Recalls 20,820 Teddy Bear Swimwear Sets
CALIFORNIA STATE: Students Invited to Join Tuition Hike Suit

CBS INTERACTIVE: Accused of Promoting Copyright Infringement
CENTRAL VERMONT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "IBEW" Suit
CHRISTIANE FARAZLI: Patient Defends Doctor Amid Class Action
CITY OF NEW YORK: Zuffa Files Class Action to Legalize MMA
COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Recalls 45,000 KEDS Know It All" Girls' Shoes

COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Recalls 440 Batteries Sold With Jackets
COWEN GROUP: Certification Hearing on Jan. 13 in CardioNet Suit
COWEN GROUP: Continues to Defend NYSE Specialists Securities Suit
COWEN GROUP: Unit Faces Class Suit Over BofA Securities Offering
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Unit Defends "Ginardi" Suit in Arkansas

DELPHI FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Awaits Final Approval of Settlement
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Fails to Decertify Special Education Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Payments Made ERISA Suit Settlement
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Appeal From "Gaer" Suit Dismissal Pending
ENCORE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit

ENCORE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hysong" Suit
ENCORE ENERGY: Consolidated "O'Neal" Suit Stayed in Texas
ENCORE ENERGY: Defends "Goldstein" Class Suit in Texas
FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls 160T Kidgets(R) Animal Sock Top Slippers
FANNIE MAE: Conservator to Seek Stay of 2008 Securities Suit

FANNIE MAE: Files Support Letter to Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
FIRST DATA CORP: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Order Still Pending
FIRST HORIZON: "Sims" ERISA Suit Still Pending in Tennessee
FIRST HORIZON: Principal Subsidiary Faces Debit Card Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of 2 Class Suits

GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Land Swap
GPT GROUP: Slater & Gordon to Launch Shareholder Class Action
HANCOCK HOLDING: Whitney Defends Class Action Suit in Florida
HOLLYFRONTIER CORP: Jan. 6 Hearing Set for State Court Suit Deal
IDEARC INC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit

INSURE ON THE SPOT: Accused of Hiding Fee for Recovery Services
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal From RISPERDAL Suit Dismissal Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Continues in Class Suit vs. OCD Unit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Junk 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plea to Dismiss "Monk" Securities Suit Pending

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces McNeil-Related Consumer Suit in Canada
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: OmniCare-Related Class Suit Dismissed in Aug.
KKR & CO: Settlement Hearing in Del Monte Suit Set for Dec. 1
KKR & CO: Third Phase of Discovery in Mass. Suit to End in April
KKR & CO: Two PRIMEDIA Merger-Related Suits in Georgia Stayed

LEVEL 3 COMMS: Still Preparing Settlement Documents in ERISA Suit
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Continues to Seek Settlement of Right-of-Way Suits
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending
LIEBHERR-CANADA: Recalls 8,000 Refrigerators Due to Injury Risk
LINKEDIN: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Privacy Class Action

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Seeks U.S. Supreme Ct. Review of Counsel Fees
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits
MERCK & CO: Still Defends Consolidated Vioxx Securities Lawsuit
MERCK & CO: Hearing on Vioxx ERISA Suit Deal Set for Nov. 29
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Fosamax-Related Class Suit

MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin Securities Litigation
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin ERISA Litigation
MF GLOBAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
MF GLOBAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Signs MOU to Settle Suits Over Google Merger

MRC RECEIVABLES: Sued Over Illegal Collections in Illinois
NAT'L BASKETBALL ASST'N: Faces Class Action Over Price-Fixing
NETFLIX: Settles Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation
OLD NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Checking Account Practices Suit
OMNEX GROUP: Does Not Provide Meal Periods to Branch Tellers

PNC FINANCIAL: MDL Parties Submit Settlement for Approval
PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in CBNV Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: Foreclosure Lawsuit Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims
REX ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Gas Leases in Clearfield, Penn.
ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Sued Over Fake Sewer Line Repair Swindle

ROVI CORP: Still Awaits Okay of Deal in Sonic-Acquisition Suits
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Accused of Not Paying Technicians' OT Wages
SENSA PRODUCTS: Sensa Weight Loss Ad Misleading, Suit Claims
SITEL WORLDWIDE: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Phone Calls
SITEL WORLDWIDE: Unit Defends FDCPA and TCPA-Violations Suit

SOUTHERN UNION: Nov. 28 Hearing Set in Merger-Related Class Suits
SPI ELECTRICITY: Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action Postponed
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS: Bid to Decertify Foster Care Suit Fails
TELLABS INC: "Makor" Securities Suit Set to be Dismissed in June
TERMINAL ONE: Passengers File Class Action in New York

TORCHMARK CORP: United American Continues to Defend Class Suit
TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Suit
UPONOR PEX: Class Action.Org Attorneys Review Plumbing Claims
VANGUARD NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit
VANGUARD NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hysong" Suit

VANGUARD NATURAL: Consolidated "O'Neal" Suit Stayed in Texas
VANGUARD NATURAL: Defends "Goldstein" Class Suit in Texas
VITACOST.COM INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Miyahira" Suit
VIVUS INC: Court Dismisses "Kovtun" Class Suit in California
WMS INDUSTRIES: Has Until Dec. 8 to Reply to Amended Class Suit

WORLDWIDE INFO: Judge Allows Hartford to Intervene in Privacy Case




                          *********

ACXIOM CORP: Arkansas Securities Lawsuit Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a purported class action lawsuit in Arkansas
commenced against Acxiom Corporation have filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal, 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 April 26, 2011 a lawsuit styled Macomb County Employees'
Retirement System v. Acxiom Corporation, et al was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
against the Company and certain current and former officers and a
director of the Company. The action sought to be certified as a
class action covering persons who acquired Acxiom stock between
October 27, 2010 and March 30, 2011. The action purported to
assert claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by not properly disclosing that the Company was experiencing a
significant decline in its International operations and that the
Company failed to properly and timely account for impaired assets
related to its International operations. On August 29, 2011, the
attorneys for the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
of all claims asserted.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: "Silverstrand" Plaintiffs File Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit against AMAG Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., have filed an appeal over the dismissal of the lawsuit,
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 purported class action complaint was originally filed on
March 18, 2010 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et.
al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-
NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17,
2010. The second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17,
2010 alleged that the Company and the Company's former President
and Chief Executive Officer, former Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, the Company's Board of Directors, and
certain underwriters in the Company's January 2010 offering of
common stock violated certain federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and that the Company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer and former Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer violated Section 15 of such Act,
respectively, by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements and omissions in a registration statement filed in
January 2010. The plaintiff sought unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
pursuant to the Company's common stock offering on or about
January 21, 2010. On August 11, 2011, the Court issued an Opinion
and Order dismissing the SAC in its entirety for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted. A separate Order of
Dismissal was filed on August 15, 2011. On September 14, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of Appeals. By Order
issued by the Court of Appeals dated October 26, 2011, plaintiffs
brief is due on December 5, 2011, with responding briefs due on
January 4, 2012. Plaintiffs reply brief is due on January 18,
2012. The Company has not recorded an estimated liability
associated with this legal proceeding as the Company does not
believe that such a liability is probable nor does it believe that
a range of loss is currently estimable.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Two Suits Over Allos Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is facing two remaining putative class
action lawsuits arising out of its proposed merger with Allos
Therapeutics, Inc., 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 19, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization with Alamo Acquisition Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary, or Merger Sub,
and Allos Therapeutics, Inc., pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into Allos in a strategic business combination,
with Allos continuing as the surviving corporation and as the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary.  Allos is a biopharmaceutical
company committed to the development and commercialization of
innovative anti-cancer therapeutics.

Between July 21, 2011 and August 15, 2011, nine putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, Allos, members of
the Allos board of directors and the Company's Board, and Alamo
Acquisition Sub., Inc., or Merger Sub, arising out of the then
proposed merger between the Company and Allos. Two lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado entitled Radmore/Salem v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and
Everage v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., or the Colorado Federal Court
Actions. Four lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, one of which (entitled Everage v. Berns) was
voluntarily dismissed on July 27, 2011, and two of which (entitled
Lam v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and Mulligan v. Allos
Therapeutics, Inc.) were consolidated, or the Delaware Action. The
fourth action in Delaware is Gaines v. Narachi, or the Gaines
Action. Three lawsuits, entitled Nunn v. Berns, Stevens v.
Hoffman, and Hannon v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., were filed in
Jefferson County District Court for the State of Colorado and
subsequently consolidated, or the Colorado State Court Action.
With the exception of The Gaines Action, these lawsuits name
members of the Allos board of directors, as well as Allos, the
Company, and Merger Sub as defendants, and generally allege that
the Allos directors breached their fiduciary duties to Allos'
stockholders in connection with the Merger Agreement by agreeing
to an unfair price, conducting a flawed sales process, enacting
preclusive deal protection devices, engaging in self-dealing, and
failing to disclose material information (relating to Allos' and
the Company's financial projections, the fairness opinions of J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, and the
background of the then proposed transaction) in the joint proxy
statement filed by the Company and Allos. These lawsuits further
claim that we, Allos and Merger Sub aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. In general, these lawsuits
seek damages and injunctive relief, including an award of
attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On October 21, 2011, the Company's shareholders voted against
consummation of the then proposed transaction. That same day,
plaintiffs in The Colorado Federal Actions voluntarily dismissed
their cases without prejudice. On October 25, 2011, plaintiffs in
The Colorado State Court Action voluntarily dismissed their case
without prejudice. Therefore, as of November 4, 2011, the only
cases still pending are The Delaware Action and The Gaines Action.

                        The Delaware Action

On August 1, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the
Lam and Mulligan cases into In re Allos Therapeutics, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6714. In early
September 2011, the parties to this action stipulated to a
briefing schedule on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for
preliminary injunction. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction, defendants opposed, and a preliminary
injunction hearing was scheduled for October 17, 2011. On
October 13, 2011, the parties to The Delaware Action agreed in
principle to settle the litigation by executing a memorandum of
understanding, or MOU. Under the terms of the MOU, plaintiff, on
behalf of Allos shareholders, agreed to release all claims against
defendants, and Allos agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K, which was filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2011.
The settlement contemplated by the MOU was subject to approval by
the Delaware Court of Chancery and contingent on consummation of
the merger, which the Company's shareholders did not approve on
October 21, 2011. On October 31, 2011 and November 1, 2011,
defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.

                         The Gaines Action

On September 20, 2011, plaintiff in the Gaines v. Narachi matter
filed an amended complaint which generally alleges that the
members of the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the then proposed merger with
Allos by: (i) failing to maximize shareholder value; (ii) ignoring
procedural safeguards in negotiating the then proposed merger;
(iii) negotiating an acquisition in which the Company's
stockholders will suffer dilution; (iv) rejecting an allegedly
superior buy-out proposal from MSMB Capital Management LLC; and
(v) disseminating a supposedly false and misleading proxy
statement. This action seeks damages and injunctive relief,
including an award of attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to
other relief. In late September 2011, plaintiff Gaines filed a
motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary
injunction, which defendants opposed. On September 27, 2011, the
Court heard the motion and subsequently denied plaintiff's request
for expedited proceedings. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration of the September 30, 2011 order to consider
the sole issue as to whether the free cash flow projections used
by Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC in its discounted cash flow analysis
should be disclosed. Defendants opposed the reconsideration
motion, but the court granted it and scheduled a preliminary
injunction hearing for October 17, 2011 on this one issue. On
October 14, 2011, the Company voluntarily disclosed the requested
free cash flow projections in a Current Report on Form 8-K. As a
result, plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, and request for
relief thereunder, is now moot. On November 1, 2011, the Company
moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint.

The Company says that it will continue to contest the actions
vigorously.


AVX CORP: Class Action Lawsuit in South Carolina Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit in South Carolina, 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.

There are two suits pending with respect to property adjacent to
the Company's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming
property values have been negatively impacted by alleged
migration of certain pollutants from the Company's property.  On
November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in the South Carolina State
Court by certain individuals as a class action.  Another suit is a
commercial suit filed on January 16, 2008, in South Carolina State
Court.  Both of these suits are pending.  The Company intends to
defend vigorously the claims that have been asserted in these two
lawsuits.  At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a
determination as to responsible parties or the amount, if any, of
damages.  In light of the foregoing, it is not reasonably possible
to estimate a range of loss and accordingly, no accrual for costs
has been recorded and the potential impact of either of the
lawsuits on the Company's financial position, results of
operations, and cash flows cannot be determined at this time.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over "Bait-and-Switch Tactics"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior
Court class action claims that Blue Cross of California uses "bait
and switch tactics" to impose midyear hikes on its customers.  The
three lead plaintiffs all say that Blue Cross jacked up their
deductible in February, "just two months into the deductible
year."

Named plaintiffs Janet Kassouf, Alison Heath and David Jacobson
say they bought policies with the expectation that annual
deductibles and out-of-pocket costs would be fixed for the
calendar year, but saw abrupt changes to the terms and conditions
of their plans.

In February, "just two months into the deductible year," Heath
learned that her $2,500 deductible would go up to $2,950;
Kassouf's jumped from $1,500 to $1,750, and Jacobson's increased
from $500 to $550, the complaint states.

"When a consumer purchases a plan with an annual deductible of
$2,500, the consumer expects he or she will have to pay for the
first $2,500 in health care services during the calendar year, and
that the insurer will cover the remaining costs of health coverage
according to the terms of the plan contract," the complaint
states.  "Blue Cross's unilateral changes to the annual deductible
at whim, however, have resulted in a moving target without any
certainty of how much a consumer will have to pay to meet the
deductible in any given calendar year."

Blue Cross, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross, "claimed that the
mid-year changes to 'annual' and 'yearly' out of pocket costs were
necessary to protect consumers from premium increases, yet Blue
Cross:

"a. Simultaneously increased premiums by 20% or more.

"b. Had five times the required reserves (tangible net equity
['TNE']) -- $1.2 billion in excess of state-mandated TNE -- as of
June 30, 2011 while the company paid $525 million in dividends to
shareholders in 2010.

"c. Postponed similar mid-year changes to its nearly identical
policies regulated by the California Department of Insurance
('CDI')," according to the complaint.

The class adds: "In addition to unilaterally raising the annual
deductible and other out of pocket costs while escalating
premiums, Blue Cross has made other unilateral changes to its
individual plan contracts.  For example, Blue Cross recently
notified policyholders that it was reducing the policy term to
just one month, which would purportedly allow Blue Cross to modify
any 'terms and conditions' of the individual plan contracts,
including deductibles and other out of pocket costs, at each
contract 'renewal' on sixty days notice -- or up to six times per
year.

"Through its conduct of unilaterally escalating annual out of
pocket costs and unilaterally altering coverage descriptions . . .
to allow Blue Cross to change any benefit on just sixty days
notice, Blue Cross has breached the individual plan contracts
entered into with plaintiffs and California consumers and breached
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing."

The policyholders say Blue Cross misrepresents the true cost of
its coverage, and places "restrictions and limitations that render
contract benefits 'illusory.'"

Anthem Blue Cross PR Director Darrel Ng told Courthouse News that
the insurer worked "diligently to slow the increase in medical
costs so we can keep health insurance affordable for as many
Californians as possible."

"Health plans are highly regulated in the state, and all changes
were made with the knowledge and approval of state regulators,"
Mr. Ng said.

He denied that an adjustment of benefits was a breach of contract
and said such changes "can help lessen premium increases."

"Under the terms of the plan we have the right to amend and change
the benefits of the plan upon providing the requisite notice,"
Mr. Ng said.

The plaintiffs seek damages for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaration of
rights, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
violations of Unfair Competition Law.

They are represented by Jerry Flanagan, with Consumer Watchdog, of
Santa Monica, which did not respond to a request for comment.


BNY MELLON: Still Defends Medical Capital-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation has been named as a
defendant in a number of class actions and non-class actions
brought by numerous plaintiffs in connection with its role as
indenture trustee for debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital
Corporation.  The actions, filed in late 2009 and currently
pending in federal court in the Central District of California,
allege that BNY Mellon breached its fiduciary and contractual
obligations to the holders of the underlying securities, and seek
unspecified damages.

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.


BNY MELLON: Still Defends Suits Over Foreign Exchange Matters
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues to defend class
action lawsuits over foreign exchange matters, 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.

Beginning in December 2009, government authorities have been
conducting inquiries seeking information relating primarily to
standing instruction foreign exchange transactions in connection
with custody services BNY Mellon provides to public pension plans
and certain other custody clients.  BNY Mellon is cooperating with
these inquiries.

In addition, in early 2011, the Virginia Attorney General's Office
and the Florida Attorney General's Office each filed a Notice of
Intervention in a qui tam lawsuit pending in its jurisdiction.
These offices filed complaints superseding the qui tam lawsuits on
August 11, 2011.  On October 4, 2011, the New York Attorney
General's Office, the New York City Comptroller and various city
pension and benefit funds filed a lawsuit whereby, among other
things, the plaintiffs assert claims under the Martin Act and
state and city false claims acts.  Also, on October 4, 2011, the
United States Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit whereby,
among other things, it seeks injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1345 based on alleged ongoing violations of 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1341 and 1343 (mail and wire fraud).

In October 2011, several political subdivisions of the state of
California intervened in a qui tam lawsuit pending in California
state court, previously under seal.  On October 26, 2011, the
Massachusetts Securities Division filed an Administrative
Complaint against BNY Mellon.  In addition, as previously
disclosed, BNY Mellon has been named as a defendant in putative
class action lawsuits, which were filed in March 2011 and July
2011 and are currently pending in federal district courts in
Pennsylvania and California.  These lawsuits allege that BNY
Mellon improperly charged and reported prices for standing
instruction foreign exchange transactions executed in connection
with custody services provided by BNY Mellon.


BNY MELLON: Still Defends Suits Over Securities Lending Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and its affiliates have
been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits initiated by
participants in BNY Mellon's securities lending program, which is
a part of BNY Mellon's Investment Services business.  The lawsuits
were filed on various dates from December 2008 to 2011, and are
currently pending in courts in Oklahoma, New York, Washington,
California and South Carolina and in commercial court in London.
The complaints assert contractual, statutory, and common law
claims, including claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary
duty.  The plaintiffs allege losses in connection with the
investment of securities lending collateral, including losses
related to investments in Sigma Finance Inc., Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. and certain asset-backed securities, and seek
damages as to those losses.  Three of the pending cases seek to
proceed as class actions.

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.


BNY MELLON: Unit Still Defends Suits Over Madoff Investment
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues
to defend lawsuits over investment losses related to Bernard L.
Madoff, 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 May 11, 2010, the New York State Attorney General commenced a
civil lawsuit against Ivy Asset Management LLC ("Ivy"), a
subsidiary of BNY Mellon that manages primarily funds-of-hedge-
funds, and two of its former officers in New York state court. The
lawsuit alleges that Ivy, in connection with its role as sub-
advisor to investment managers whose clients invested with Bernard
L. Madoff, did not disclose certain material facts about Madoff.
The complaint seeks an accounting of compensation received from
January 1997 to the present by the Ivy defendants in connection
with the Madoff investments, and unspecified damages, including
restitution, disgorgement, costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 21, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor commenced a
civil lawsuit against Ivy, two of its former officers, and others
in federal court in the Southern District of New York.  The
lawsuit alleges that Ivy violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") by failing to disclose certain material
facts about Madoff to investment managers subadvised by Ivy whose
clients included employee benefit plan investors.  The complaint
seeks disgorgement and damages.  On December 8, 2010, the Trustee
overseeing the Madoff liquidation sued many of the same defendants
in bankruptcy court in New York, seeking to avoid withdrawals from
Madoff investments made by various funds-of-funds (including six
funds-of-funds managed by Ivy).

Ivy or its affiliates have been named in a number of civil
lawsuits filed beginning January 27, 2009, relating to certain
investment funds that allege losses due to the Madoff investments.
Ivy acted as a sub-advisor to the investment managers of some of
those funds.  Plaintiffs assert various causes of action including
securities and common-law fraud.  Certain of the cases seek to
proceed as class actions and/or to assert derivative claims on
behalf of the funds.  Most of the cases have been consolidated in
two actions in federal court in the Southern District of New York,
with certain cases filed in New York State Supreme Court for New
York and Nassau counties.

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 1st Circuit Affirms Consolidated Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's
decision dismissing a class action lawsuit against Boston
Scientific Corp., 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 September 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported
securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the period
March 31, 2003, through August 23, 2005, alleging that the Company
and certain of its officers violated certain sections of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Four other plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, each
filed additional purported securities class action suits in the
same court on behalf of the same purported class.  On February 15,
2006, the District Court ordered that the five class actions be
consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public Employee
Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on April 17, 2006.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company made
material misstatements and omissions by failing to disclose the
supposed merit of the Medinol litigation and DOJ investigation
relating to the 1998 NIR ON(R) Ranger with Sox stent recall,
problems with the TAXUS(R) drug-eluting coronary stent systems
that led to product recalls, and the Company's ability to satisfy
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations concerning
medical device quality.  The consolidated amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 8, 2006, which was granted by the District Court
on March 30, 2007. On April 16, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit reversed the dismissal of only plaintiff's
TAXUS(R) stent recall-related claims and remanded the matter for
further proceedings.  On February 25, 2009, the District Court
certified a class of investors who acquired the Company's
securities during the period November 30, 2003 through July 15,
2004.  The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and a
hearing on the motion was held on April 21, 2010.  On April 27,
2010, the District Court granted defendants' motion and on
April 28, 2010, the District Court entered judgment in defendants'
favor and dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on May 27, 2010.  The oral argument in the First Circuit
Court of Appeals was held February 10, 2011.  On August 4, 2011,
the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
entry of judgment in favor of the defendants.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a securities class action
complaint against Boston Scientific Corp. 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.

On April 9, 2010, the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System individually and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from April 20, 2009 to March 12,
2010, filed a purported securities class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The suit
alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers violated certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and seeks unspecified monetary damages.  The suit claims
that the Company's stock price was artificially inflated because
the Company failed to disclose certain matters with respect to the
Company's CRM business.  An order was issued on July 12, 2010
appointing KBC Asset Management NV and Steelworkers Pension Trust
as co-lead plaintiffs and the selection of lead class counsel.
The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on
September 14, 2010.  In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs
narrowed the alleged class period from October 20, 2009 to
February 10, 2010.  On September 20, 2011, the District Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss this action.  The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 17, 2011.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Motion to Stay Class Action Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to stay the class action lawsuit filed against Boston
Scientific Corp. in Delaware 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.

On August 19, 2010, the Iron Workers District Council Southern
Ohio and Vicinity Pension Trust filed a putative shareholder
derivative class action lawsuit against the Company and its Board
of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware. The allegations and remedies sought in the complaint are
largely the same as those in the original complaint filed by the
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System on April 9, 2010.
On October 4, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss this action without prejudice to refile an
amended complaint.  On October 24, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to stay the proceedings to allow them to make discovery
demands before filing an amended complaint.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Enters Into Confidential Deal to Settle Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. entered into a confidential settlement
agreement in two product liability class action lawsuits filed in
Minnesota, 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.

Fewer than 10 individual lawsuits remain pending in various state
and federal jurisdictions against Guidant Corporation alleging
personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers
involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications.  The
majority of the cases in the United States are pending in federal
court.  On November 7, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation established MDL-1708 (MDL) in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota and appointed a single judge to
preside over all the cases in the MDL.  In April 2006, the
personal injury plaintiffs and certain third-party payors served a
Master Complaint in the MDL asserting claims for class action
certification, alleging claims of strict liability, negligence,
fraud, breach of warranty and other common law and/or statutory
claims and seeking punitive damages.  On July 12, 2007, the
Company reached an agreement to settle certain claims, including
those associated with the 2005 and 2006 product communications,
which was amended on November 19, 2007.  Under the terms of the
amended agreement, subject to certain conditions, the Company
would pay a total of up to $240 million covering up to 8,550
patient claims, including almost all of the claims that have been
consolidated in the MDL as well as other filed and unfiled claims
throughout the United States.  On June 13, 2006, the Minnesota
Supreme Court appointed a single judge to preside over all
Minnesota state court lawsuits involving cases arising from the
product communications.  At the conclusion of the MDL settlement
in 2010, 8,180 claims had been approved for participation.  As a
result, the Company made all required settlement payments of
approximately $234 million, and no other payments are due under
the MDL settlement agreement.  On April 6, 2009, September 24,
2009, April 16, 2010, and August 30, 2010, the MDL Court issued
orders dismissing with prejudice the claims of most plaintiffs
participating in the settlement; the claims of settling plaintiffs
whose cases were pending in state courts have been or will be
dismissed by those courts.  On April 22, 2010, the MDL Court
certified an order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation remanding the remaining cases to their trial courts of
origin.  In the third quarter of 2011, the Company entered into a
confidential settlement agreement in the two product liability
class action lawsuits with respect to the same subject matter.


BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Recalls 20,820 Teddy Bear Swimwear Sets
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Build-A-Bear Workshop(R), of St. Louis, Missouri,
announced a voluntary recall of about 19,720 units of Swimwear Set
With Inflatable Inner Tube in the United States of America and
1,100 units 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 inner tube accessory can be pulled over a small child's head,
posing a strangulation hazard.

Build-A-Bear received one report of an incident in which a 3-year-
old girl pulled the inner tube over her head and had difficulty
removing it.

The inner tube is part of the three-piece Fruit Tutu Bikini
swimwear set for teddy bears, which includes a two-piece fruit-
print bikini.  The inner tube is 9 inches in diameter and pink
with white and yellow flowers printed on it.  The model number of
the swimwear set is 017220 and is located on the price sticker on
the "Build-A-Bear" cardboard tag.  Picture of the recalled
products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12041.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Build-A-Bear Workshop(R) stores nationwide and online at
http://www.buildabear.com/from April 2011 to August 2011 for
$12.50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the inner tube and return
it to any Build-A-Bear Workshop(R) store to receive a $5 store
coupon.  If it is not possible to return the inner tube to a
store, consumers may contact the company for information about how
to receive a refund.


CALIFORNIA STATE: Students Invited to Join Tuition Hike Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Johnson, writing for The State Hornet, reports that
approximately 175,000 students, including most Sacramento State
students who enrolled for the fall 2009 semester, have received
e-mails in the past month informing them of their potential
involvement in a class-action lawsuit filed against the California
State University Board of Trustees.

Keller v. Board of Trustees of the CSU, the case detailed in the
e-mail, is based on the fact that students enrolled in fall 2009
were billed for tuition and had to pay on another occasion when
the price increased.  The case also pertains to students who were
in one of the graduate business programs at any CSU campus during
the time, and had to pay fees on two occasions.

In the fall 2009 semester, the CSU system was hit with last-minute
cuts from state support.  The tuition was raised in response to
the budget cuts, and students who had already paid tuition for
that semester were charged an additional $336 (for full-time
undergraduate students) based on the increased tuition price.

"Faced with an unprecedented drop in state support that caused a
$584 million university budget shortfall, the CSU Board of
Trustees increased undergraduate, credential and graduate student
fees for the 2009-10 academic year as part of an overall budget
action plan," said Erik Fallis, CSU spokesman.  "Additional
elements of the plan included employee furloughs and workforce
reductions; enrollment cuts, and additional cost-cutting measures
on campuses."

Tuition increases have a history of being challenged within the
Superior Court of California.  Another class-action lawsuit,
Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of California, challenged
increases posted by the UC system in spring and summer 2003.  The
student plaintiffs alleged the way the increases were billed
indicated breach of contract.

In March 2006, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.  It was
then taken to the California Court of Appeals, where it was ruled
in 2007 that universities cannot increase fees after already
billing students.

Attorney Danielle Leonard, who worked on the Kashmiri case, was
approached by five students who believed the CSU system's tuition
billing in 2009 was similar, and wanted to file a lawsuit with the
same theory.

Student plaintiffs involved in Keller v. Board of Trustees of the
CSU allege the CSU breached its contracts with students about the
price required for the fall 2009 term and violated the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.

Mr. Fallis said the CSU's relation with students is unique in that
it is statutory, not contractual -- making the allegations
invalid.

"It would be impossible to breach a contract," Mr. Fallis said.
"There is no contract between the university and the students."

In August 2009, the Superior Court denied the plaintiff's request
for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order on
tuition increases.  Since then, the sides have been actively
involved in the discovery process, which is a period of
information sharing.

Ms. Leonard said cases like this "take a lot of time," but
remained confident of the prospect of victory given the history
with Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of California.

"Obviously, we cannot predict what the court's decision will be,"
Ms. Leonard said.  "However, we strongly believe that the
plaintiffs will prevail in this case, as it's exactly the same
problem."

Ms. Leonard reiterated the point is not to say, "universities
should never raise fees," but rather to defend a student's right
to have sufficient warning about increases in tuition.

"The take-home message from this is that students should be able
to rely on the tuition price they are charged, and should be
warned when increases will occur," Ms. Leonard said.  "The CSU did
not do this properly."

Ms. Fallis said the CSU had to take action when it did, and all of
this is tied to the state funding reductions that came at the 11th
hour.

"The circumstance that we faced did not allow for more warning
than we provided," Ms. Fallis said.  "Our revised budget plan
wasn't adopted until July, which didn't give the CSU time to
provide a longer notice. If we did not make an immediate reaction,
things would have only been worse.  More courses and services
would have been cut."

If the plaintiffs succeed, students in 19 CSUs will receive
refunds for the increased tuition and non-resident tuition for the
fall 2009 term.  Because of their different fee schedules, Cal
Poly San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona, CSU Stanislaus and CSU East
Bay are not subject to this case.

There are some exceptions to who can be included in the class:
Students who received financial aid that offset the price of
tuition; students who registered late and were never billed the
separate increases and students who received statutory fee waivers
are not considered part of the class.

"The ironic thing is -- if the plaintiffs prevail in this lawsuit
-- tens of millions of dollars will be awarded to prior students
(and their attorneys), and the burden will necessarily have to be
shifted to current and future students either through a loss of
classes and services or higher tuition fees," Ms. Fallis said.
"There is no additional CSU money to cover this hole."

Students do not need to opt-in to be included in the class, but in
order to be excluded, notice of intention to opt-out must be sent
to CSUinfo@altber.com


CBS INTERACTIVE: Accused of Promoting Copyright Infringement
------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that dozens of
recording artists accuse CBS Interactive and its subsidiary CNET
Networks of promoting "massive infringement" of copyright by
offering free downloads of file-sharing software specifically
designed for media piracy.  They claim CBS and CNET were the main
distributors of the "infringement engines," and made a fortune in
ad revenue from their "pay per download" screens.

The artists compare CBS' and CNET's inducement to violate
copyright with LimeWire and Napster, which were "sued into
oblivion" for their copyright violations.

"Over the last decade, countless Web sites and 'file sharing' or
peer-to-peer ('P2P') software programs -- from Napster, in 2001,
to LimeWire in 2010 -- have been sued into oblivion because a
multitude of courts have found that they were essentially engines
of infringement, designed with the specific aim of knowingly
encouraging, inducing and/or assisting others in direct copyright
infringement of artists' works, and profiting thereby," the
complaint states.

"As a result of these lawsuits, an overwhelming number of these
file-sharing sites are now completely inactive and their founding
companies are bankrupt.  Yet, for most if not all of this time,
one particular group of businesses -- led by defendants CBS
Interactive and CNET -- have knowingly and willingly participated
in and profited mightily from the same massive infringement that
engendered large copyright suits against Napster and LimeWire and
that ultimately crippled them financially. And they have done so
with impunity.

"In fact, because they owned a number of the most heavily visited
sites in the world for downloading software of all types,
defendants did more to further this massive infringement than
Napster or LimeWire ever could by falsely legitimizing it and
popularizing it to the masses.

"As recently as 2010, one could access a legitimate portion of
defendants' sites and download non-infringing, licensed software
such as Quickbooks accounting software or Adobe Acrobat, and could
during the same shopping session download the LimeWire
infringement engine, which was clearly intended to be downloaded
for infringing purposes.  This ambiguity worked even further to
defendants' advantage by making it seem to the casual consumer
that a LimeWire download had the same legitimacy as a download of
licensed office software.

"In essence, defendants have taken music piracy from the dorm room
to the board room.  Thus, while other companies faced heavy
statutory penalties and went bankrupt, and music labels banded
together to levy practically unconscionable penalties on
unemployed college students and housewives, defendants quietly
made billions by inducing those same individuals to break the law,
by providing them the software to do it, and then by giving even
the least computer-savvy a step-by-step guide as to how to do it."

For more than 10 years, the plaintiffs say, CBS, through its
Web site CNET, has offered free downloads of several peer-to-peer
software programs (also called clients), such as BitComet,
Morpheus, KaZaa and Frostwire, which were designed primarily for
copyright infringement, with built-in features that allow users to
search for media on Web sites dedicated to piracy.  The file-
sharing networks let users transfer files from one another's hard
drives and locate music and video files by artist name, album,
genre and other criteria.

The complaint states: "Defendants furthered the massive
infringement carried out through the P2P applications they
distributed and popularized by providing detailed reviews that
included information regarding the suitability of the clients for
copyright infringement as well as instructions and tips on how to
use the P2P software to infringe.  On cnet.com, Download.com, and
other CBS interactive-owner websites, the defendants offered
videos, articles, and other media that instructed how to use P2P
software to locate pirated copies of copyrighted works and remove
electronic protections placed on digital music files in order to
prevent infringement."

The artists say CBS and CNET actively encouraged copyright
infringement, in Web postings, videos and radio shows, and offered
infringement tools to "users that they knew to be actively and
unlawfully copying plaintiffs' works," such as Napster's former
customers.

"Far from being innocent purveyors of 'sharing' technologies
co-opted by an international piracy community, defendants were in
fact among the architects and developers of that international
piracy community and received billions in profits from their
efforts," the artists say.

They add: "The underlying irony in this case is that, despite its
endemic inducement of the infringement of plaintiffs' songs,
defendants' parent, CBS, does not hesitate to cast itself as a
defender of intellectual property rights when it concerns its own
financial interests.  For example, defendants' parent company,
CBS, routinely harasses individuals and small websites which post
small portions of its own programming with 'cease and desist'
letters threatening crushing litigation.  When that does not work,
it does not hesitate to sue."

The artists say the defendants' hypocrisy is evident in the
conduct of CNET's co-founder and former CEO Shelby Bonnie, who
served on the Board of Directors of Warner Music Corporation, a
prominent member of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of
America), while the RIAA sued LimeWire for copyright infringement.

At the same time, the plaintiffs say, "CNET made a fortune
distributing millions of copies of LimeWire and other file-sharing
software designed to infringe."

After a federal judge shut down LimeWire for massive copyright
infringement in May 2010, the defendants stopped distributing
LimeWire and similar Gnutella applications, but continued to
promote and distribute newer, even harder to detect infringing
technology, such as BitTorrent applications.

The complaint adds that BitTorrent, which has been downloaded
about 100 million times from the defendants' Web sites, has become
a popular means of transferring files online and "one of the
preferred means of digital piracy."

The artists say CBS and CNET made billions from their pay-per-
download program and from ads on popular download websites that
encourage copyright infringement.

What's more, they say, the defendants discouraged users from
downloading applications that prevented infringement.

The artists add: "Defendants' activities vis a vis P2P software
are especially egregious, given that CBS defendants own the rights
to a massive catalog of television programming and other
intellectual property that has been and continues to be
persistently infringed over the same P2P networks it helped
assemble and grow through CNET and Download.com.  Defendants made
a cynical decision to attempt to recapture whatever profits were
lost through the infringement arising from P2P networks by
profiting from the popularity of those networks through
Download.com and CNET P2P revenues.  By helping construct, expand
and preserve the P2P networks, defendants did much more than
'recoup' their (self-inflicted) losses from digital piracy, but
rather directly and massively profited from the infringement of
all the artists whose work was illegally shared on P2P networks.
Defendants never offered to share any of the income made from
their promotion of infringement with plaintiffs or any other
copyright owners whose work was persistently infringed by P2P
systems distributed and promoted by defendants."

The artists seek an injunction and damages for inducement of
copyright infringement and contributory and vicarious copyright
infringement.

Plaintiffs include film producer Alkiviades David, record company
Sugar Hill Music, and various hip-hop and R&B artists.

A copy of the Complaint in David, et al. v. CBS Interactive, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-09437 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/16/Downloads.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jaime Marquart, Esq.
          Ryan Baker, Esq.
          BAKER MARQUART LLP
          10990 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 652-7811


CENTRAL VERMONT: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "IBEW" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Central Vermont Public Service Corporation is awaiting a court
decision on its and other defendants' motion to dismiss a merger-
related class action lawsuit filed by IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund,
et al., in the United States District Court for the District of
Vermont, 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 May 27, 2011, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation
("CVPS"), FortisUS Inc., Cedar Acquisition Sub Inc., a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis ("Merger Sub") and Fortis Inc.,
the ultimate parent of Fortis ("Ultimate Parent"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Fortis Merger Agreement").

On June 2, 2011, a lawsuit captioned David Raul v. Lawrence
Reilly, et al., Civil Division Docket No. 377-6-11-RDCV, was filed
in the Superior Court of Vermont, Rutland Unit against CVPS and
members of the CVPS Board of Directors.  The lawsuit also named as
defendants FortisUS Inc. and one of its affiliates.  The Raul
complaint, which purported to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of the public stockholders of CVPS, alleged that CVPS's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
Fortis Merger Agreement for a price that is alleged to be unfair,
as the result of a process alleged to be unfair and inadequate,
with material conflicts of interest and so as to benefit
themselves, and including no-solicitation, matching rights and
termination fee provisions alleged to be designed to ensure that
no competing offers would emerge for CVPS.  The Raul complaint
also included a claim of aiding and abetting against CVPS and the
Fortis entities.  The Raul complaint sought, among other things,
injunctive relief against the proposed transaction with Fortis as
well as other equitable relief, damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.  On June 23, 2011, following the announcement of an offer
received from Gaz Metro Limited Partnership, David Raul filed an
amended class action complaint repeating his earlier allegations
and claims but also referring to this development and claiming
that the CVPS Board should terminate the Fortis Merger Agreement
and negotiate a new deal with Gaz Metro.

On June 17, 2011, and June 20, 2011, two additional complaints
(Civil Division Docket Nos. 417-6-11-RDCV and 425-6-11-RDCV,
respectively) were filed in the Superior Court of Vermont, Rutland
Unit, containing claims and allegations similar to those in the
original Raul complaint and seeking similar relief on behalf of
the same putative class.  These complaints were filed,
respectively, by IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and by Adrienne
Halberstam, Jacob Halberstam and Sarah Halberstam.

On July 13, 2011, a lawsuit captioned Howard Davis v. Central
Vermont Public Service, et al., Case No. 5:11-CV-181 was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Vermont
against CVPS and members of the CVPS Board of Directors.  The
lawsuit also named as defendants Gaz Metro Limited Partnership and
one of its affiliates.  The Davis complaint, which purported to be
brought on behalf of a class consisting of the public stockholders
of CVPS, alleged that CVPS's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, allegedly failing to undertake an
adequate sales process prior to the Fortis Merger Agreement,
entering into the Merger Agreement with Gaz Metro at an unfair
price and pursuant to an unfair process, engaging in self-dealing,
and by including various "deal protection devices" in the Merger
Agreement.  The Davis complaint also included a claim for aiding
and abetting against CVPS and the Gaz Metro entities.  The Davis
complaint sought injunctive relief and other equitable relief
against the proposed transaction with Gaz Metro, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 22, 2011, the Halberstam plaintiffs in the state case
filed an amended complaint in the Vermont Superior Court, Rutland
Unit, which added Gaz Metro Limited Partnership and one of its
affiliates as defendants in addition to the defendants named in
the original complaint.  The amended complaint contained claims
and allegations similar to those in the Davis complaint and sought
similar relief.

On August 2, 2011, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in
the Davis action reiterating the previous claims of breaches of
fiduciary duty and adding claims that the Company's proxy
materials regarding the merger are materially misleading and/or
incomplete in various respects, in alleged violation of fiduciary
duties and the federal securities laws.  The Amended Class Action
Complaint in the Davis action seeks injunctive and other equitable
relief against the proposed transaction with Gaz Metro, damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 17, 2011, the three cases pending in the Superior Court
of Vermont were consolidated by court order, in accordance with a
stipulation that had been filed by the parties.  The court also
entered orders stating that defendants need only respond to a
consolidated amended complaint to be filed, denying a motion for
expedited discovery that had been brought by the plaintiffs, and
staying all discovery until the legal sufficiency of a
consolidated amended complaint could be determined.

On August 23, 2011, IBEW moved for leave to file a consolidated
amended complaint in the state court proceedings.  The proposed
consolidated amended complaint contained claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the members of the CVPS Board of Directors
in connection with both the Fortis Merger Agreement and the
subsequent Gaz Metro Merger Agreement, including claims that the
proxy materials provided in connection with the proposed
shareholder vote on the Gaz Metro merger were misleading and/or
incomplete, and that the CVPS Board had violated its fiduciary
duties.  The proposed consolidated amended complaint also contains
claims for aiding and abetting fiduciary breaches against CVPS and
Gaz Metro.  The proposed consolidated amended complaint seeks,
among other relief, an injunction against consummation of the Gaz
Metro merger and damages, including but not limited to damages
allegedly resulting from CVPS's payment of a termination fee in
connection with the termination of the Fortis Merger Agreement.

On September 1, 2011, plaintiff in the Davis action filed a motion
seeking a preliminary injunction against the September 29, 2011
shareholder vote that was scheduled in connection with the
proposed Gaz Metro merger.  On September 16, 2011, defendants in
the Davis action filed motions to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint.

On September 19, 2011, CVPS and the other defendants in the Davis
action entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Davis
plaintiff regarding an agreed in principle class-wide settlement
of the Davis action, subject to court approval.  In the memorandum
of understanding, the parties agreed that CVPS would make certain
disclosures to its shareholders relating to the proposed merger,
in addition to the information contained in the initial Proxy
Statement, in exchange for a settlement of all claims.  Pursuant
to the memorandum of understanding, CVPS subsequently issued a
Supplemental Proxy statement that included the additional
disclosures.  The parties to the Davis action have informed the
court of the memorandum of understanding and will be seeking court
approval of the proposed settlement.  The parties to the MOU
reserved their rights with respect to the determination of
plaintiffs' attorneys fees, if any, when the settlement agreement
is reviewed by the court.

Meanwhile, a putative class action complaint captioned IBEW Local
98 Pension Fund, Adrienne Halberstam, Jacob Halberstam, Sarah
Halberstam, and David Raul v. Central Vermont Public Service, et
al., Case No. 5:11-CV-222 was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Vermont against CVPS, Gaz Metro, and
members of the CVPS Board of Directors.  This federal IBEW
complaint, dated September 15, 2011, contains claims of breach of
fiduciary duty and inadequate proxy statement disclosures that are
substantially similar to those contained in the proposed
consolidated amended complaint filed by the same plaintiffs in the
Superior Court of Vermont.  The federal IBEW complaint also
included allegations of violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

On October 14, 2011, CVPS and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the federal IBEW complaint.


CHRISTIANE FARAZLI: Patient Defends Doctor Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Nease, writing for The Ottawa Citizen, reports that a
patient of Ottawa gastroenterologist Dr. Christiane Farazli --
whose Carling Avenue clinic failed an inspection and sparked an
infection scare last month -- has come forward in the doctor's
defense.

Brenda Grassau, 77, has been seeing Dr. Farazli for about eight
years and was one of the 6,800 people who received a letter from
Ottawa Public Health in October warning that there was a slight
chance of HIV and hepatitis infection.

Years ago, Ms. Grassau's family physician referred her to three
gastroenterologists, all of whom said they couldn't find anything
wrong with her.  One did not even conduct an examination, she
says.

The doctor's assistant poked Ms. Grassau's abdomen with an index
finger, then reported to the doctor.  "And the guy literally
patted me on the head and sent me home," she said.

Ms. Grassau said she was finally referred to Dr. Farazli, who
decided to perform a colonoscopy.

"Yes, it was painful," Ms. Grassau said, but she never cried, just
moaned a little bit.  "I don't know whether she suffers fools very
gladly or not, I don't really know.  But I felt, I knew it was
going to be uncomfortable."

Ms. Grassau learned that due to some kind of blockage, the other
doctors had not been able to examine her entire colon.  But
Dr. Farazli did, and she discovered diverticulosis and removed
several polyps that turned out to be benign.

Ms. Grassau saw Dr. Farazli again for a colonoscopy and
gastroscopy last year, Ms. Grassau said.  Dr. Farazli took samples
of a few potentially problematic areas and ran biopsies, for which
the results were negative.

Just this past June, Ms. Grassau saw Dr. Farazli again to talk
about a hernia.

"She was very frank, but very good," Ms. Grassau said.  "She said,
'Brenda, you've got that condition and you just have to deal with
it.  Are you taking your medication, are you watching your diet?'
and she went through all these things.  . . . I certainly got
proper care from her."

Dr. Farazli is under investigation by the Ontario College of
Physicians and Surgeons and has been barred from performing any
kind of endoscopy.  She is still able to see patients in
consultation.

"I'm glad to know she's back at work if I need her," Ms. Grassau
said.

A class-action lawsuit against Dr. Farazli was filed on Nov. 3.


CITY OF NEW YORK: Zuffa Files Class Action to Legalize MMA
----------------------------------------------------------
Bryanna Fissori, writing for BoxingInsider, reports that mixed
martial arts (MMA) proponents have been battling in the New York
political arena for nearly 15 years since the 1997 ban of the
sport.  After numerous attempts to pass legislation lifting the
prohibition proved unsuccessful, including one in the most recent
session, it is time for a new approach.  Zuffa, LLC., parent
company of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) has
spearheaded a lawsuit along side a number of MMA professionals and
fans who are affected by the ban.

Plaintiff include: Zuffa LLC d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship,
Jon Jones, Gina Carano, Frankie Edgar, Matt Hamill, Brian Stann,
Danielle Hobeika, Beth Hurrle, Donna Hurrle, Steve Kardian, Joseph
Lozito, Erik Owings, Chris Reitz, and Jennifer Santiago.

The two defendants named in the suit are New York State Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman and Attorney General for the City of New
York Cyrus Vance.  These men are responsible for enforcement of
the ban.

The plaintiffs assert that the ban "violates numerous provisions
of the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment,
Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause.
The heart of the law suit hinges on the successful establishment
of mixed martial arts as a form of free speech, placing it under
the mighty protection of the first amendment.  The case asserts
that MMA is both a sport and theater for entertainment purposes,
comparing fighters to actors, figure skaters, ballerinas and
bands.

"Fighters express themselves in every aspect of the live
performance-from the entrances they stage and the walkout music
they select, to the clothes they wear, to the way they conduct
themselves inside the arena and toward their opponent.  Fans come
not just for the fights, but also for this entire unified show."
Barry Freidman is the attorney representing the plaintiffs and he
attests that this is the first time he has heard of an athlete
asserting a First Amendment right to entertain, but also states
that it is not necessary for all sports.  Then nature of MMA is
unique because it is blend of styles which he referred to as
"martial artistry."

The complaint delves into great detail of the history of MMA and
its progression trickling down from each traditional form art such
as Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu to the combining of the pieces to
create early Jeet Kun Do and Vale Tudo before transitioning into
modern day MMA.  The 123 page dissertation which comprises the
complaint does not even assert specific causes of action until
page 83 or so.  It is actually a great read for anyone interested
in understanding the roots of the sport and may give readers a
better grasp on the topic than many of the books out there
specifically designed for that purpose.  Subject matter also
includes history of the progression of popularity, safety and
regulations, the message of MMA, underground MMA, why fighters
fight and numerous other areas of interest.

As for the actual grievances the plaintiffs assert seven causes of
action;

1. The Live Professional MMA Ban is Unconstitutional as Applied to
Plaintiffs

The crux of this cause of action is that the ban itself was
unconstitutional because the ban was set forth based on content
and message of the sport. In the complaint the plaintiffs clarify
the message of the sport as one much different than that of the
sport in 1997. It also asserts First Amendment protection.
". . . live professional MMA -- and all of the related aspects
before and after the fight itself -- has an expressive content
that fighters intend to convey and that fans understand and
achieve."  Further, "live professional MMA is clearly intended and
understood as public entertainment and, as such, is expressive
activity protected by the First Amendment."

This cause of action fails to expressly link the plaintiffs to the
ban in section, though it is easily implied from the previous
section about the individual plaintiffs and their connections to
the sport.

2. The Live Professional MMA Ban is Unconstitutionally Overbroad
and Facially Invalid

"The Live Professional MMA Ban is written so broadly that, in
addition to prohibiting the constitutionally protected activity of
professional MMA fighters and fans, it also prohibits myriad other
forms of speech and expression that are protected by the First
Amendment, both inside and outside of New York."

The letter of the is so prohibitive that it makes the "advancing"
and "profiting from" MMA illegal in the state, which the complaint
points out, could subject violators to civil and criminal
penalties for selling MMA t-shits, writing letters to legislators
to repeal the ban, lecturing on the sport, hosting a party to
watch event on television or writing for an MMA blog.

There is no doubt as to the over-broadness of the language and the
impossibility of regulating such prohibitive stipulations.

3. The Live Professional MMA Ban is Unconstitutionally Vague

"The Live Professional MMA Ban is written with such breadth and
lack of clarity that the citizens of New York, including a number
of the Plaintiffs, are unable to tell what is illegal in New York,
what is permitted, what they have the liberty to do, and what they
may not do."

The law does not actually have an express stipulation against
amateur bouts being held, though it has been implied that such
events constitute a violation.  It is also vague regarding whether
training in New York for events elsewhere is illegal.

4. The Live Professional MMA Ban Violates Plaintiffs' Rights to
Equal Protection of the Laws

"Further, the Ban explicitly exempts a variety of martial arts,
including judo, tae kwon do, karate, and kenpo.  There is no basis
whatsoever in the legislative history for discriminating between
these sports and MMA, and the medical evidence supports no such
discrimination.  Indeed, MMA essentially is a combination of
martial arts, all of which are allowed and regulated in New York.
Individually, they are all legal; together, they are banned."

The cause of action asserts that under the 14th Amendment,
generally "likes" shall be treated "alike."  Thus, differentiating
MMA from other martial art forms, which are the foundation of the
sport and carry similar if not the same safety risks is
unreasonable.  Though this is true, the court may also choose to
remember assertions throughout the complaint that MMA is unique
from other sports.

"It is simply irrational to ban only live professional MMA which
is regulated throughout the United States-on safety grounds, and
yet permit MMA's component martial arts, as well as many other
sporting events and other activities far more dangerous than
professional MMA."

5. The Live Professional MMA Ban is Unconstitutionally Irrational

The purpose of the Due Process Clause is to protect liberties from
irrational restriction.  This section re-asserts the reasons why
the ban itself was irrational and claims that upholding it is a
violation of the Due Process Clause.

"New York's Live Professional MMA Ban infringes on constitutional
liberties: the liberty to participate in activities one would
like, to earn a living doing so, to display those activities in
public, and to be seen doing so, and to watch live what one
chooses to watch.  But for the Live Professional MMA Ban,
Plaintiffs would-as they allege above-engage in a range of MMA
activities in New York, from promoting to fighting to attending
and watching to covering on blogs or working on film for the
media."

6. The Live Professional MMA Ban Unconstitutionally Restricts
Interstate Commerce

The Commerce Clause expressly grants Congress the power to
regulate commerce "among the several states."  Under the umbrella
of the Commerce Clause is the Dormant Commerce Clause which is
doctrine generally adopted by the Supreme Court and serves to
prohibit a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens
or discriminates against interstate commerce.

The complaint asserts a three-fold violation of the clause.

1. Competitors train in New York, but national business is not
allowed to enter despite the thriving industry in the state.

2. The products and services that accompany a live MMA show are
not permitted which achieves no local benefits.

3. Advertisers have limited exposure to New York markets thus
causing them to have to restrict their business to surrounding
states.

7. The 2001 Liquor Law is Unconstitutional as Applied to
Plaintiffs

This cause of action is in response to a law essentially declaring
the MMA events cannot be held in a venue that serves alcohol.

"Just as the Live Professional MMA Ban violates the First
Amendment by restricting the expressive conduct of live
professional MMA, so too does the 2001 Liquor Law as applied to
the Plaintiffs, through its restriction of the performance of live
MMA in virtually all venues in New York that serve alcohol.  Such
a restriction prohibits the fighter Plaintiffs from participating
in bouts in front of live audiences and expressing their message
to spectators in New York, and it prohibits MMA promoters, such as
Plaintiff Zuffa, from promoting live MMA events in New York."

The plaintiffs are asking for an injunction preventing enforcement
of the Live Professional MMA Ban and attorney's costs.

Though the language of the complaint sticks closely to issues
surrounding the 1997 ban of the sport, it is widely known that
controversies surrounding the "message of the sport" or "safety of
the fighters," were not the only reasons legislation to lift the
ban has been repeatedly stalled.

Toward the closing of the New York legislative session this summer
UFC President Dana White expressed his belief there were other
politics aside from those of the elected officials at play on the
issue and it is a widely accepted theory throughout the industry
and political realm.  Zuffa LLC, is the largest non-union gaming
corporation in the country and is owned by UFC owners Frank and
Lorenzo Fertitta.  Ms. White publically asserted his conviction
that the Culinary Union is behind much of the anti-MMA effort in
New York through funding and coercing with political leaders.

It is no secret that the Culinary Union is continually at ends
with Station Casinos, which are also owned by the Fertittas.  A
few month ago the Culinary Union issued a memo confirming anti-MMA
sentiments for the State of New York and outlined reasoning
related to the dominant position of Zuffa in the industry and the
lack of a fighter's union.  They have also requested Federal Trade
Commission investigation of the company.

It is likely that a significant part of the plaintiffs' motivation
for filing suit is an attempt to bypass the influence of the
Culinary Union and their "support staff" in the New York State
Capitol.  This will undoubtedly be test of their powers of
persuasion.

The wait between and during legislative sessions has been
painfully slow for all New York MMA fans and professionals.  Don't
expect the court system to move any faster.  In the mean time keep
training, keep hoping, keep the faith that someday soon we are all
going to be standing in line a Madison Square Garden for the big
show.


COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Recalls 45,000 KEDS Know It All" Girls' Shoes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Collective Brands, Inc., of Topeka, Kansas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 45,000 KEDS(R) "Know It All" Girls' Shoes.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Ornamental stars on the heel of the shoe may loosen, posing a
laceration hazard.

The firm has received 27 reports of cuts and scratches resulting
from metal stars that loosened from the heel of the shoe.

This recall involves KEDS(R) girls' rubber soled shoes.  The shoes
are black and pink with white trim and a pink loop on the heel.
"KEDS" appears on the tongue and heel of the shoe.  The style
number KY40098A is printed on the underside of the tongue.  The
shoes were sold in girls' sizes 12 to 5.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12045.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
various department stores and online retailers from June through
October 2011 for about $23.

Consumers should take these shoes away from children immediately
and contact Collective Brands to receive a gift card for $30
redeemable at Stride Rite stores or http://striderite.com/. For
additional information, contact Collective Brands at (800) 365-
4933 between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Saturday
and Sunday, E-mail kedskidsrecall@collectivebrands.com, or visit
the firm's Web site http://www.collectivebrands.com/


COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Recalls 440 Batteries Sold With Jackets
------------------------------------------------------------
About 220 units of Omni-Heat(TM) Lithium-Polymer Rechargeable
Batteries, two battery packs sold with each jacket totaling 440
batteries, were voluntarily recalled by Columbia Sportswear
Company, of Portland, Oregon, in cooperation with the CPSC.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The batteries have a cell defect which can cause overheating,
posing a fire hazard.

The firm has received one report of a battery overheating that was
discovered at its distribution facility in France.  No incidents
or injuries have been reported in the United States of America.

This recall involves battery packs that power heating systems in
jackets.  Two battery packs were included with the following Omni-
Heat(TM) Electric jacket styles: Omni-Heat(TM) Electric Wader
Widgeon, Omni-Heat(TM) Electric Big Game and Omni-Heat(TM) Gale
Warning Interchange.  The black battery packs are 3.25 inches long
by 2.3 inches wide by 0.7 inches deep and marked with "Columbia"
on the top and "OMNI-HEAT(TM)" on the bottom of the pack.  "Part:
054978-001" is printed on the side label.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12705.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by
Columbia online retail for $79.  The recalled battery packs were
included with the jackets sold by Columbia online retail and
outdoor and sporting goods dealers nationwide from July 2011 to
September 2011 from $900 to $1200.

Consumers should immediately remove the battery pack from the
jacket and contact the firm for instructions to return both
battery packs to Columbia for free replacements.  For additional
information, contact Columbia Sportswear Company between 6:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time at (800) 622-6953, e-mail
Columbia@custhelp.com, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.Columbia.com/Recall/


COWEN GROUP: Certification Hearing on Jan. 13 in CardioNet Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
class action lawsuit involving a subsidiary of Cowen Group, Inc.,
over an August 2008 follow-on offering for CardioNet, Inc., is set
for January 13, 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.

On March 5, 2010, Cowen and Company LLC, the Company's broker-
dealer segment, was named as a defendant, along with several other
underwriters, in a putative class action filed in the San Diego
Superior Court, in connection with an August 2008 follow-on
offering for CardioNet, Inc. ("CardioNet").  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the prospectuses for CardioNet's
March 2008 initial public offering (in which Cowen and Company did
not participate) and subsequent follow-on equity offering (in
which Cowen and Company did participate) were false and misleading
and failed to disclose, among other things, that CardioNet
incorrectly reported revenue and failed to disclose certain risks
relating to Medicare reimbursement rates for CardioNet's services.
On April 5, 2010, Cowen and Company and the other defendants moved
to remove the case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California and, on April 7, 2010, moved to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On April 23, 2010, plaintiffs
moved to remand the case back to California state court.

On March 24, 2011, the District Court for the Southern District of
California remanded the case back to the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of San Diego.

On May 12, 2011, the Issuer-Defendants filed a demurrer, which was
joined by the Underwriter-Defendants, including Cowen and Company.
Plaintiffs filed an opposition on July 11, 2011.  Cowen Group's
reply was due August 1, 2011.  The hearing on the demurrer was
scheduled for September 2, 2011.

On September 2, 2011, the court denied the underwriter-defendants'
(including Cowen) demurrer.  On September 13, 2011 plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification, with oppositions due on
December 30, 2011, and plaintiffs' reply due on January 6, 2012.
A hearing on the motion is scheduled for January 13, 2012.  On
September 16, 2011, the underwriter-defendants filed an answer to
the complaint.

The Company says it cannot presently predict the ultimate outcome
of the litigation or estimate the possible loss or range of loss,
if any.


COWEN GROUP: Continues to Defend NYSE Specialists Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Group, Inc., continues to defend the matter In re NYSE
Specialists Securities Litigation, 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 acquisition of LaBranche & Co Inc. ("LaBranche") by the
Company was consummated pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement"), dated as of February 16,
2011, after the market close on June 28, 2011.  LaBranche Capital,
LLC (LCAP), which was renamed "Cowen Capital LLC" following
consummation of the acquisition, was a wholly owned subsidiary of
LaBranche and is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

On October 16, 2003, through December 16, 2003, four purported
class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by persons or entities who
purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE listed companies,
including Pirelli v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8264,
Marcus v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521, Empire v.
LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935, and California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) v. New York Stock Exchange,
Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 9968.  On March 11, 2004, a fifth action
asserting similar claims, Rosenbaum Partners, LP v. New York Stock
Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 04 CV 2038, was also filed in the SDNY
by an individual plaintiff who does not allege to represent a
class.

On May 27, 2004, the SDNY consolidated these lawsuits under the
caption In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, No. CV 8264.
The court named the following lead plaintiffs: CalPERS and Empire
Programs, Inc.

On September 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint
for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, alleging that they represent a class consisting of
all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock
listed on the NYSE from October 17, 1998, to October 15, 2003.
Plaintiffs allege that LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche & Co. LLC,
Mr. LaBranche, other NYSE specialist firms, including Bear Wagner
Specialists LLC, Fleet Specialist, Inc., SIG Specialists, Inc.,
Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Performance Specialist
Group, LLC and Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC, and certain
parents and affiliates of those firms, and the NYSE, violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by failing to disclose alleged improper specialist
trading that was the subject of specialist trading investigations
by the SEC and NYSE, improperly profiting on purchases and/or
sales of NYSE listed securities, and breaching and/or aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.  Section 20(a) control person
claims also are alleged, including against LaBranche & Co Inc.,
LaBranche & Co. LLC and Mr. LaBranche.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified money damages, restitution, forfeiture of fees,
commissions and other compensation, equitable and/or injunctive
relief, including an accounting and the imposition of a
constructive trust and/or asset freeze on trading proceeds, and
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On December 12, 2005, motions to dismiss were granted in part and
denied in part.  The SDNY dismissed plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) claims against all defendants for conduct that
occurred before January 1, 1999, and dismissed plaintiffs' breach
of fiduciary duty claims against all defendants.  The SDNY also
dismissed all claims against the NYSE and certain claims against
certain parents and affiliates of specialists other than LaBranche
& Co. LLC.

On February 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach
of Fiduciary Duty, adding Robert A. Martin as a plaintiff.  This
complaint is otherwise identical to plaintiffs' Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.

On February 23, 2006, LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche & Co. LLC,
Mr. LaBranche and the other defendants in the case filed answers
to plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the
Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty, denying
liability and asserting affirmative defenses.

On February 22, 2007, the SDNY removed Empire Programs, Inc. as
co-lead plaintiff, leaving CalPERS as the sole lead plaintiff.

On June 28, 2007, CalPERS moved for class certification of "all
persons and entities who submitted orders (directly or through
agents) to purchase or sell NYSE-listed securities between January
1, 1999, and October 15, 2003, which orders were listed on the
specialists' display book and subsequently disadvantaged by
defendants," and for the certification of CalPERS and Market
Street Securities Inc. as class representatives.

On September 18, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reinstated certain of the claims against the NYSE
that previously had been dismissed.

On March 14, 2009, the SDNY granted CalPERS' motion for class
certification.

On April 13, 2009, LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr.
LaBranche and the other specialist firm defendants and their
affiliates filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f), for permission to appeal the class certification
order.  On October 1, 2009, the Second Circuit denied the
petition, and, on October 21, 2009, LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche
& Co. LLC, Mr. LaBranche and the other specialist firm defendants
and their affiliates filed a motion for reconsideration.  On
February 24, 2010, the Second Circuit denied this motion for
reconsideration.

On October 5, 2009, CalPERS and the NYSE informed the SDNY that
they had agreed to settle all claims against the NYSE.

On March 31, 2010, CalPERS and the NYSE submitted a stipulation of
settlement to the SDNY, not involving any money payment by the
NYSE to CalPERS.  On April 2, 2010, the SDNY approved this
settlement, and, on April 6, 2010, the SDNY entered a final
judgment dismissing CalPERS's claims against the NYSE with
prejudice.

The parties participated in non-binding mediation during May 2011
through early July 2011.

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


COWEN GROUP: Unit Faces Class Suit Over BofA Securities Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Cowen Group, Inc., subsidiary is facing a putative class action
lawsuit in New York over the December 2009 offering of Common
Equivalent Securities of Bank of America, 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 September 25, 2011, Cowen and Company LLC, the Company's
broker-dealer segment, and twenty-six other banks (the
"Underwriter Defendants") were named as defendants in the putative
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The complaint brings claims against the
Underwriter Defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 for alleged materially misleading statements and omissions in
the registration statement and prospectus for a December 2009
offering of Common Equivalent Securities of Bank of America.

The Company says it cannot presently predict the ultimate outcome
of the litigation or estimate the possible loss or range of loss,
if any.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Unit Defends "Ginardi" Suit in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP is defending a class action
lawsuit in Arkansas involving its 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 May 2011, a class action lawsuit, Ginardi v. Frontier Gas
Services, LLC, et al., was filed in the United States District
Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas against Frontier Gas
Services, LLC; Chesapeake Energy Corporation, BHP Billiton
Petroleum, No 4:11-cv-0420 BRW alleging that defendants',
including Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC ("Crestwood Arkansas")
which was served in August 2011, operations pollute the
atmosphere, groundwater, and soil with allegedly harmful gases,
chemicals, and compounds and the facilities create excessive noise
levels constituting trespass, nuisance and annoyance.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages of loss of use
and enjoyment of property, contamination of soil and ground water,
air and atmosphere and seek future monitoring.  Crestwood Arkansas
has filed an answer in the matter denying liability.

The Company says this case has not had, and is not expected to
have, a material impact on its results of the operation or
financial condition.  The Company adds that it intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.


DELPHI FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Awaits Final Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company obtained preliminary
approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit in
Mississippi, according to Delphi Financial Group Inc.'s
November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

A putative class action, Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance
Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi in July 2008 against the
Company's subsidiary, RSLIC.  The action challenges RSLIC's
ability to pay certain insurance policy benefits through a
mechanism commonly known in the insurance industry as a retained
asset account and contains related claims of breach of fiduciary
duty and prohibited transactions under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The parties have entered
into an agreement to settle this litigation, and the settlement
has been preliminarily approved by the court.  It is not
anticipated that this settlement will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or
financial condition.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Fails to Decertify Special Education Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, a six-year class action against District public schools
officials over a failure to provide special education programs to
preschoolers won't be decertified in light of the Supreme Court's
June 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes.

U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, in one of two opinions
published on Nov. 16, found that the class in this case -- unlike
the female Wal-Mart employees who had attempted to certify a class
in Wal-Mart -- showed enough "commonality" in that they all
claimed to have been denied their legal right to a "free
appropriate public education."

Judge Lamberth also issued a new ruling on the merits of the case,
finding that the city continued to fail to identify eligible
students and properly provide special education programs for
preschoolers from 2008 through April 6 of this year.  The opinion
extends an order from last year finding that the city had failed
to provide these programs during the period before 2007.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Bruce Terris of Washington's
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, as well as a representative of the city
attorney general's office, were not immediately available for
comment.

A spokesman for District of Columbia Public Schools, Frederick
Lewis, said in an e-mail that, "We cannot comment while the
Court's Orders are under review."  Mr. Lewis also noted that the
city is ranked 15th among states nationwide in its identification
of students eligible for special education services.

It's a case that's proved troublesome for the city in the past. On
May 9, Judge Lamberth issued an opinion criticizing the city for
its handling of discovery in the case, writing that "a discovery
violation of this exotic magnitude is literally unheard of in this
Court."

The class action stems from allegations that city school officials
failed to identify and provide special education programs to
preschool students in need for years, in violation of the
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) and other
federal and local statutes, according to the complaint (PDF).  The
class was certified in 2006.

The city moved to decertify the class in March, arguing that the
name plaintiffs had aged out of the class.  Following the Supreme
Court's ruling in Wal-Mart, the city filed an additional brief
(PDF) on July 1, arguing that, just as in Wal-Mart, the plaintiffs
here "bundled together multiple different allegations of a variety
of different provisions" and that the "complaint sweeps too
broadly for purposes of commonality."

In the opinion on Nov. 16, Judge Lamberth wrote that once the
class was certified, the named plaintiffs could continue to
represent the interests of the class, even if they had grown too
old to be directly affected by the outcome.  On the Wal-Mart
question, Judge Lamberth found that the plaintiffs "amply" showed
that there are issues common to the entire class.

"All of the class members have suffered the same injury: denial of
their statutory right to a free appropriate public education,"
Judge Lamberth wrote.  Just because the plaintiffs might have been
denied that education in different ways, the judge wrote, "the
superficially different allegations in this case points back to a
basic injury common to all members of the class."

In the other opinion, Judge Lamberth found that the city public
school system had continued to fail to identify and provide
special education services to eligible preschool children.
Judge Lamberth presided over a bench trial in the case in April.
The judge found that while the city had made some reforms, they
were undone by turnover within the school system.

"Since defendants have demonstrated their historic inability to
keep their promises to the District's disabled preschool children,
this Court hereby makes it crystal clear that failing to abide by
the Court's Order will earn defendants far more significant court
involvement and oversight than is ordered this day," Judge
Lamberth wrote.


DUKE ENERGY: Payments Made ERISA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South
Carolina against Duke Energy Corporation and the Duke Energy
Retirement Cash Balance Plan, alleging violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (ADEA). These allegations arise out of the
conversion of the Duke Energy Company Employees' Retirement Plan
into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The case also
raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in the
application of Plan provisions (i.e., the calculation of interest
rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum
distributions). Six causes of action were alleged, ranging from
age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to
allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs sought a broad
array of remedies, including a retroactive reformation of the Duke
Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and a recalculation of
participants'/ beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and
reformed plan. Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006. A
portion of this contingent liability was assigned to Spectra
Energy Corp (Spectra Energy) in connection with the spin-off in
January 2007. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaint to add an additional age discrimination claim,
defendant's motion to dismiss and the respective motions for
summary judgment was held in December 2007. On June 2, 2008, the
court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs' motion to add the
additional claim and dismissing a number of plaintiffs' claims,
including the claims for ERISA age discrimination. Subsequently,
plaintiffs notified Duke Energy that they were withdrawing their
ADEA claim. On September 4, 2009, the court issued its order
certifying classes for three of the remaining claims but not
certifying their claims as to plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims.
At an unsuccessful mediation in September 2008, Plaintiffs
quantified their claims as being in excess of $150 million. After
mediation on September 21, 2010, the parties reached an agreement
in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to execution of a
definitive settlement agreement, notice to the class members and
approval of the settlement by the Court. In the third quarter of
2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision related to the settlement
agreement. At a hearing on May 16, 2011, the court issued its
final confirmation order and payments have been made in accordance
with the settlement agreement, 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.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Appeal From "Gaer" Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a securities class action
complaint against Education Management Corporation 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.

On August 11, 2010, a securities class action complaint captioned
Gaer v. Education Management Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act due to allegedly false and misleading statements in
connection with EDMC's initial public offering and the Company's
subsequent press releases and filings with the SEC.  On
November 10, 2010, the District Court granted the Oklahoma Police
Pension and Retirement System's motion to serve as lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit.  On January 10, 2011, the lead plaintiff and the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint with the Court alleging similar
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and adding one
additional individual defendant and other underwriters from EDMC's
initial public offering.  On September 29, 2011, the District
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the
District Court's dismissal of the lawsuit with the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.


ENCORE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Energy Partners LP is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in
Delaware, 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 11, 2011, Vanguard Natural Resources LLC ("Vanguard") and
Encore Energy Partners LP ("ENP") announced the execution of a
definitive agreement that would result in a merger whereby ENP
would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vanguard Natural Gas,
LLC ("VNG"), Vanguard's subsidiary, through a unit-for-unit
exchange.

On April 5, 2011, Stephen Bushansky, a purported unitholder of
ENP, filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court
of Chancery on behalf of the unitholders of ENP.  Another
purported unitholder of ENP, William Allen, filed a similar action
in the same court on April 14, 2011.  The Bushansky and Allen
actions have been consolidated under the caption In re: Encore
Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6347-VCP (the
"Delaware State Court Action").  On August 12, 2011, those
plaintiffs jointly filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint naming as defendants Encore, Scott W. Smith, Richard A.
Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C.
Baggett, Martin G. White, and Vanguard.  That putative class
action complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
breached the partnership agreement by proposing a transaction that
is not fair and reasonable and that the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus omitted material information. Plaintiffs seek
an injunction prohibiting the proposed merger from going forward
and compensatory damages if the proposed merger is consummated.
In response, Vanguard has filed a motion to dismiss and says it
intends to defend vigorously against this lawsuit.

ENP and Vanguard say they cannot predict the outcome of the case
or any other lawsuits that might be subsequently filed, nor can
they predict the amount of time and expense that will be required
to resolve the lawsuit.  Vanguard, ENP and the other defendants
named in the lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against this and
any other actions.


ENCORE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hysong" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Energy Partners LP is awaiting a court decision on its and
other defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
commenced by Donald A. Hysong, 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 11, 2011, Vanguard Natural Resources LLC ("Vanguard") and
Encore Energy Partners LP ("ENP") announced the execution of a
definitive agreement that would result in a merger whereby ENP
would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vanguard Natural Gas,
LLC ("VNG"), Vanguard's subsidiary, through a unit-for-unit
exchange.

On September 6, 2011, Donald A. Hysong, a purported unitholder of
ENP, filed a putative class action complaint against ENP, Encore
Energy Partners GP LLC ("ENP GP"), Scott W. Smith, Richard A.
Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C.
Baggett, Martin G. White, and Vanguard on behalf of the
unitholders of ENP in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware that is captioned Hysong v. Encore Energy
Partners LP. et al., 1:11-cv-00781-SD.  Hysong alleges that the
named defendants violated either Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder or
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
disseminating a false and materially misleading proxy statement in
connection with the merger.  Plaintiff seeks an injunction
prohibiting the proposed merger from going forward.  On
September 14, 2011, in accordance with recent practice in
Delaware, this case was assigned to Judge Stewart Dalzell of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On September 29, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to preliminarily enjoin the
merger.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
all discovery and proceedings have been stayed pending resolution
of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or a showing by the plaintiff
that he is entitled to have the stay lifted.  The defendants named
in this lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against it.

ENP and Vanguard say they cannot predict the outcome of the case
or any other lawsuits that might be subsequently filed, nor can
they predict the amount of time and expense that will be required
to resolve the lawsuit.  Vanguard, ENP and the other defendants
named in the lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against this and
any other actions.


ENCORE ENERGY: Consolidated "O'Neal" Suit Stayed in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit arising from Encore Energy
Partners LP's proposed merger with Vanguard Natural Resources LLC
has been stayed, 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 11, 2011, Vanguard Natural Resources LLC ("Vanguard") and
Encore Energy Partners LP ("ENP") announced the execution of a
definitive agreement that would result in a merger whereby ENP
would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vanguard Natural Gas,
LLC ("VNG"), Vanguard's subsidiary, through a unit-for-unit
exchange.

On March 29, 2011, John O'Neal, a purported unitholder of ENP,
filed a putative class action petition in the 125th Judicial
District of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of unitholders of ENP.
Similar petitions were filed on April 4, 2011, by Jerry P. Morgan
and on April 5, 2011, by Herbert F. Rower in other Harris County
district courts.  The O'Neal, Morgan, and Rower lawsuits were
consolidated on June 5, 2011, as John O'Neal v. Encore Energy
Partners, L.P., et al., Case Number 2011-19340, which is pending
in the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County.  On July
28, 2011, Michael Gilas filed a class action petition in
intervention.  On July 26, 2011, the current plaintiffs in the
consolidated O'Neal action filed an amended putative class action
petition against ENP, Encore Energy Partners GP LLC ("ENP GP"),
Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy
Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C. Baggett, Martin G. White, and
Vanguard.  That putative class action petition and Gilas's
petition in intervention both allege that the named defendants are
(i) violating duties owed to ENP's public unitholders by, among
other things, failing to properly value Encore and failing to
protect against conflicts of interest or (ii) are aiding and
abetting such breaches.  Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting
the merger from going forward and compensatory damages if the
merger is consummated.  On October 3, 2011, the Court appointed
Bull & Lifshitz, counsel for plaintiff-intervenor Gilas, as
interim lead counsel on behalf of the putative class.  On October
21, 2011, the court signed an order staying this lawsuit pending
resolution of a merger-related state action pending in Delaware,
subject to plaintiffs' right to seek to lift the stay for good
cause.  The defendants named in the Texas lawsuits intend to
defend vigorously against them.

ENP and Vanguard say they cannot predict the outcome of the case
or any other lawsuits that might be subsequently filed, nor can
they predict the amount of time and expense that will be required
to resolve the lawsuit.  Vanguard, ENP and the other defendants
named in the lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against this and
any other actions.


ENCORE ENERGY: Defends "Goldstein" Class Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Encore Energy Partners LP is defending a class action lawsuit
commenced by Herman Goldstein in connection with its proposed
merger with Vanguard Natural Resources LLC, 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 11, 2011, Vanguard Natural Resources LLC ("Vanguard") and
Encore Energy Partners LP ("ENP") announced the execution of a
definitive agreement that would result in a merger whereby ENP
would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vanguard Natural Gas,
LLC ("VNG"), Vanguard's subsidiary, through a unit-for-unit
exchange.

On August 28, 2011, Herman Goldstein, a purported unitholder of
ENP, filed a putative class action complaint against ENP, Encore
Energy Partners GP LLC ("ENP GP"), Scott W. Smith, Richard A.
Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C.
Baggett, Martin G. White, and Vanguard in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of the
unitholders of ENP.  That lawsuit is captioned Goldstein v. Encore
Energy Partners LP. et al., United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, 4:11-cv-03198.  Goldstein alleges that
the named defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder by disseminating a false and materially misleading
proxy statement in connection with the merger.  Plaintiff seeks an
injunction prohibiting the proposed merger from going forward.
The defendants named in this lawsuit intend to defend vigorously
against it.

ENP and Vanguard say they cannot predict the outcome of the case
or any other lawsuits that might be subsequently filed, nor can
they predict the amount of time and expense that will be required
to resolve the lawsuit.  Vanguard, ENP and the other defendants
named in the lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against this and
any other actions.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls 160T Kidgets(R) Animal Sock Top Slippers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor/retailer, Family Dollar Services Inc., of Matthews,
North Carolina, and importer, BCNY International Inc., of
Hicksville, New York, announced a voluntary recall of about
160,000 Kidgets(R) Animal Sock Top Slippers.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The animal's eyes can detach from the slippers, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

Family Dollar has received one report of the eyes detaching from
the slippers.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled children's slippers have brown or tan dog faces,
yellow duck faces and tan lion faces.  The name "Kidgets" and the
size appear inside the slippers on the soles.

"FD9619108020690611" is printed inside the slippers on the side.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12044.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Family Dollar stores nationwide from September 2011
through October 2011 for about $5.

Consumers should immediately take the slippers away from children
and return them to any Family Dollar store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Family Dollar at (800) 547-0359
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.familydollar.com/


FANNIE MAE: Conservator to Seek Stay of 2008 Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Housing Finance Agency will seek a stay of a 2008
securities litigation against Federal National Mortgage
Association aka Fannie Mae while the Company is still under
conservatorship, 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 a consolidated complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead
plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management
Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred
shareholders) allege that the Company, certain of its former
officers, and certain of its underwriters violated Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Lead plaintiffs
also allege that the Company, certain of its former officers, and
its outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  Lead plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including
rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts'
fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief.  On October 13,
2009, the Court entered an order allowing the Federal Housing
Finance Agency to intervene.

On November 24, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims as to all defendants.  On
September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act
claims.  As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities
Exchange Act claims remain pending against the Company and certain
of its former officers.  On October 14, 2010, the Company and
certain other defendants filed motions for reconsideration of
those portions of the Court's September 30, 2010 order denying in
part the defendants' motions to dismiss. Fannie Mae filed its
answer to the consolidated complaint on December 31, 2010.
Defendants' motions for reconsideration were denied on April 11,
2011.  On July 28, 2011, lead plaintiffs filed motions to certify
a class of persons who, between
November 8, 2006 and September 5, 2008, inclusive, purchased or
acquired (a) Fannie Mae common stock and options or (b) Fannie Mae
preferred stock.

On October 12, 2011, FHFA, as conservator, filed a letter with the
court requesting a pre-motion conference to discuss FHFA's
intention to file a motion to stay this case for the duration of
the conservatorship based on a regulation FHFA adopted on
June 20, 2011, which provides in part that while the Company is in
conservatorship, FHFA will not pay claims by the Company's current
or former shareholders, unless the Director of FHFA determines it
is in the interest of the conservatorship.  The Acting Director of
FHFA has determined it will not pay the claims asserted in this
case while the Company is in conservatorship.  FHFA maintains,
therefore, that continuing litigation of this matter is a waste of
resources.  Alternatively, FHFA will seek a stay of this case
while a separate lawsuit challenging the regulation is decided.

                         About Fannie Mae

Federal National Mortgage Association, aka Fannie Mae, is a
government-sponsored enterprise that was chartered by U.S.
Congress in 1938 to support liquidity, stability and affordability
in the secondary mortgage market, where existing mortgage-related
assets are purchased and sold.

Fannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal
Housing Finance Agency acting as conservator, since September 6,
2008.  As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles,
powers and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder,
officer or director of the company with respect to the company and
its assets.  The conservator has since delegated specified
authorities to Fannie Mae's Board of Directors and has delegated
to management the authority to conduct day-to-day operations.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury owns Fannie Mae's senior
preferred stock and a warrant to purchase 79.9% of its common
stock, and Treasury has made a commitment under a senior preferred
stock purchase agreement to provide Fannie with funds under
specified conditions to maintain a positive net worth.


FANNIE MAE: Files Support Letter to Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association, aka Fannie Mae, related 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 it filed a letter supporting a motion to dismiss an ERISA
lawsuit against it.

In a consolidated complaint filed on September 11, 2009,
plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors, including former members of Fannie Mae's
Benefit Plans Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie
Mae's Board of Directors, as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee
Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached their duties to ESOP
participants and beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie
Mae common stock when it was no longer prudent to continue to do
so.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of participants and
beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae
common stock beginning April 17, 2007.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs and
injunctive and other equitable relief. On November 2, 2009,
defendants filed motions to dismiss these claims, which are now
fully briefed and remain pending.  On November 2, 2011, the
Company filed a letter notifying the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York of two recent decisions by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that are relevant to the
defendants' motions to dismiss.

                         About Fannie Mae

Federal National Mortgage Association, aka Fannie Mae, is a
government-sponsored enterprise that was chartered by U.S.
Congress in 1938 to support liquidity, stability and affordability
in the secondary mortgage market, where existing mortgage-related
assets are purchased and sold.

Fannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal
Housing Finance Agency acting as conservator, since September 6,
2008.  As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles,
powers and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder,
officer or director of the company with respect to the company and
its assets.  The conservator has since delegated specified
authorities to Fannie Mae's Board of Directors and has delegated
to management the authority to conduct day-to-day operations.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury owns Fannie Mae's senior
preferred stock and a warrant to purchase 79.9% of its common
stock, and Treasury has made a commitment under a senior preferred
stock purchase agreement to provide Fannie with funds under
specified conditions to maintain a positive net worth.


FIRST DATA CORP: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Order Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a class action complaint
against First Data Corporation is still 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.

On July 2, 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions.  Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  Plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to
the court.  Five similar suits were filed and served in July,
August and October 2004.  The Court granted judgment in favor of
the defendants, dismissing the case on September 17, 2010.  On
October 14, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment.
The Company continues to believe the complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend them.


FIRST HORIZON: "Sims" ERISA Suit Still Pending in Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
   
A shareholder, Troy Sims, has filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western
Division (Case No. 2:08-cv-02293-STA-cgc) against FHN and various
former and current officers and directors of FHN.  The complaint
alleges causes of action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), related to FHN's
Savings Plan, which is a 401(k) savings plan offered to eligible
employees. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
breached fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants by: (1)
failure to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's investment in
First Horizon stock and certain proprietary mutual funds; (2)
failure to provide accurate information to participants and
beneficiaries; (3) failure to monitor other Plan fiduciaries; and
(4) breach of co-fiduciary obligations.  For these alleged
violations, plaintiffs seek to require defendants to pay Plan
participants unspecified damages resulting from the decline in
value of First Horizon stock between January 2006 and July 14,
2008 and associated with participants' investment in proprietary
mutual funds offered by the Plan between May 2002 and January
2006.  FHN believes the defendants have meritorious defenses to
this complaint and intends to advance those defenses vigorously.

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.

                        About First Horizon

First Horizon National Corporation is a bank holding company.  The
Corporation, through its principal subsidiary, First Tennessee
Bank National Association and its other banking-related
subsidiaries provide diversified financial services through five
business segments: Regional Banking, Capital Markets, National
Specialty Lending, Mortgage Banking and Corporate.


FIRST HORIZON: Principal Subsidiary Faces Debit Card Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation's principal subsidiary is
defending itself against a class action lawsuit related to debit
transaction sequencing matters, 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 September 2011, First Tennessee Bank National Association
became a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit concerning
overdraft fees charged in connection with debit card transactions.
A key claim is that the method used to order or sequence the
transactions posted each day was improper.  The plaintiff seeks
actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution of
fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among other
things.

FHN related in its latest SEC filing that as of September 30,
2011, it is unable to determine a probable loss or estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss due to the uncertainties related
to this recent matter; no liability has been established for this
matter.  Although this suit is in an early stage, FHN intends to
defend itself vigorously.

                        About First Horizon

First Horizon National Corporation is a bank holding company.  The
Corporation, through its principal subsidiary, First Tennessee
Bank National Association and its other banking-related
subsidiaries provide diversified financial services through five
business segments: Regional Banking, Capital Markets, National
Specialty Lending, Mortgage Banking and Corporate.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of 2 Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court upheld the dismissal of two securities class
action lawsuits against General Electric Company, 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 July 2010, the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted the Company's motion to dismiss in their
entirety two purported class actions under the federal securities
laws naming GE, its chief executive officer, and its chief
financial officer as defendants.  These two actions alleged that
the Company and its chief executive officer made false and
misleading statements that artificially inflated the Company's
stock price between March 12, 2008 and April 10, 2008, when the
Company announced that its results for the first quarter of 2008
would not meet its previous guidance and also lowered its full
year guidance for 2008.  In September 2011, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
the class actions.

General Electric Company (GE) -- http://www.ge.com/-- operates as
a technology, service, and finance company worldwide.  The
company's Energy Infrastructure segment offers wind, gas, and
steam turbines and generators; combined-cycle systems; nuclear
reactors, fuel, and support services; and motors and control
systems, as well as provides water treatment solutions.  This
segment also provides integrated electrical equipment and systems
to distribute, protect, and control energy and equipment; and oil
and gas equipment, including surface and subsea drilling and
production systems, equipment for floating production platforms,
compressors, turbines, turbo expanders, high pressure reactors,
industrial power generation, and auxiliary equipment.  Its
Aviation segment produces and sells jet engines, turboprop and
turbo shaft engines, and related replacement parts for use in
military and commercial aircraft, as well as provides maintenance,
component repair, and overhaul services.  The company's Healthcare
segment provides medical imaging and information technologies,
medical diagnostics, patient monitoring systems, disease research,
drug discovery, and biopharmaceutical manufacturing technologies,
as well as remote diagnostic and repair services.  Its
Transportation segment provides technology solutions for customers
in various industries, including railroad, transit, mining, oil
and gas, power generation, and marine.  The company's GE Capital
segment offers commercial loans and leases, fleet management,
financial programs, home loans, credit cards, personal loans, and
other financial services.  Its Home and Business Solutions segment
provides refrigerators; freezers; electric and gas ranges;
cooktops; dishwashers; clothes washers and dryers; microwave
ovens; room air conditioners; and residential water systems
primarily under the GE Monogram, GE Profile, GE, Hotpoint, and GE
Caf‚ brand names.  The company was founded in 1892 and is based in
Fairfield, Connecticut.


GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Land Swap
--------------------------------------------------------
Whitsunday Times reports that opposition to the Airlie main street
land swap is gathering momentum, with Save Our Foreshore (SOF) and
the Whitsunday Ratepayers Association (WRA) announcing they will
join forces in a "class action" to save the public's land.

WRA secretary Tony Moscato said everybody wanted an upgrade but a
land swap was wrong.

"Both organizations have a strong feeling that the members want to
stop this land swap.

We think that no-one is listening to the people so we are now
taking legal opinions and we will jointly be putting an injunction
on council," he said.

"We are going to pick a very high profile lawyer to take a class
action on behalf of at least 1,000 people."

SOF President Suzette Pelt confirmed this course of action.

"The same reasons that the Beattie government refused the previous
hotel proposal on this site apply today," she said.

People who marched seven years ago to save this site are just as
outraged today as they were then and are prepared to do it again,"
she said.

Mayor Mike Brunker said the consequences of legal action might
mean, "Airlie only gets half a main street".

"They've got the right to do that but it might hold up the
project," Cr Brunker said.

"The main reason for this is to provide Airlie with a better
economic future so if they're against this (the land swap) they're
against that," he said.

"Maybe they'd like to see Airlie a 'ghost town' (but) these are
the same people who complain that because people are leaving town
they have to pay more rates to provide the services.  You can't
win."

Whitsunday MP Jan Jarratt maintained that the "process that the
council and the minister have embarked upon is proceeding
according to the law."

"If Save Our Foreshore or the Whitsunday Ratepayers Association
want to spend other people's money fighting this in the courts,
then that is a matter for them," she said.


GPT GROUP: Slater & Gordon to Launch Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florence Chong, writing for The Australian, reports that law firm
Slater & Gordon confirmed on Nov. 16 that it will launch a class
action against GPT Group on behalf of shareholders.

GPT said mediation discussions entered into last year had failed
to resolve the matter.

The law firm represents a group of shareholders who bought GPT
securities from February 27, 2008 and held those securities on
July 7, 2008.

In April 2009, Slater & Gordon said it was preparing to seek
damages of at least $100 million from GPT on behalf of these
investors over misleading earnings guidance provided in 2008.


HANCOCK HOLDING: Whitney Defends Class Action Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Bank, a company acquired by Hancock Holding Company, is
defending itself against a class action lawsuit in Florida,
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 22, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, Angelique
LaCour, et al, v. Whitney Bank, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Whitney
Bank relating to the imposition of overdraft fees and non-
sufficient fund fees on demand deposit accounts. Plaintiff alleges
that Whitney's methodology for posting transactions to customer
accounts, which Plaintiff claims was designed to maximize the
generation of overdraft fees, is unfair and unconscionable.
Plaintiff further alleges that Whitney failed to provide its
customers with sufficient notice of those practices or an
opportunity to opt-out. Plaintiff's Complaint includes claims for
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation
E. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement, actual damages, injunctive
relief, punitive and exemplary damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. Currently, there is uncertainty with regard to
whether the putative class will ultimately be certified, the
dimensions of any such class, and the range of remedies that might
be sought on any certified claims.


HOLLYFRONTIER CORP: Jan. 6 Hearing Set for State Court Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing has been set for January 6, 2012, to consider a
settlement resolving a consolidated class action lawsuit against
HollyFrontier Corporation in Texas, the Company related 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 February 21, 2011, Holly Corporation entered into a merger
agreement with Frontier Oil Corporation.  On July 1, 2011, North
Acquisition, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Holly,
merged with and into Frontier, with Frontier surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Holly.  Concurrent with the merger,
Holly Corp. changed its name to HollyFrontier Corporation and
changed the trading symbol for its common stock traded on the New
York Stock Exchange to "HFC."  Subsequent to the merger and
following approval by the post-closing board of directors of
HollyFrontier, Frontier merged with and into HollyFrontier, with
HollyFrontier continuing as the surviving corporation.

Twelve substantially similar shareholder lawsuits styled as class
actions were filed by alleged Frontier shareholders challenging
the Company's proposed "merger of equals" with Frontier and naming
as defendants Frontier, its board of directors and, in certain
instances, Holly and its wholly owned subsidiary, North
Acquisition, Inc., as aiders and abettors.  To date, such
shareholder actions remain pending in Harris County, Texas, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  One case
filed in Laramie County, Wyoming, was dismissed without prejudice.

These lawsuits generally allege that (1) the consideration
received by Frontier's shareholders in the merger was inadequate,
(2) the Frontier directors breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, approving the merger at an inadequate price
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest, (3) the merger agreement includes preclusive deal
protection provisions, and (4) Frontier, and in some cases, the
Company and North Acquisition, Inc., aided and abetted Frontier's
board of directors in breaching its fiduciary duties to Frontier's
shareholders.  In the three federal court cases, the Company
and/or North Acquisition, Inc. were also alleged to have violated
Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 by
soliciting proxies based on an allegedly false and/or misleading
proxy statement concerning the merger.  The shareholder actions
seek various remedies, including enjoining the transaction from
being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms,
compensatory damages, and costs and disbursements relating to the
lawsuits.

The eight lawsuits filed in the District Courts of Harris County,
Texas (the "Texas State Court Lawsuits") are consolidated under
the caption: In re Frontier Oil Corporation, Cause No. 2011-11451
(first case filed February 22, 2011).  On September 12, 2011, the
lead plaintiff and the defendants in the Texas State Court
Lawsuits submitted a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to
the Court for preliminary approval.  Pursuant to that agreement,
the actions were stayed and certain additional disclosures were
made to Frontier's shareholders on June 20, 2011.  After a hearing
on October 7, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a final settlement hearing for January 6,
2012.  At that time, the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement which, if finally
approved by the court, will resolve on behalf of the class all of
the claims that were or could have been brought in the actions
being settled.  The Company cannot be certain that the court will
approve the settlement.  If it does not, the settlement may be
terminated.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas is entitled Angelo Chiarelli, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Holly Corporation, et
al. (filed on March 2, 2011).  On June 29, 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, and one month later, the parties filed
an agreed motion to stay the case so that the proposed settlement
in the Texas State Court Lawsuits could be considered and resolved
by the state court.  The motion to stay was granted.

The two remaining lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas are consolidated under the caption:
Tim Wilcox, Individually and Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (first case filed on
March 7, 2011).  The Company and its wholly owned subsidiary moved
to dismiss the amended complaint on April 21, 2011, and the other
defendants moved for dismissal in July after they were served.
These motions to dismiss remain pending.  On June 24, 2011, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction to enjoin the proposed merger and
prevent Frontier's shareholders from voting on it.  On August 9,
2011, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay the
consolidated case in light of the proposed settlement of the Texas
State Court Lawsuits.  The court has not yet ruled on that motion.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend these and any future
lawsuits, as they believe that they have valid defenses to all
claims and that the lawsuits are entirely without merit.

HollyFrontier Corporation -- http://hollyfrontier.com/-- is an
independent petroleum refiner in the United States with operations
throughout the mid-continent, southwestern and Rocky Mountain
regions.  The Company produces and markets gasoline, diesel, jet
fuel, asphalt, heavy products and specialty lubricant products.
The Company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas and operates five
complex refineries with 443,000 barrels per day of crude oil
processing capacity.


IDEARC INC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit shot down an
appeal by former shareholders of Idearc Inc. over an order of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granting separate motions to dismiss filed by Verizon
Communications, Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.  The
shareholders argue that the District Court improperly dismissed
their complaint and erroneously declined to consider the
shareholders' then-pending motion for summary judgment before
doing so.

The Appellants are former investors in Idearc, a corporation that
was formed as part of a 2006 spin-off transaction whereby Verizon
divested its domestic print and Internet "Yellow Pages" directory
publishing operation and formed Idearc for the purpose of
continuing that operation as a separate business.  In connection
with the spin-off, J.P. Morgan Ventures Corporation and Bear,
Stearns & Company agreed to exchange roughly $7 billion in Verizon
debt for an equal amount of Idearc debt.  JPMC served as an
administrative agent for the debt exchange.  In addition to that
$7 billion in debt, Idearc also incurred $2 billion in debt to
Verizon as partial consideration for the Yellow Pages business and
the right to be the exclusive and official publisher of Verizon
print directories.

Less than three years after its spin-off from Verizon, Idearc
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The shareholders actively
participated in the bankruptcy proceedings.  Among other things,
they sought to have Idearc's bankruptcy proceedings dismissed on
the ground that the Idearc bankruptcy was part of a scheme
orchestrated by Verizon for the purpose of reducing its
liabilities while leaving Idearc's shareholders with crushing
debt.

The Bankruptcy Court denied the Appellants' motion to dismiss and
ultimately confirmed Idearc's Chapter 11 reorganization plan, over
the shareholders' objections.  Under the Plan, Idearc cancelled
its existing common stock and issued new common stock to its
secured and unsecured creditors.  In addition, the Plan
established a litigation trust to investigate and pursue any
claims for the benefit of Idearc's bankruptcy estate and
creditors.  Following the Plan's confirmation, the shareholders
filed a notice of appeal and motions that, if granted by the
Bankruptcy Court, would have rescinded the confirmation order or
stayed the Plan's implementation.  Those motions were denied by
the Bankruptcy Court on March 5, 2010.

The shareholders filed the class action on March 25, 2010, and
subsequently amended their complaint twice, asserting claims for
securities fraud, insider trading, common law fraud, conversion, a
Bivens claim for violation of federal constitutional rights, and a
claim alleging violation of Sec. 206 of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 206.  Verizon and JPMC each filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint.

After the shareholders declined the District Court's invitation to
file a third amended complaint, the Court granted the Appellees'
motions and dismissed the second amended complaint in its
entirety.  The Court held that the securities fraud, insider
trading, and common law fraud claims did not satisfy the
applicable pleading standard; it rejected the shareholders'
conversion claim as a collateral attack on the Idearc bankruptcy;
and it concluded that there was no legal basis for a claim under
Bivens or the Communications Act.  Finding that a curative
amendment would be futile, inasmuch as the shareholders had
already filed two amended complaints and still failed to present a
cognizable claim for relief, the District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint with prejudice.  The Court denied the
shareholders' motion for summary judgment.

The case is TALBOT BARNARD; DONALD B. BIGGERSTAFF; SUSAN
BIGGERSTAFF; DAVID BOON; GREG BOSER; DEB BOSER; THOMAS BOVET,
COL.; MARK HENDRYCH; ZHENGXU HE FANG; YING FANG; BIN LEE; THOMAS
E. MARTIN; MIDDLEBAR MONASTERY, NON-PROFIT; JERSEY NIETUBYC;
KATHERINE PERINO; BRIAN D. SPENCER; STEPHEN S. SPENCER; CHARLES J.
TURK, KNOWN COLLECTIVELY AS "THE SPENCER COMMITTEE", Appellants,
v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT, No. 11-1318 (3rd Cir.).  A copy of the
Third Circuit's Nov. 14, 2011 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/dDHYEhfrom Leagle.com.

The appellate panel consists of Circuit Judges Anthony Joseph
Scirica, D. Brooks Smith, and Kent A. Jordan, who wrote the
opinion.

                        About Idearc Inc.

Headquartered in D/FW Airport, Texas, Idearc, Inc., now known as
SuperMedia Inc., is the second largest U.S. yellow pages
publisher.  Idearc was spun off from Verizon Communications, Inc.

Idearc and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection on March
31, 2009 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 09-31828).  The Debtors'
financial condition as of Dec. 31, 2008, showed total assets of
$1,815,000,000 and total debts of $9,515,000,000.  Toby L. Gerber,
Esq., at Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, represented the Debtors in
their restructuring efforts.  The Debtors tapped Moelis & Company
as their investment banker; Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC as
their claims agent.

William T. Neary, the United States Trustee for Region 6,
appointed six creditors to serve on the official committee of
unsecured creditors.  The Committee selected Mark Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley & McCloy LLP, as counsel, and Haynes and Boone, LLP, co-
counsel.

Idearc completed its debt restructuring and its plan of
reorganization became effective as of Dec. 31, 2009.  In
connection with its emergence from bankruptcy, Idearc changed its
name to SuperMedia Inc.  Under its reorganization, Idearc reduced
its total debt from more than $9 billion to $2.75 billion of
secured bank debt.

Less than two years since leaving bankruptcy protection,
SuperMedia remains in quandary.  Early in October 2011, Moody's
Investors Service slashed its corporate family rating for
SuperMedia to Caa1 from B3 prior.  The downgrade reflects Moody's
belief that revenues will continue to decline at a double digit
rate for the foreseeable future, leading to a steady decline in
free cash flow.  SuperMedia's sales were down 17% for the second
quarter of 2011 in a generally improving advertising sector.
Moody's ratings outlook for SuperMedia remains negative.

While SuperMedia is attempting to transition the business away
from its reliance on print advertising through development of
online and mobile directory service applications, Moody's is
increasingly concerned that the company will not be able to make
this change quickly enough to stabilize the revenue base over the
intermediate term.  Further, the high fixed cost nature of
SuperMedia's business could lead to steep margin compression,
notwithstanding continued aggressive cost management.


INSURE ON THE SPOT: Accused of Hiding Fee for Recovery Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shauna Connors, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Insure on the Spot Services, Inc., an Illinois
Corporation and Insure on the Spot Credit Service Corporation, an
Illinois Corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-39427 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., November 15, 2011) arises from the Defendants' failure to
disclose a fee charged to the Plaintiff for the purchase of road
side assistance services including, "twenty-four hour emergency
recovery service" from a company that did not exist.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' failure to disclose the
fee and the misrepresentation that the fee was optional and was
being retained by the Defendants and not a third party, give rise
to, among other things, breach of contract, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and fraudulent
concealment.

The Plaintiff was doing business with the Defendants in Cook
County, Illinois.  The Plaintiff procured automobile insurance
coverage and premium financing from the Defendants during the
period from November 1, 2007, through December 1, 2011.

Insure Services is an Illinois corporation, and procured vehicle
insurance coverage for the Plaintiff.  Insure Credit is an
Illinois corporation, and provided premium financing to the
Plaintiff for the vehicle insurance coverage procured by Insure
Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael B. Elman, Esq.
          MICHAEL B. ELMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1420
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 541-0903
          E-mail: melman@mbelmanlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal From RISPERDAL Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a consolidated class action
complaint related to the Johnson & Johnson's RISPERDAL(R) product
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 October 2, 2011.

Starting in July 2006, five lawsuits were filed in United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey by various employers
and employee benefit plans and funds seeking to recover amounts
they paid for RISPERDAL(R) for plan participants.  In general,
Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its
pharmaceutical subsidiaries engaged in off-label marketing of
RISPERDAL(R) in violation of the federal and New Jersey RICO
statutes.  In addition, Plaintiffs asserted various state law
claims.  All of the cases were consolidated into one case seeking
class action status, but shortly thereafter, one action was
voluntarily dismissed.  In December 2008, the Court dismissed the
actions of the four remaining plaintiffs.  In April 2010, those
plaintiffs filed a new consolidated class action against the
Company and Janssen, L.P. (now Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(JPI)); and in March 2011, that action was dismissed.  In April
2011, one of those plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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

Headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE: JNJ) is an American multinational pharmaceutical, medical
devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer founded in 1886.
The corporation includes some 250 subsidiary companies with
operations in over 57 countries and products sold in over 175
countries.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Continues in Class Suit vs. OCD Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery process in the consolidated class action lawsuit
against Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary, Ortho-Clinical
Diagnostics, Inc., continues.

In April 2009, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) received a
grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, requesting documents and information for the
period beginning September 1, 2000 through the present, pertaining
to an investigation of alleged violations of the antitrust laws in
the blood reagents industry. OCD complied with the subpoena.  In
February 2011, OCD received a letter from the Antitrust Division
indicating that it had closed its investigation in November 2010.
In June 2009, following the public announcement that OCD had
received a grand jury subpoena, multiple class action complaints
seeking damages for alleged price fixing were filed against OCD.
The various cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Discovery is ongoing.

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 October 2, 2011.

Headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE: JNJ) is an American multinational pharmaceutical, medical
devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer founded in 1886.
The corporation includes some 250 subsidiary companies with
operations in over 57 countries and products sold in over 175
countries.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Junk 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a second amended class action complaint related to product
recalls of its McNeil Consumer Healthcare division, the Company
disclosed in its November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October
2, 2011.

During the fiscal third quarter of 2011, the Company acquired full
ownership of the Johnson & Johnson Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals
Co. joint venture in the United States.  The joint venture has
been renamed McNeil Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co. and continues to
market products under the PEPCID(R), MYLANTA(R), and MYLICON(R)
brands.  In addition, the Company acquired from Merck Canada Inc.
its partnership interest in the Canadian joint venture.  The
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. will
continue to market and sell PEPCID(R), 222(R) and FLEET ENEMA(R)
in Canada.

Starting in May 2010, multiple complaints seeking class action
certification related to the McNeil recalls have been filed
against McNeil Consumer Healthcare and certain affiliates,
including the Company, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Central District of California, the Southern
District of Ohio and the Eastern District of Missouri.  These
consumer complaints allege generally that purchasers of various
McNeil medicines are owed monetary damages and penalties because
they paid premium prices for defective medications rather than
less expensive alternative medications.  All but one complaint
seeks certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of these
medicines, whereas one complaint, the Harvey case, seeks
certification of a class of Motrin(R) IB purchasers in Missouri.
In October 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) consolidated all of the consumer complaints, except for the
Harvey case, which was consolidated in March 2011, for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. In January 2011, the plaintiffs in all
of the cases except the Harvey case filed a "Consolidated Amended
Civil Consumer Class Action Complaint" (CAC) naming additional
parties and claims.  In July 2011, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the CAC without prejudice, but permitted the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the
dismissal order.  In August 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Civil Consumer Class Action Complaint (SAC).  The Company
moved to dismiss the SAC in September 2011. This second motion to
dismiss is pending.

Headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE: JNJ) is an American multinational pharmaceutical, medical
devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer founded in 1886.
The corporation includes some 250 subsidiary companies with
operations in over 57 countries and products sold in over 175
countries.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plea to Dismiss "Monk" Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to await a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a securities lawsuit filed by Ronald Monk, the
Company disclosed in its November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that the Company and
certain individuals, including executive officers and employees of
the Company, failed to disclose that a number of manufacturing
facilities were failing to maintain current good manufacturing
practices, and that as a result, the price of the Company's stock
has declined significantly.  Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his alleged
economic losses.  In May 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss, which is pending before the Court.

Headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE: JNJ) is an American multinational pharmaceutical, medical
devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer founded in 1886.
The corporation includes some 250 subsidiary companies with
operations in over 57 countries and products sold in over 175
countries.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces McNeil-Related Consumer Suit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is defending itself against a consumer class
action lawsuit in Canada relating to products of its McNeil
Consumer Healthcare division, the Company disclosed in its
November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2011.

In September 2011, the Company, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil
Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. received a
Notice of Civil Claim filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, Canada (the Canadian Civil Claim).  The Canadian Civil
Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of persons who
reside in British Columbia and who purchased various McNeil
children's over-the-counter medicines during the period between
September 20, 2001 and the present.  The Canadian Civil Claim
alleges that the defendants violated the Canadian Business
Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes
and common laws, by selling medicines that did not comply with
Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices.

Headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE: JNJ) is an American multinational pharmaceutical, medical
devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer founded in 1886.
The corporation includes some 250 subsidiary companies with
operations in over 57 countries and products sold in over 175
countries.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: OmniCare-Related Class Suit Dismissed in Aug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court dismissed a class suit against Johnson &
Johnson over rebate agreements with OmniCare, Inc., in August
2011, the Company disclosed in its November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 2, 2011.

In April 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by representatives of nursing home residents or their
estates against the Company, Omnicare, Inc., and other
unidentified companies or individuals.  In February 2011,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting that certain
rebate agreements between the Company and Omnicare increased the
amount of money spent on pharmaceuticals by the nursing home
residents and violated the Sherman Act and the California Business
& Professions Code.  The second amended complaint also asserts a
claim of unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek multiple forms of
monetary and injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint in March 2011.  The Court granted the
motion in its entirety in August 2011, dismissing all claims
asserted by Plaintiffs.

Headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE: JNJ) is an American multinational pharmaceutical, medical
devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer founded in 1886.
The corporation includes some 250 subsidiary companies with
operations in over 57 countries and products sold in over 175
countries.


KKR & CO: Settlement Hearing in Del Monte Suit Set for Dec. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider a settlement in the consolidated class
action lawsuit relating to Del Monte Foods Company currently
pending in Delaware is scheduled for December 1, 2011, according
to KKR & CO. L.P.'s November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

KKR, along with two other private equity firms (collectively the
"Sponsors"), was named as a defendant in purported shareholder
class actions filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware arising out of the acquisition of Del Monte Foods Company
("Del Monte") by Blue Acquisition Group, Inc. and Blue Merger Sub
Inc., entities controlled by private equity funds affiliated with
the Sponsors (the "Acquisition Entities").  This transaction was
announced on November 25, 2010, and was completed on March 8, 2011
(the "Del Monte Transaction").  All of the shareholder actions
that were filed in the Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Del Monte Transaction were consolidated on
December 31, 2010 (the "Delaware Del Monte Action").  In a
consolidated complaint filed on January 10, 2011, the plaintiff in
the Delaware Del Monte Action alleged, among other things, that
the Del Monte board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Del Monte at an unfair price and through an
unfair process and by filing a materially misleading and
incomplete proxy statement and that the Sponsors and the
Acquisition Entities aided and abetted these fiduciary breaches.

On February 14, 2011, the Court of Chancery issued a ruling which,
among other things, found on the preliminary record before the
court that the plaintiff had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
of success on the merits of its aiding and abetting claim against
the Sponsors, including KKR.  The ruling enjoined Del Monte from
proceeding with its stockholder vote, previously scheduled for
February 15, 2011, for twenty days and preliminarily enjoined
certain deal protection provisions of the merger agreement pending
the stockholder vote.  On February 18, 2011, an amended
consolidated complaint was filed in the Delaware Del Monte Action
asserting claims for: (i) breach of fiduciary duty against the Del
Monte directors, (ii) aiding and abetting the directors' breaches
of fiduciary duty against the Sponsors, the Acquisition Entities,
and Barclays Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"), which served as a
financial advisor to Del Monte in connection with the Del Monte
Transaction, (iii) breach of contract against the Sponsors arising
from confidentiality agreements between the Sponsors and Del
Monte, and (iv) tortious interference with contract against
Barclays arising from the aforementioned confidentiality
agreements between the Sponsors and Del Monte.  The amended
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief, rescission of the merger agreement, damages and attorneys'
fees.  On March 29, 2011, all of the defendants in the Delaware
Del Monte Action, including KKR, answered the amended consolidated
complaint.

On July 27, 2011, Del Monte Corporation, as successor-in-interest
to Del Monte, was joined as a party and defendant in the Delaware
Del Monte Action.  On October 6, 2011, the parties filed a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement in the
Delaware Del Monte Action.  If the proposed settlement is approved
by the court, the Delaware Del Monte Action will be dismissed and
all shareholder claims that were asserted or could have been
asserted (including claims asserted in the California federal and
state court actions and the action commenced by Pipe Fitters)
against KKR and the other defendants will be released in exchange
for, among other things, a payment by Del Monte and Barclays but
not by KKR.  The settlement hearing is scheduled for December 1,
2011, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Similar shareholder actions were filed against Del Monte, the Del
Monte directors, the Sponsors and/or the Acquisition Entities in
California Superior Court and the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  The federal cases pending in
the Northern District of California were consolidated and
subsequently voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
in all but one of the California state court actions have moved
for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.  The remaining
California state court action has been stayed pursuant to court
order.  On March 7, 2011, a purported antitrust class action
captioned Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 120 Pension Fund v.
Barclays Capital Inc. et al. (Case No. 3:10-cv-01064-EDL) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "Pipe Fitters Action").  On May 4,
2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which named as
defendants the Sponsors, Barclays, a managing director at
Barclays, and Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (which provided a portion
of the financing in connection with the Del Monte Transaction) and
alleged that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws by,
among other things, allegedly conspiring to suppress the
transaction price.  The amended complaint in Pipe Fitters Action
sought, among other things, injunctive relief, damages and
attorneys' fees.  On June 10, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss
the amended complaint.  On August 30, 2011, following briefing and
argument on defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
the Pipe Fitters Action, the court dismissed the amended complaint
without prejudice and with leave to file another amended
complaint.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $61.9 billion in
AUM as of June 30, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


KKR & CO: Third Phase of Discovery in Mass. Suit to End in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
The third phase of discovery in a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in Massachusetts is ongoing and currently
scheduled to conclude on April 17, 2012, KKR & CO. L.P. 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 December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003.  In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The lawsuit alleges
that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  The amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions.  The
first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.  On
August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed
to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to
eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions.  On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual
allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the
original nine transactions.  The fourth amended complaint also
includes eight purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to
eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new
separate claims against two of the original nine challenged
transactions.

On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and
certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a
putative damages sub-class in connection with the acquisition of
PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the
PanAmSat transaction.  The second phase of discovery permitted by
the court is completed.  On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint
that seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to
the transactions identified in the previous complaints.
Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion.  On September 7, 2011, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a third stage of limited discovery
as to the ten additional transactions identified in plaintiffs'
proposed fifth amended complaint but denied plaintiffs' motion
seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint.  The
court stated that it will entertain a renewed motion by plaintiffs
to file a proposed fifth amended complaint at the close of the
third phase of discovery.  The third phase of discovery permitted
by the court is ongoing and currently scheduled to conclude on
April 17, 2012.  The Court further ordered that there will be no
further discovery after April 17, 2012.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $61.9 billion in
AUM as of June 30, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


KKR & CO: Two PRIMEDIA Merger-Related Suits in Georgia Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholder class action lawsuits in Georgia challenging the
merger of a KKR & CO. L.P. unit were stayed in favor of a similar
case pending in Delaware, 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 May 23, 2011, KKR and certain of its personnel were named as
defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the acquisition of PRIMEDIA Inc., one of KKR's
portfolio companies, by a third party pursuant to a merger
transaction, which was completed on July 13, 2011.  These actions
allege, among other things, that PRIMEDIA board members, KKR, and
certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by
entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price and failing
to disclose all material information about the merger.  Plaintiffs
also allege that the merger price is unfair in light of the value
of certain shareholder derivative claims that now have been
dismissed.  On June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied a motion
to preliminarily enjoin the merger.  On July 18, 2011, the Court
of Chancery consolidated the two actions and appointed lead
counsel for plaintiffs.  On October 7, 2011, defendants moved to
dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated action.  The
operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary
damages and rescission of the merger.  Briefing on the motion to
dismiss is ongoing.

Additionally, on May 20, 2011, and May 24, 2011, two shareholder
class actions challenging the PRIMEDIA merger were filed in
Georgia state courts, in Fulton County and Gwinnett County,
respectively.  Both actions assert similar allegations and seek
similar relief as the Delaware shareholder class actions.  On June
2, 2011, plaintiff in the Fulton County action moved for leave to
file an amended complaint, which further names KKR and others, as
defendants.  The Fulton County action was stayed in favor of the
Delaware action by an order dated July 11, 2011.  On June 1, 2011,
plaintiff in the Gwinnett County action filed a motion for
expedited proceedings and, on June 3, 2011, moved to enjoin the
merger.  The Gwinnett County action was stayed in favor of the
Delaware action by an order dated August 29, 2011.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $61.9 billion in
AUM as of June 30, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Still Preparing Settlement Documents in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., continues to prepare settlement
documents for presentation in a consolidated class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, 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 March 2009, late April 2009 and early May 2009, Level 3
Communications, Inc., the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k) Plan
Committee and certain current and former officers and directors of
Level 3 Communications, Inc. were named as defendants in purported
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.  These cases have been consolidated as
Walter v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., (Civil Case No.
09cv00658).  The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary and other
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")
with respect to investments in the Company's common stock held in
individual participant accounts in the Level 3 Communications,
Inc. 401(k) Plan.  The complaint claims that those investments
were imprudent for reasons that are similar to those alleged in
certain securities and derivative actions against the Company.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle and are
preparing settlement documents for presentation to the court for
approval.  Additionally, management believes that any resulting
liabilities for these actions, beyond amounts reserved, will not
materially affect the Company's financial condition or future
results of operations, but could affect future cash flows.

It remains too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these ERISA actions.  However, management
believes that the Company has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in all of these actions (and any similar claims which may
be named in the future) and intends to defend these actions
vigorously if the settlement is not approved.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Continues to Seek Settlement of Right-of-Way Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries (the
"Companies") are parties to a number of purported class action
lawsuits involving the Companies' right to install fiber optic
cable network in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs'
land.  The only lawsuit in which a class has been certified
against the Companies occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3
Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho.  In November 2005, the court granted class certification
only for the state of Idaho.  The Companies have defeated motions
for class certification in a number of these actions but expect
that plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to seek
certification of statewide or multi-state classes.  In general,
the Companies obtained the rights to construct their networks from
railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed their
networks along the rights-of-way so granted.  Plaintiffs in the
purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands
over which the Companies' fiber optic cable networks pass, and
that the railroads, utilities, and others who granted the
Companies the right to construct and maintain their networks did
not have the legal authority to do so.  The complaints seek
damages on theories of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of
title and property, as well as punitive damages.  The Companies
have also received, and may in the future receive, claims and
demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the issues in
these cases that may be based on similar or different legal
theories.

The Companies negotiated a series of class settlements affecting
all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights
of way in which the Companies have installed their fiber optic
cable network.  The United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P.
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however,
on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final
approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Companies negotiated revised settlement
terms for a series of state class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which the Companies have installed their fiber optic cable
network.  The Companies are currently negotiating certain
procedural issues with legal counsel representing the interests of
the current and former landowners with respect to presentment of
the settlement in applicable jurisdictions.  The settlement
affecting current and former landowners in the state of Idaho was
presented to the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho and final approval of the settlement was granted on
June 23, 2011.  The settlement has been presented to federal
courts in several additional states for approval.

It is still too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these actions.  However, management
believes that the Companies have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in all of these actions (and any similar claims
which may be named in the future), and intends to defend them
vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved
for all affected landowners.  Additionally, management believes
that any resulting liabilities for these actions, beyond amounts
reserved, will not materially affect the Company's financial
condition or future results of operations, but could affect future
cash flows, 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.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against Level 3 Communications, Inc., 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.

In February 2009, Level 3 Communications, Inc., certain of its
current officers and a former officer were named as defendants in
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, which have been
consolidated as In re Level 3 Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Civil Case No. 09-cv-00200-PAB-CBS).  The plaintiffs
in each complaint allege, in general, that throughout the
purported class period specified in the complaint that the
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's integration activities, business and operations.  The
complaints seek damages based on purported violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On May 4, 2009, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the case, and on September 29,
2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Complaint").  A motion to dismiss the Complaint
was filed by the Company and the other named defendants.  While
the motion to dismiss the Complaint was pending, the court granted
the lead plaintiff's motion to further amend the Complaint (the
"Amended Compliant").  Thereafter, the Company and the other
defendants named in the Amended Complaint filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice.  The court granted
this motion to dismiss with prejudice, and the plaintiff has
appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It remains too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these actions.  However, management
believes that the Company has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in all of these actions (and any similar claims which may
be named in the future) and intends to defend these actions
vigorously.


LIEBHERR-CANADA: Recalls 8,000 Refrigerators Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Liebherr-Canada Ltd of Ontario, of Canada, and
manufacturer, Liebherr-Hausgeraete Lienz GmbH, of Austria,
announced a voluntary recall of about 8,000 units of Liebherr
Freestanding 30-inch wide, bottom freezer refrigerators.  About
5,700 built-in 30-inch wide, bottom freezer refrigerators were
recalled in March 2011.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The refrigerator's door can detach, posing an injury hazard to
consumers.

Liebherr has received 16 additional reports of doors detaching on
the freestanding refrigerators, including two reports of injuries
involving bruising and strains.

This recall involves Liebherr freestanding 30-inch wide, bottom
freezer refrigerators with model and index numbers listed.  The
refrigerators were sold individually or as side-by-side companion
units.  The refrigerators come in a stainless steel finish.
"Liebherr" is on the upper center of the refrigerator door and the
top interior control panel.  The model number can be found on a
label located behind the bottom drawer on the left interior side
of the single door refrigerator.

         Model Number        Index Number
         ------------        ------------
         CS 1601               10  / 237
                               10A / 237
                               10B / 237
                               10C / 237
                               10D / 237
                               10E / 237
                               10I / 237
                               10J / 237

         CS 1640                10 / 137
                               10A / 137
                               10E / 137
                               10F / 137

         CS 1650                10 / 137
                               10A / 137
                               10B / 137
                               10C / 137
                               10D / 137
                               10E / 137
                               10F / 137
                               10G / 137
                               10K / 137
                               10L / 137

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12043.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Austria and sold at
appliance and specialty retailers nationwide from February 2004
through July 2009 for between $3,500 and $3,800.

Consumers with recalled refrigerators should contact Liebherr
immediately to schedule a free in-home repair.  Consumers should
check their refrigerator immediately to see whether the door hinge
pin has become loose as indicated by a popped up hinge pin at the
top.  If the hinge has not become loose and the door is
functioning properly, consumers may continue to use the
refrigerator until it is repaired.  For additional information,
contact Liebherr toll-free at (877) 337-2653 Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time or visit Liebherr's Web site
at http://www.liebherr.us/


LINKEDIN: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Li, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that concerns
over personal information that tech firms and social media
companies share with advertisers and others may be spurring
creeping industry reforms, but the class action plaintiffs bar
hasn't fared all that well in litigation over the alleged privacy
violations.  Since May, federal judges in California have gutted
or dismissed class action suits against Facebook, Google, and
Apple on the grounds that the named plaintiffs hadn't shown that
they were injured when the defendants shared their personal
information.  Meanwhile, plaintiffs lawyers that managed to reach
settlements requiring Facebook and Google to pour millions into
privacy foundations are still struggling to fend off objections
that the deals don't offer clear benefits to class members.

Now another social networking has beat back privacy claims, at
least for the time being.  On Nov. 11, San Jose, Calif., federal
district court judge Lucy Koh granted a motion by LinkedIn and its
lawyers at Covington & Burling to dismiss a putative class action
alleging that the company violated its privacy agreements with its
users by transmitting personal information to third-party data
aggregators without the users' consent.

"The Plaintiff has failed to put forth a coherent theory of how
his personal information was disclosed or transferred to third
parties, and how it has harmed him," Judge Koh concluded in her
decision, though she gave plaintiffs lawyers at Milberg and Reese
Richman leave to file an amended complaint.

Milberg's Scott Dumain and Michael Reese of Reese Richman filed
the complaint in March, alleging breach of contract, breach of
privacy, unjust enrichment, and various California business code
violations.  They claimed that by collecting, tracking, and
selling personal information such as users' browsing history to
data aggregators, LinkedIn caused the named plaintiff both
emotional and economic harm.  The named plaintiff's personal
browsing history had independent economic value and was his
personal property, they claimed.

"Consumers use the Internet, often from the sanctity of their own
homes, to seek advice on personal and sensitive matters such as
abortion, hemorrhoids, sexually transmitted disease, drug
rehabilitation, or care for the elderly, to search for jobs, seek
out new romantic partners, engage in political activity; in fact,
to do more or less anything," the plaintiffs lawyers asserted in
their opposition to LinkedIn's motion to dismiss.  "Consumers do
not expect this information to be broadcast to complete
strangers."

In LinkedIn's motion to dismiss, Covington's Simon Frankel argued
that the complaint alleged only that the company transmitted
unique user ID numbers and failed to show how third parties could
link the numbers to users' identities.  The plaintiff's claims of
injury were too vague and hypothetical to support standing,
LinkedIn asserted.

Judge Koh agreed.  The plaintiff, she found, hadn't been harmed
economically since he didn't pay for LinkedIn's service and the
company didn't share sensitive personal information such as his
social security number, credit card number, or address.  "[E]ven
at the oral argument Plaintiff was unable to articulate a theory
of what information had actually been transmitted to third
parties, how it had been transferred to third parties, and how
LinkedIn had actually caused him harm," she wrote.

Neither Milberg's Dumain nor Reese of Reese Richman responded to
requests for comment.  Frankel of Covington & Burling referred us
to LinkedIn, which gave us this statement: "We are pleased with
the Court's decision to dismiss this complaint.  LinkedIn takes
the privacy of our members seriously and does not sell, rent, or
otherwise provide personally identifiable information to third
parties."


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Seeks U.S. Supreme Ct. Review of Counsel Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lufkin Industries, Inc., is seeking judicial review from the
United States Supreme Court of approved attorneys' fees in an
employee discrimination lawsuit in Texas, 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 March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against
Lufkin Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of
Lufkin who alleged race discrimination in employment.
Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998.  In April 1999,
the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for
this case, which included all black employees employed by Lufkin
from March 6, 1994, to the present.  The case was administratively
closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully
attempted mediation.  Trial for this case began in December 2003,
and after the close of plaintiff's evidence, the court adjourned
and did not complete the trial until October 2004.  Although
plaintiff's class certification encompassed a wide variety of
employment practices, plaintiffs presented only disparate impact
claims relating to discrimination in initial assignments and
promotions at trial.

On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that Lufkin discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions.  The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that Lufkin
pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together
with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%.  On August 29,
2005, the District Court determined that the back pay award for
the class of affected employees was $3.4 million (including
interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for attorney
fees that Lufkin estimates will result in a total not to exceed
$2.5 million.  In addition to back pay with interest, the District
Court (i) enjoined and ordered Lufkin to cease and desist all
racially biased assignment and promotion practices and (ii)
ordered Lufkin to pay court costs and expenses.

Lufkin reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on
September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  On April 3, 2007, Lufkin appeared
before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral argument in
this case.  The appellate court subsequently issued a decision on
February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim
regarding the initial assignment of black employees into the
Foundry Division.  The court also denied plaintiff's appeal for
class certification of a class disparate treatment claim.
Plaintiff's claim on the issue of Lufkin's promotional practices
was affirmed but the back pay award was vacated and remanded for
re-computation in accordance with the opinion.  The District
Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with instructions to
enter appropriate and specific injunctive relief.  Finally, the
issue of plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the District
Court for further consideration in accordance with prevailing
authority.

On December 5, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a
hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit class action decision and
informed the parties that he intended to implement the decision in
order to conclude this litigation.  At the conclusion of the
hearing, Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions
regarding the issues of attorney fees, a damage award and
injunctive relief.  Subsequently, Lufkin reviewed the plaintiffs'
submissions which described the formula and underlying assumptions
that supported their positions on attorney fees and damages.
After careful review of the plaintiff's submission to the District
Court Lufkin continued to have significant differences regarding
legal issues that materially impacted the plaintiffs' requests.
As a result of these different results, the court requested
further evidence from the parties regarding their positions in
order to render a final decision.  The judge reviewed both parties
arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an
interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs original
request.  Lufkin and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority of the
differences and the damage calculations, which also lowered the
originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters.
Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on damages
during the first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding the
plaintiffs an interim award of attorney fees and cost totaling
$5.8 million, Lufkin recorded an additional provision of $5.0
million in the first half of 2009 above the $6.0 million recorded
in the fourth quarter of 2008.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal of
the District Court's interim award of attorney fees with the Fifth
Circuit. The Fifth Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on
August 28, 2009 on the basis that an appealable final judgment in
this case had not been issued.  The court commented that this
issue can be reviewed with an appeal of final judgment.

On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas notified Lufkin that it had entered a final
judgment related to Lufkin's ongoing class action lawsuit.  On
January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Circuit of the District Court's final judgment.  On January
21, 2010, Lufkin filed a notice of cross-appeal with the same
court.

On January 15, 2010, in its final judgment, the Court ordered
Lufkin to pay the plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million
in pre-judgment interest, and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment
interest.  Lufkin had previously estimated the total liability for
damages and interest to be approximately $5.2 million.  The Court
also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and
expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date of the final
judgment.  The plaintiffs were required to submit this request
within 14 days of the final judgment. On January 21, 2010, Lufkin
filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of
damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending
the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties'
appeals.  The District Court granted this motion to stay.

On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a
supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney fees, costs and
expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2010, as
allowed in the final judgment.  In the fourth quarter of 2009,
Lufkin recorded a provision of $1.0 million for these legal
expenses and accrual adjustments for the final judgment award of
damages.  On September 28, 2010, the District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for supplemental attorney fees, costs and
expenses in the amount of $0.7 million for the period of
January 1, 2009 through January 15, 2010.  In order to cover these
costs, Lufkin recorded an additional provision of $1.0 million in
September 2010 for anticipated costs through the end of 2010.

On February 2, 2011 the Fifth Circuit accepted the oral arguments
from the plaintiffs and Lufkin on their respective appeals to the
Court.

On July 7, 2011, in light of the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Lufkin moved to file
supplemental briefs in the pending Fifth Circuit appeal to address
two legal principles essential to plaintiff's theory of liability,
which Lufkin believes are now foreclosed by the Supreme Court's
Wal-Mart decision.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion.
On July 14, 2011, the Fifth Circuit denied Lufkin's motion.

On August 8, 2011, the Fifth Circuit issued a final opinion on all
appeals before the Court.  Lufkin filed a petition for certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court on September 16, 2011.  The
provision recorded as of September 30, 2011 represents the
Company's best estimate, and the ultimate outcome of this matter
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position.

Lufkin Industries, Inc. -- http://www.lufkin.com/-- manufactures
and supplies oil field and power transmission products.  The
company operates in the United States, Europe, Canada, Latin
America, the Middle East, and North Africa.  Lufkin Industries,
Inc. was founded in 1902 and is based in Lufkin, Texas.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself in several remaining
class action lawsuits relating to the purchase or use of Vioxx,
according to the November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

Individual and putative class actions have been filed against Old
Merck in state and federal courts alleging personal injury and/or
economic loss with respect to the purchase or use of Vioxx.  Most
of the cases that remain are coordinated in a multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before District Judge Eldon E. Fallon.

Of the plaintiff groups in the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits,
the vast majority were dismissed as a result of the Vioxx
Settlement Program.  As of September 30, 2011, approximately 25
plaintiff groups who were otherwise eligible for the Settlement
Program did not participate and their claims remain pending
against Old Merck.  In addition, the claims of approximately 75
plaintiff groups who were not eligible for the Settlement Program
remain pending against Old Merck.

There are no U.S. Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits currently
scheduled for trial in 2011.  Old Merck has previously disclosed
the outcomes of several Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits that were
tried prior to 2010.  Of the cases that went to trial, there is
only one unresolved post-trial appeal: Ernst v. Merck.  Merck has
previously disclosed the details associated with the Ernst case
and the grounds for Merck's appeal.  On August 26, 2011, the Texas
Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in
Garza, and rendered judgment for Merck.

Moreover, there are still pending in various U.S. courts putative
class actions purportedly brought on behalf of individual
purchasers or users of Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged
economic loss.  In the Vioxx MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such
class actions remain.  In June 2010, Old Merck moved to strike the
class claims or for judgment on the pleadings regarding the master
complaint and briefing on that motion was completed in September
2010.  The Vioxx MDL court heard oral argument on Old Merck's
motion in October 2010 and took it under advisement.

In June 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of Missouri
plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating
to Vioxx.  Trial is scheduled to begin on May 21, 2012. In
addition, in Indiana, plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a
class of Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the
Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana.  In April 2010, a
Kentucky state court denied Old Merck's motion for summary
judgment and certified a class of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking
reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. The
Kentucky Court of Appeals denied Old Merck's petition for a writ
of mandamus, and the Kentucky Supreme Court has affirmed that
ruling.  The trial court entered an amended class certification
order on January 27, 2011, and Merck has appealed that ruling to
the Kentucky Court of Appeals.  Oral argument on the appeal is
currently scheduled for November 14, 2011, although plaintiff has
requested a continuance.

Old Merck has also been named as a defendant in several lawsuits
brought by, or on behalf of, government entities.  Twelve of these
suits are being brought by state Attorneys General and one has
been brought on behalf of a county.  All of these actions, except
for a suit brought by the Attorney General of Michigan, are in the
Vioxx MDL proceeding.  The Michigan Attorney General case was
remanded to state court.  The trial court denied Old Merck's
motion to dismiss, but the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling
on March 17, 2011, ordering the trial court to dismiss the case.
The Michigan Attorney General sought review before the Michigan
Supreme Court, but its petition was denied on September 30, 2011.
These actions allege that Old Merck misrepresented the safety of
Vioxx.  All but one of these suits seek recovery for expenditures
on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs such as
Medicaid, along with other relief such as penalties and attorneys'
fees.  An action brought by the Attorney General of Kentucky seeks
only penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations.  The
Attorney General of Kentucky has moved to remand that case to
state court, and the MDL court heard oral argument on the motion
on August 31, 2011.  The lawsuit brought by the county is a class
action filed by Santa Clara County, California, on behalf of all
similarly situated California counties.  Old Merck moved to
dismiss the case brought by the Attorney General of Oklahoma in
December 2010 and for judgment on the pleadings in the case
brought by Santa Clara County in September 2011.

In March 2010, Judge Fallon partially granted and partially denied
Old Merck's motion for summary judgment in the Louisiana Attorney
General case.  A trial on the remaining claims before Judge Fallon
was completed in April 2010 and Judge Fallon found in favor of Old
Merck in June 2010 dismissing the Louisiana Attorney General's
remaining claims with prejudice.  The Louisiana Attorney General
filed a notice of appeal, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
appeal without prejudice pursuant to its scheduling rules on
October 21, 2011 after the Louisiana Attorney General requested a
stay of the appeal.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Still Defends Consolidated Vioxx Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. continues to defend itself against, and has filed an
answer in, a fifth amended consolidated securities class action
complaint in New Jersey, 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.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under
federal and state securities laws have been filed against Old
Merck and various current and former officers and directors,
referred to as the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits."  The Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler
for inclusion in a nationwide MDL (the "Shareholder MDL"), and
have been consolidated for all purposes.  In June 2010, i Merck
moved to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated securities action.  Oral argument on the motion to
dismiss was held on July 12, 2011.  On August 8, 2011, Judge
Chesler granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
Among other things, the claims based on statements made on or
after the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004 have
been dismissed.  On October 7, 2011, defendants answered the Fifth
Amended Class Action Complaint.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits.  By stipulation, defendants were not required
to respond to these complaints until the resolution of any motions
to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action.  On
October 7, 2011, the court entered as an order a stipulation
previously submitted by the parties requiring plaintiffs to file
amended complaints in each of the individual securities lawsuits
by October 21, 2011.  Under the order, defendants have until
January 20, 2012 to file motions to dismiss in one of the
individual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit").  The time to move or
otherwise respond to the complaints in the remaining individual
securities lawsuits is stayed until 45 days after the resolution
of any motions to dismiss in the ABP Lawsuit.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Hearing on Vioxx ERISA Suit Deal Set for Nov. 29
------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing has been scheduled for November 29, 2011, to
consider a $49.7 million settlement resolving Vioxx-related ERISA
class action complaints against Merck & Co., 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.

Various putative class actions have been filed in federal court
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Old
Merck and certain current and former officers and directors,
referred to as the "Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits."  Those cases were
consolidated in the Shareholder Multidistrict Litigation before
Judge Stanley Chesler.  Fact discovery in the Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits
closed in September 2010 and expert discovery closed in May 2011.
In June 2011, Old Merck filed a motion for summary judgment, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment.  In
February 2009, the court denied the motion for class certification
as to one count, and granted the motion as to the remaining counts
in Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits.  On
August 16, 2011, while motions for renewed class certifications
and summary judgment were pending but not yet decided, the parties
reached an agreement in principle in which Merck would pay $49.5
million to settle the Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits.  On August 17, 2011,
Merck requested a stay of all proceedings to allow the parties to
document and seek approval of the proposed settlement.  On August
19, 2011, the court granted the parties' request for a stay, and
on August 25, 2011, in light of the proposed settlement, the court
dismissed without prejudice all pending motions.  On September 20,
2011, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement and approval of notice plan.  On
October 6, 2011, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement.  The court has scheduled a
final approval hearing on the settlement for November 29, 2011.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Fosamax-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit
asserting liability of the product Fosamax, 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.

Fosamax is used in the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis.

Old Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the
United States involving Fosamax.  As of September 30, 2011,
approximately 2,000 cases, which include approximately 2,420
plaintiff groups, had been filed and were pending against Old
Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which
seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or
medical monitoring.  In approximately 1,160 of these actions,
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered
osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally subsequent to invasive dental
procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or
delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax.  In
addition, plaintiffs in approximately 840 of these actions
generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other
bone injuries in association with the use of Fosamax.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities
class action complaint relating to the product Vytorin, a drug
used to treat high cholesterol.

In April 2008, an Old Merck shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging that Old Merck violated the federal
securities laws.  This suit has since been withdrawn and re-filed
in the District of New Jersey and has been consolidated with
another federal securities lawsuit under the caption In re Merck &
Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities Litigation.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed in October 2008, and names as defendants Old
Merck; Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Old Merck delayed
releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinical trial
regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Old Merck made false
and misleading statements about expected earnings, knowing that
once the results of the Vytorin study were released, sales of
Vytorin would decline and Old Merck's earnings would suffer. In
December 2008, Old Merck and the other defendants moved to dismiss
this lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim for which relief can be granted.  In September 2009, the
court issued an opinion and order denying the defendants' motion
to dismiss this lawsuit and, in October 2009, Old Merck and the
other defendants filed an answer to the amended consolidated
complaint.  There is a similar consolidated, putative class action
securities lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by
a Schering-Plough shareholder against Schering-Plough and its
former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fred
Hassan, under the caption In re Schering-Plough
Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation.  The amended
consolidated complaint was filed in September 2008 and names as
defendants Schering-Plough; Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals,
LLC; certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors; and underwriters who participated in an August 2007
public offering of Schering-Plough's common and preferred stock.
In December 2008, Schering-Plough and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss this lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.  In
September 2009, the court issued an opinion and order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss this lawsuit.  The defendants filed
an answer to the consolidated amended complaint in November 2009.

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.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin ERISA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself against an ERISA
class action complaint relating to the product Vytorin, a drug
used to treat high cholesterol.

In April 2008, a member of an Old Merck ERISA plan filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Old Merck and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors alleging they
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA.  Since that time,
there have been other similar ERISA lawsuits filed against Old
Merck in the District of New Jersey, and all of those lawsuits
have been consolidated under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc.
Vytorin ERISA Litigation.  A consolidated amended complaint was
filed in February 2009, and names as defendants Old Merck and
various current and former members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The plaintiffs allege that the ERISA plans' investment
in Old Merck stock was imprudent because Old Merck's earnings are
dependent on the commercial success of its cholesterol drug
Vytorin and that defendants knew or should have known that the
results of a scientific study would cause the medical community to
turn to less expensive drugs for cholesterol management.  In April
2009, Old Merck and the other defendants moved to dismiss this
lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
for which relief can be granted.  In September 2009, the court
issued an opinion and order denying the defendants' motion to
dismiss this lawsuit.  In November 2009, the plaintiffs moved to
strike certain of the defendants' affirmative defenses.  That
motion was denied in part and granted in part in June 2010, and an
amended answer was filed in July 2010.

There is a similar consolidated, putative class action ERISA
lawsuit currently pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by
a member of a Schering-Plough ERISA plan against Schering-Plough
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
alleging they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, and
under the caption In re Schering-Plough Corp. ENHANCE ERISA
Litigation.  The consolidated amended complaint was filed in
October 2009 and names as defendants Schering-Plough, various
current and former members of Schering-Plough's Board of Directors
and current and former members of committees of Schering-Plough's
Board of Directors.  In November 2009, the Company and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit on the grounds
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief can
be granted.  The plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss
was filed in December 2009, and the motion was fully briefed in
January 2010.  That motion was denied in June 2010.  In September
2010, defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint in this
matter.

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.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MF GLOBAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that to no one's surprise, Jon
Corzine and other directors of MF Global Holdings face a
shareholders class action in New York accusing them of inflating
MF Global's stock price with false and misleading reports.


MF GLOBAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against certain officers of MF Global Holdings Ltd. and
certain of its officers.  The class action (11 CIV 8271), filed in
the United States District Court of the Southern District of New
York, is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of MF Global during the period
from November 5, 2009 through and including October 28, 2011,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec.
240.10b-5.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was suffering from serious
liquidity pressures as a result of its exposure to the European
debt crisis; (2) the Company consistently engaged in "window
dressing," whereby its reported debt levels at the end of each
quarter were far lower than the debt it held throughout the
quarter; (3) the Company had leveraged its equity to a staggering
ratio of over 30:1 -- compared to the 30:1 ratio that ultimately
sank Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.; (4) the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 24, 2011, rating agency Moody's Investor Services
downgraded MF Global's credit rating to nearly junk status, in
part, on concerns that the Company's risk management would not be
able to "prudently balance risk."  On October 25, 2011, the
Company reported a net loss of $186 million for the second quarter
ended September 30, 2011 and disclosed that the Company had an
exposure of $6.3 billion to certain European sovereign debts. On
this news, MF Global stock prices declined to $1.69 per share, or
more than 47%, to close at $1.86.

On October 26, 2011, Standard & Poor's announced that it may
downgrade MF Global to junk status, citing its "very high"
exposure to European sovereign debt.  Similarly, the next day,
Fitch Ratings downgraded MF Global's credit rating to junk status
as the Company's "increased risk taking activities have resulted
in sizable concentrated positions relative to the firm's capital
base, leaving MF vulnerable to potential credit deterioration
and/or significant margin calls.  On this news, MF Global's stock
declined an additional $0.66 per share or more than 35% in three
consecutive trading sessions, to close at $1.20 per share on
October 28, 2011.

On November 2, 2011, shares of MF Global began trading over-the-
counter where it declined $0.95 per share, or more than 79%, to
close at $0.25 per share on November 2, 2011.  On November 4,
2011, The Wall Street Journal reported that at least from late
2009 to middle of 2011, the Company was "window dressing" or
manipulating its borrowing habits to artificially lower the
quarter-ending borrowing amount that it reported to shareholders.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C.

CONTACT: Rachelle R. Boyle, Esq.
         Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
         E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Signs MOU to Settle Suits Over Google Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve the class action lawsuits over its
proposed merger with Google Inc., according to the Company's
November 8, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On October 14, 2011, putative class-action complaints have been
filed against Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. ("Motorola
Mobility"), its directors, Google Inc. ("Google"), and RB98 Inc.
("RB98"), challenging the proposed transaction between Motorola
Mobility and Google.  Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged
that certain disclosures or statements concerning the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated August 15, 2011, among Motorola
Mobility, Google and RB98 Inc. (the "Merger Agreement") or the
proposed merger were false or misleading, and the plaintiffs
requested a hearing on a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
special meeting of stockholders of Motorola Mobility scheduled for
November 17, 2011, to vote upon the proposal to approve the plan
of merger contained in the Merger Agreement.

On November 8, 2011, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") resolving, among other things, the matters
raised in the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.  In
connection with that MOU, Motorola Mobility is providing
supplemental information in this Current Report on Form 8-K, and
the plaintiffs, among other things, have withdrawn their request
for a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Motorola Mobility and the other defendants have vigorously denied,
and continue vigorously to deny, the allegations in the lawsuits
filed in connection with the proposed merger.


MRC RECEIVABLES: Sued Over Illegal Collections in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Maurice McClure, individually and on behalf of the class defined
herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Maurice
McClure v. MRC Receivables Corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-39487
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., November 15, 2011) seeks redress for
the conduct of MRC in taking collection actions prohibited by the
Illinois Collection Agency Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that MRC collected debts from Illinois
debtors between January 1, 2008, and November 25, 2008, without
license as required by the ICAA.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

MRC is a Delaware corporation with principal office located in San
Diego, California.  MRC purchases or claims to purchase charged-
off consumer debts and enforcing the debts against the consumers
by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise.  MRC Receivables is a
"collection agency" subject to the ICAA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com


NAT'L BASKETBALL ASST'N: Faces Class Action Over Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Cordell-Whitney at Courthouse News Service reports that
four NBA players on Nov. 15 filed a federal class action against
the league, claiming its 30 clubs conspired to enforce an
"unlawful group boycott and price-fixing arrangement," to
eliminate competition for free agents and boycott rookies seeking
their first contract.  In decertifying their union on Nov. 14, the
NBA players adopted the same tactic the NFL players used this
spring to fight their owners' lockout.

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.

In the 27-page complaint, the ballplayers say the purpose of the
group boycott is to make players "succumb to a new anticompetitive
system of player restraints which will, among other things,
drastically reduce player compensation levels below those that
would exist in a competitive market."

They say the NBA cannot defend its antitrust violations by
"hiding" behind a non-statutory labor exemption to antitrust laws:
"Under Supreme Court precedent and settled law in this Circuit,
that exemption only conceivably applies as long as a collective
bargaining process exists between the NBA defendants and the
players.  Here, however, the collective bargaining process and
relationship have completely broken down, and the NBA players have
exercised their labor law right not to be in a union."

That, of course, is precisely the argument the NFL players made in
Tom Brady et al. v. National Football League et al. this spring.

The Butler complaint continues: "Specifically, after more than two
years of futile bargaining, and the refusal of the NBA to
negotiate any further, the NBA players ended the role of the
National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) as their collective
bargaining representative and no longer have a collective
bargaining relationship with the NBA defendants.  The consequence
is that any labor exemption to the antitrust laws no longer
applies.

"Independent of their federal antitrust violations, the NBA
defendants' boycott also gives rise to state law contractual and
tort claims on behalf of plaintiffs and class members.  There is
no 'labor exemption' or any other legal justification for the NBA
defendants agreeing not to adhere to the terms of operative player
contracts and to interfere with the right of players not under
contract to seek employment for their services as professional
basketball players."

The Butler plaintiffs say the NBA declined to extend the 2005
collective bargaining agreement "because of its stated desire to
achieve a massive 'reset' in player salaries and the imposition of
a new, far more restrictive set of restraints in the player market
that would severely reduce competition for the services of NBA
players."

The NBA on Nov. 10 offered its final bargaining "ultimatum," which
would reduce players' share of Basketball Related Income (BRI)
from 57% to 50%.

The NBA told the players' union "that it was making this final
'revised' offer for just a few days and that if the NBPA did not
accept this offer by the following Monday or Tuesday, the offer
would be withdrawn and replaced with an even more onerous offer
that would reduce the players' BRI share to 47% and impose what
amounted to a hard salary cap," according to the complaint.

On Nov. 14, the NBPA Board of Player Representatives "met and took
action to immediately terminate the NBPA's status as the players'
collective bargaining representative effective at 12 noon, Eastern
time on Nov. 14," the complaint states.

The NBPA notified the NBA that day that it was no longer the
collective bargaining representative for the players.  And "The
NBPA is in the process of amending its bylaws to prohibit it or
its members from engaging in collective bargaining with the NBA,
the NBA's member clubs or their agents."

The players say the NBA violated the Sherman Act. They seek class
certification, an injunction, and damages for breach of contract,
tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference
with prospective contract.

The New York Knicks' Carmelo Anthony and four other players filed
identical claims on the same day in an Oakland, Calif., federal
court.  John Cove with Boies, Schiller & Flexner represents that
proposed class.

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/NBA.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


NETFLIX: Settles Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Kinsella Media, LLC on Nov. 16 released a notice regarding the
Online DVD Rental antitrust litigation.

There is a lawsuit and a proposed settlement of a class action
that involves consumers who paid a subscription fee to rent DVDs
online from Netflix anytime from May 19, 2005 to September 2,
2011.  The lawsuit against Wal-Mart and Netflix involves the price
of online DVD rentals and seeks money for current and former
Netflix subscribers.  A Settlement has been reached with Wal-Mart.
Netflix and Wal-Mart believe that the lawsuit has no basis.
Netflix has not settled the lawsuit and the litigation continues
against it.  The lawsuit claims that Wal-Mart and Netflix reached
an unlawful agreement under which Wal-Mart would withdraw from the
online DVD rental market and Netflix would not sell new DVDs.
Wal-Mart and Netflix deny that they entered into such an agreement
or that they have done anything wrong, that the Plaintiffs have
been harmed in any way, or that the price of online DVD rentals
was raised or inflated by any agreement between Wal-Mart and
Netflix.  The Court has not decided who is right.

The Netflix Litigation

Netflix has not agreed to a settlement.  There is no money
available from Netflix now and no guarantee that money will be
available in the future, it depends on the outcome of a trial or
settlement with Netflix.

Consumers who wish to remain in the litigation against Netflix do
not need to do anything right now.  Consumers who wish to keep
their individual right to sue Netflix about these claims must
exclude themselves in writing postmarked by February 14, 2012.

The Wal-Mart Settlement

Wal-Mart is not admitting that it did anything wrong, but has
agreed to a Settlement to avoid the cost of further litigation.
The Settlement provides $27,250,000 in gift cards and cash to
consumers who paid for a Netflix subscription.  Consumers who
submit a valid claim form may receive a Walmart.com gift card or a
cash payment.  The amount paid to consumers will vary depending on
the total number of valid claims received.

In order to receive a payment, consumers must file claims by
February 14, 2012.  Claim Forms can be submitted online or by
mail.  Consumers who do not wish to remain in the Settlement must
request to be excluded from the Wal-Mart Settlement in writing
postmarked by February 14, 2012.  Consumers who exclude themselves
from the Netflix Litigation and the Wal-Mart Settlement retain the
right to sue Wal-Mart on their own.  Consumers may object to or
comment on the Settlement in writing postmarked by February 14,
2012.

The Court will hold a hearing on March 14, 2012 to consider
whether to approve the Settlement, and a request for attorneys'
fees, cost, and expenses.  Consumers are encouraged to visit
http://www.OnlineDVDclass.comor call 1- 877-389-4469 to get more
information about the litigation, and Settlement, or to get a
Claim Form.


OLD NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Checking Account Practices Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp continues to defend against a purported class
action complaint relating to checking account 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 November 2010, Old National was named in a class action
lawsuit, much like many other banks, challenging Old National
Bank's checking account practices.  The plaintiff seeks damages
and other relief, including restitution.  Old National believes it
has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the plaintiff.
At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management
of Old National to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss.  No class
has yet been certified and discovery is ongoing.

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.

Old National Bancorp -- http://www.oldnational.com/-- operates as
a holding company for Old National Bank, which provides financial
services to individuals and commercial customers primarily in
Indiana, eastern and southeastern Illinois, and central and
western Kentucky.  The company was founded in 1834 and is
headquartered in Evansville, Indiana.


OMNEX GROUP: Does Not Provide Meal Periods to Branch Tellers
------------------------------------------------------------
Maribel Cedeno, On Behalf Of Herself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. Omnex Group, Inc. d/b/a Giromex, Inc., and Does 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 3:11-cv-05521 (N.D. Calif., November 15, 2011)
is brought on behalf of similarly situated Giromex branch tellers
for Giromex's violations of the Federal Labor and Standards Act,
the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Branch Tellers regularly take on-duty
meal periods, but Giromex fails to provide an extra hour of pay
for each missed meal period.  She adds that Giromex fails to keep
properly itemized records that correctly indicate the number of
overtime hours worked by Branch Tellers.  As a result of its
failure to pay overtime, provide meal periods, and permit rest
periods, Giromex receives an unlawful business advantage, she
points out.

Ms. Cedeno is a resident of San Mateo County, California.  She
began working as a Branch Teller in the Defendants' San Francisco,
California branch on December 17, 2002.

Omnex Group is a California corporation, authorized to do business
in California as Giromex, Inc.  Giromex is in the international
money transfer business.  Ms. Cedeno does not currently know the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Kelly, II, Esq.
          Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
          HERSH & HERSH, A Professional Corporation
          601 Van Ness Avenue, 2080 Opera Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94102-6388
          Telephone: (415) 441-5544


PNC FINANCIAL: MDL Parties Submit Settlement for Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Parties of a securities lawsuit filed against National City
Corporation, a company The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
acquired, submitted a settlement for court approval, according to
PNC's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In January 2008, a lawsuit (In re National City Corporation
Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation (The Securities Case)
(MDL No. 2003, Case No: 1:08-nc-70004-SO)) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
National City and certain officers and directors of National City.
As amended, this lawsuit was brought as a class action on behalf
of purchasers of National City's stock during the period April 30,
2007 to April 21, 2008 and also on behalf of everyone who acquired
National City stock pursuant to a registration statement filed in
connection with its acquisition of MAF Bancorp in 2007. The
amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
regarding public statements and disclosures relating to, among
other things, the nature, quality, performance, and risks of
National City's non-prime, residential construction, and National
Home Equity portfolios, its loan loss reserves, its financial
condition, and related allegedly false and misleading financial
statements. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs seek, among
other things, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. A motion to
dismiss the amended complaint is pending. A magistrate judge has
recommended dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice, with a
right for the plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint
within 30 days. The magistrate's recommendation is subject to
adoption by the district court. The plaintiffs have filed
objections to that recommendation.

In November 2011, the parties in In re National City Corporation
Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation (The Securities Case)
(MDL No. 2003, Case No: 1:08-nc-70004-SO)) filed formal settlement
papers with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. The settlement remains conditioned on, among
other things, notice to the class and final court approval.


PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in CBNV Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint in a multidistrict
litigation, according to PNC Financial Services 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.

Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs
or proposed classes of plaintiffs, several separate lawsuits were
filed in state and federal courts against Community Bank of
Northern Virginia (CBNV) and other defendants asserting claims
arising from second mortgage loans made to the plaintiffs. CBNV
was merged into one of Mercantile Bankshares Corporation's banks
before PNC acquired Mercantile in 2007. The state lawsuits were
removed to federal court and, with the lawsuits that had been
filed in federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank of Northern
Virginia and Guaranty Bank Second Mortgage Litigation (No. 03-0425
(W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674). In January 2008, the Pennsylvania
district court issued an order sending back to the General Court
of Justice, Superior Court Division, for Wake County, North
Carolina the claims of two proposed class members. This case,
which was originally filed in 2001, is captioned Bumpers, et al.
v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia (01-CVS-011342).

In September 2011, in the multidistrict litigation (MDL)
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank
of Northern Virginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation (No.
03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674), the district court granted the
plaintiffs leave to file a joint amended consolidated class action
complaint covering all of the class action lawsuits pending in
this proceeding. The amended complaint was filed in October 2011.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on August 18, 2011, The
proposed amended complaint names the Community Bank of Northern
Virginia (CBNV), a predecessor to PNC Bank, another bank, and
purchasers of loans originated by CBNV and the other bank
(including the Residential Funding Company, LLC) as defendants.
The proposed amended complaint alleges, among other things, that a
group of persons and entities collectively characterized as the
"Shumway/Bapst Organization" referred prospective second
residential mortgage loan borrowers to CBNV and the other bank,
that CBNV and the other bank charged these borrowers improper
title and loan fees at loan closings, that the disclosures
provided to the borrowers at loan closings were inaccurate, and
that CBNV and the other bank paid some of the loan fees to the
Shumway/Bapst Organization as purported "kickbacks" for the
referrals. The proposed amended complaint asserts claims for
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the
Truth in Lending Act, as amended by the Home Owners Equity
Protection Act (HOEPA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.  The proposed amended complaint seeks to
certify a class of all persons nationwide who obtained a second or
subordinate, residential, federally related, non-purchase money,
HOEPA qualifying mortgage loan from CBNV or the other bank that
was secured by residential real property used by the class member
as a principal dwelling. The plaintiffs allege that there are
approximately 50,000 members of this class. They seek, among other
things, unspecified damages (including tripled damages under RICO
and RESPA), rescission of loans, declaratory and injunctive
relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.


PNC FINANCIAL: Foreclosure Lawsuit Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a lawsuit against PNC Bank and other institutions
over alleged unlawful foreclosure proceedings voluntarily
dismissed remaining claims without prejudice, according to PNC
Financial Services 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 October 2010, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, against PNC Bank and
numerous other financial institutions, mortgage servicing
organizations, law firms that handle foreclosures in Northern
Illinois, and individuals employed by financial institutions,
mortgage servicers and law firms. As amended in November 2010, the
lawsuit (Stone, et al. v. Washington Mutual Bank, et al. (Case No.
10 C 6410)) was brought as a class action on behalf of all present
or former homeowners whose homes are being or have been the
subject of foreclosure suits involving either securitized
mortgages, "bifurcated" mortgages, or broken chains of title,
during the two years prior to the filing of the complaint. The
plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose
illegally on the properties of the named plaintiffs and the other
alleged class members. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged
that the defendant banks, law firms, and their employees
instituted foreclosure proceedings in the names of parties who did
not actually own the mortgages, and used false or otherwise
defective affidavits to prosecute the foreclosure actions. The
plaintiffs asserted claims under various federal criminal
statutes, a federal civil rights statute, the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, RICO, and Illinois common law. In the amended
complaint, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, unspecified
actual, statutory and punitive damages (including tripled actual
damages under RICO); accounting; disgorgement; preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief against foreclosure of the affected
mortgages; and attorneys' fees. In January 2011, all defendants,
including PNC, filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In
August 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted PNC's motion to dismiss in its entirety with
prejudice, but did not resolve all claims against some of the
other defendants unaffiliated with PNC. In September 2011, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims without
prejudice. The court's ruling dismissing all of the claims against
PNC is now final and unappealable.


REX ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Gas Leases in Clearfield, Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit over
contracts to lease oil and gas interests in Clearfield County,
Pennsylvania, 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 late October 2011, the Company was named as defendants in a
proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale Case").  The
named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of
themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated.  The complaint in the Cardinale Case generally asserts
that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that the Company engaged, presented a form of
proposed oil and gas lease and an order for payment to each person
in 2008, and each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease
form and order for payment and delivered the documents to
representatives of Western.

The Company says it rejected these leases and never signed them.
The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the rights of the parties
with respect to those proposed leases, as well as damages and
other relief as may be established by plaintiffs at trial,
together with interest, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.  The
lawsuit was only recently filed and the litigation recently
commenced.  As such, the Company is in the process of gathering
data and preparing its defense and it is unable to express an
opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
or provide an estimate of potential losses.

Rex Energy Corporation -- http://www.rexenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and gas company operating in the Illinois Basin
and the Appalachian Basin.


ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Sued Over Fake Sewer Line Repair Swindle
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses Roto-
Rooter of running "a fake sewer line repair swindle" by
"systematically pressuring homeowners into unnecessary repair jobs
by misleading them into thinking they had a much greater plumbing
problem than they actually did."

A copy of the Complaint in Mills, et al. v. Roto-Rooter Services
Company, Case No. _____ (Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/16/Roto.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Patricia A. Bloodgood, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com
                  david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  patricia.bloodgood@zimmreed.com


ROVI CORP: Still Awaits Okay of Deal in Sonic-Acquisition Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rovi Corporation is still awaiting court approval of its
settlement to resolve the lawsuits arising from its acquisition of
Sonic Solutions, 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 3, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Vassil Vassilev v. Sonic Solutions, et al. was filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Marin by an individual purporting
to be a shareholder of Sonic Solutions against Sonic Solutions,
the members of its board of directors, the Company and Sparta
Acquisition Sub, arising out of the proposed transaction between
the Company and Sonic.  On
January 10, 14 and 18, 2011, three substantially similar putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the same court against the
same defendants, entitled Matthew Barnes v. Habinger [sic] et al.,
Mark Chropufka v. Sonic Solutions, et al. and Diana Willis v.
Sonic Solutions, et al., respectively (the "Lawsuits").  The
Lawsuits allege that the members of Sonic's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by, inter
alia, failing to maximize shareholder value and by approving the
merger transaction via an unfair process.  The Lawsuits allege
that the Company and Sparta Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the
breach of fiduciary duties.  In January 2011, the actions were
consolidated and an amended consolidated complaint was filed
adding allegations of omissions in the Schedule 14D-9
Recommendation Statement filed by Sonic on January 14, 2011, and
seeking to enjoin the acquisition of Sonic by the Company, to
rescind the transaction in the event it is consummated, to impose
a constructive trust, and monetary damages, fees and costs in an
unspecified amount.

On January 25, 2011, another substantially similar putative class
action lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same
defendants, entitled Joann Thompson v. Sonic Solutions, et al.  On
January 28, 2011, the parties to the consolidated action reached
an agreement in principle to settle.  The proposed settlement,
which is subject to court approval following notice to the class
and a hearing, disposes of all causes of action asserted in the
consolidated action and in Thompson v. Sonic Solutions, et. al. on
behalf of all class members who do not elect to opt out of the
settlement.  Class members who elect to opt out, if any, may
continue to pursue causes of action against the defendants.

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

At this time, the Company says its management has not reached a
determination that the matters are expected to result in
liabilities that will have a material adverse effect on its
financial position or results of operations or cash flows.


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Accused of Not Paying Technicians' OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Demetriot K. Lewis, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Safelite Fulfillment Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, Case
No. 3:11-cv-05512 (N.D. Calif., November 14, 2011) arises out of
the alleged failure of Safelite to compensate the persons it
employed as windshield repair or replacement technicians in
accordance with state and federal law.  The Plaintiff asserts a
claim for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a windshield repair technician for
Safelite from April 10, 2010, through December 30, 2010.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Safelite did not pay the Plaintiff wages
for all hours worked.

Safelite is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in Ohio.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          625 Broadway, Suite 600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487-0777
          Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
          E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com


SENSA PRODUCTS: Sensa Weight Loss Ad Misleading, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Polin Mahboubian, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sensa Products, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:11-cv-05516 (N.D. Calif., November 14, 2011)
asserts that to convince consumers that their product could work,
the Defendants saturated the market with claims that Sensa Weight
Loss System is "clinically proven" and "guaranteed" to result in
significant weight loss and is backed by 25 years of scientific
research and clinical studies.

The Plaintiff argues that none of the purported research or
studies provides any sound scientific support for the Defendants'
claims.  To the contrary, she contends, there is currently no
scientific support that Sensa, in and of itself, could cause
weight loss, as Defendants have claimed.

Ms. Mahboubian is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
She purchased Sensa on April 17, 2011, via msnbc.com, in reliance
on the Defendants' false and misleading advertising.

Sensa Products LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, with
its headquarters and principal place of business in Manhattan
Beach, California.  The Defendants market Sensa, which they
advertise as an effortless weight loss tool in the form of
"flavorless 'Tastant' crystals" that consumers can "[j]ust
sprinkle" onto "meals and snacks to safely and effectively lose
weight without feeling deprived.  It's weight-loss made simple."
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Karl Olson, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: mram@ramolson.com
                  kolson@ramolson.com


SITEL WORLDWIDE: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
SITEL Worldwide Corporation's subsidiary continues to defend
itself against a class action lawsuit over automated phone calls,
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 July 2010, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, National
Action Financial Services, Inc. ("NAFS"), was served with a
purported class action lawsuit in United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges NAFS
placed automated calls to plaintiff's cell phone without his
consent, allegedly in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  Since that time, the parties have been
engaged in discovery.  On September 6, 2011, as a result of
information obtained through the discovery process, NAFS filed a
motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's claims relying on
the terms and conditions of the customer agreement governing
plaintiff's credit card account.  The customer agreement contains
an arbitration provision which NAFS asserts subjects plaintiff's
claims to binding arbitration.  On September 13, 2011, the court
stayed all further proceedings except as related to the motion to
compel pending the court's decision on that motion.

In the event the motion is granted, plaintiff will be compelled to
arbitrate his claim individually and the class action litigation
will be dismissed.  However, in the event the court denies NAFS'
motion, the litigation will proceed as a purported class action.
NAFS also made demand upon its insurance carrier for coverage
under its errors and omissions insurance policy which contains a
self-insured retention amount of $1 million.  The insurance
carrier denied the existence of a duty to defend or indemnify NAFS
for the claims at issue relying on certain exclusions in the
policy.  On August 18, 2011, the plaintiff in the underlying case
filed a declaratory judgment action against NAFS' insurance
carrier, along with NAFS and the Company as necessary parties,
seeking a declaration from the court that the denial of coverage
was wrongful and that NAFS' carrier has a duty to indemnify and
defend the underlying claims.

As of September 30, 2011, the Company says a reserve has been
recorded which it believes is in accordance with the reasonable
range of loss which does not exceed the amount accrued.  No
reserve was recorded as of December 31, 2010.


SITEL WORLDWIDE: Unit Defends FDCPA and TCPA-Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of SITEL Worldwide Corporation is defending a class
action lawsuit pending in Michigan, 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, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, National
Action Financial Services, Inc. ("NAFS"), was served with a
purported class action filed in United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.  The complaint alleges
violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") for
calls to plaintiff's cell phone in an attempt to collect a debt
not owed by the plaintiff.  The complaint also alleges pre-
recorded message calls to debtors on their cell phones by means of
an automated dialing device, without having received permission
from the recipients of the calls in violation of the TCPA.  NAFS
has filed a motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff filed a response and the
court is currently considering NAFS' motion.

The Company says it is currently unable to predict the probable
outcome of this matter and it is not able to reasonably estimate
the amount of loss, if any.  No reserve has been recorded as of
September 30, 2011.


SOUTHERN UNION: Nov. 28 Hearing Set in Merger-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A November 28, 2011, injunction hearing has been scheduled for
merger-related class action lawsuits against Southern Union
Company in Delaware, 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 entered into a merger deal agreement with Energy
Transfer Equity, L.P., and Sigma Acquisition Corporation, a wholly
owned subsidiary of ETE (Merger Sub), in July 2011.  As a result
of the Merger, the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary
of ETE.  The Merger is expected to close in the first quarter of
2012, subject to stockholder approval and certain other regulatory
approvals.

Several class action lawsuits have been filed in Texas and
Delaware challenging the proposed merger.

On June 21, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37091, was filed in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.  The petition names as defendants the members of
the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders or aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger.  The
petition alleges that the Merger involves an unfair price and an
inadequate sales process and that defendants entered into the
transaction to benefit themselves personally.  The petition seeks
injunctive relief, including to enjoin the Merger, attorneys' and
other fees and costs, indemnification and other relief.

Also on June 21, 2011, another putative class action lawsuit
captioned Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37134, was filed in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.  The petition named as defendants the members of
the Southern Union Board, Southern Union and ETE.  The plaintiff
alleges that the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the
Merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted those
alleged breaches.  The petition alleges that the Merger involves
an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.  The petition seeks injunctive relief, including to
enjoin the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and
costs, in addition to other relief.

On June 28, 2011 and August 19, 2011, amended petitions were filed
in the Magda and Jaroslawicz actions, respectively, naming the
same defendants and alleging that the Southern Union directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders
in connection with the Merger and that Southern Union and ETE
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
amended petitions allege that the Merger involves an unfair price
and an inadequate sales process, that Southern Union's directors
entered into the Merger to benefit themselves personally,
including through consulting and non-compete agreements, and that
defendants have failed to disclose all material information
related to the Merger to Southern Union stockholders.  The amended
petitions seek injunctive relief, including to enjoin the Merger,
and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition
to other relief.  The two Texas cases have been consolidated with
the following style: in re:  Southern Union Company; Cause No.
2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas.  On October 21, 2011, the court denied ETE's October 13,
2011 motion to stay the Texas proceeding in favor of cases pending
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.   A hearing for an application
for a temporary injunction against the Merger has been reserved,
but not scheduled by order of the court, in Texas, on November 15
and 16, 2011.

On June 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al. v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6615-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaint names as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, Southern Union and ETE.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection
with the Merger, and further claim that ETE aided and abetted
those alleged breaches.  The complaint alleges that the Merger
involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that
Southern Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit
themselves personally, including through consulting and non-
compete agreements, and that the directors should deem a competing
proposal made by The Williams Companies, Inc. to be superior.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, including
to enjoin the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees
and costs, in addition to other relief.

On June 29 and 30, 2011, putative class action lawsuits captioned
KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A.
No. 6622-CS, and LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH v. Southern
Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-CS, respectively were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaints name as
defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, Southern
Union, ETE and Merger Sub.  The plaintiffs allege that the
Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that ETE aided and abetted those alleged breaches.  The complaints
allege that the Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate
sales process, that Southern Union's directors entered into the
Merger to benefit themselves personally, including through
consulting and non-compete agreements, and that the directors must
give full consideration to the Williams proposal.  The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, including to enjoin
the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs,
in addition to other relief.

On July 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Memo v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaint names as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, Southern Union ETE and Merger
Sub.  The plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Southern union's stockholders
in connection with the amended Merger agreement and that Southern
Union, ETE and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged
breaches.  The complaint alleges that the Merger involves an
unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that the terms of the amended Merger agreement are
preclusive.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to
enjoin the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and
costs, in addition to other relief.

On August 25, 2011, an amended complaint was filed in the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, KBC Asset
Management NV and LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH actions
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming the same
defendants as the original complaints in those actions and
alleging that the Southern Union directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection
with the Merger, that ETE aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty, and that the provisions in Section 5.4 of the
Second Amended Merger Agreement relating to Southern Union's
ability to accept a superior proposal is invalid under Delaware
law.  The amended complaint alleges that the Merger involves an
unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, including through consulting and non-compete
agreements, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.  The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin the Merger and an award of attorneys' and
other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.  The court
presiding over the Delaware cases has scheduled a hearing on
plaintiffs' request for an injunction of the transaction for
November 28, 2011.

The Company has not recorded an accrued liability and believes the
allegations of all the foregoing actions related to the Merger
with ETE lack merit and intends to contest them vigorously.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Southern Union Company is a
diversified energy company engaged primarily in the business of
gathering, processing, transportation, storage, and distribution
of natural gas in the United States.


SPI ELECTRICITY: Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action Postponed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Campbell, writing for Diamond Valley Leader, reports that a
class action against a power company accused of causing the
Kilmore East bushfire on Black Saturday has been postponed for six
months.

Maurice Blackburn senior associate Rory Walsh, acting on behalf of
residents against SPI Electricity, said the trial had been moved
from July 2012 to January 2013 in the Melbourne Supreme Court.

Mr. Walsh said SPI Electricity and the CFA, Victoria Police and
the Department of Sustainability and Environment, which the power
distributor argues contributed to the deaths of 119 people, had
until March next year to produce documents relating to the case.

"This would have made it impossible for the matter to proceed in
July . . . as had been initially envisaged," Mr. Walsh said.

"The setting down of the case for trial is a very positive
development.

"It will also allow the parties to explore avenues for settlement
of the claim prior to the trial."

Court documents allege SPI Electricity, the distribution company
for SP Ausnet, failed to properly inspect and maintain its
powerlines, leading to a break in a 43-year-old line which started
a fire near Saunders Rd in Kilmore East.

SPI Electricity denies any allegation of negligence.  Mr. Walsh
said his law firm was acting for about 1,100 clients but expected
the number to significantly increase as the trial, expected to run
for 12 to 16 weeks, neared.

He said the action had reached the opt out stage, with notices
being published in a number of newspapers and posted to individual
class action members giving them the option of withdrawing from
proceedings.


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS: Bid to Decertify Foster Care Suit Fails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that
disbanding the class of women suing Wal-Mart has no bearing on the
future of allegations that the Massachusetts foster care system
placed thousands of children in life-threatening situations, a
federal judge ruled.

Abuse among children in the care of the Massachusetts Department
of Children and Families (DCF) happens at nearly four times the
national rate, according to the 2010 class action filed by six
alleged victims.

The complaint described numerous cases of children killed or
suffering severe physical abuse at the hands of foster parents,
none of whom allegedly faced state monitoring.  The children asked
for remedial relief, including limiting the caseload of foster
care case workers, enhanced training, and a review of the state's
foster care system.

A federal judge certified the class in February 2011, defining it
as "all children who are now or will be in the foster care custody
of the DCF as a result of abuse or neglect."

But that decision came into question three months later as the
U.S. Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Wal-Mart v. Dukes,
which decertified a proposed class of 1.5 million female employees
whom the justices found lacked sufficient commonality.

DCF moved to decertify the foster children class, arguing that
"pursuant to the holding in Wal-Mart, the dissimilarities among
the 8,500 class members -- including differences in social worker
assignments, goals, physical and mental health needs, and length
of stay in DCF custody -- make class certification improper."

U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor in Springfield, Ma., refused
last week, finding that DCF had exceeded the 14-day deadline to
appeal certification and that his original conclusion was sound.

Unlike the plaintiffs in Wal-Mart, who sought damages on behalf of
1.5 million women employed at thousands of stores across the
country, "this class of 8,500 children is within the custody of a
single agency in a single state," Judge Ponsor wrote.

DCF characterized the children's claims as harms "caused by
individual social workers who exercise wide discretion in
determining what is in the best interest of the child."

But the court found that the pleadings focused on the systemic
departmental deficiencies that place children in harmful
situations, not on individual case workers.  "These systemic
shortcomings provide the 'glue' that unites plaintiffs' claims,"
Judge Ponsor wrote.

The judge also disagreed with DCF's argument that "no relief is
possible where each class member has different needs for DCF
services, placements, and visitation."

In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs' claims for
monetary relief were improper, whereas "plaintiffs' claims in this
case are limited to injunctive relief," the 19-page decision
states said.

"Wal-Mart's commonality analysis is easily distinguishable from
this case and does not disturb the court's original order,"
Judge Posner concluded.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order Regarding Defendants' Motion to
Decertify Plaintiffs' Class and Defendants' Motion to Stay
Discovery Pending a Ruling on their Motion to Decertify the Class
in B., et al., v. Patrick, et al., Case No. 10-cv-30073 (D.
Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/16/Foster%20Kids.pdf


TELLABS INC: "Makor" Securities Suit Set to be Dismissed in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., v. Tellabs,
Inc., is set to be dismissed with prejudice on June 15 next year,
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 June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs, Michael Birck, as chairman of the Board of Tellabs, and
Richard Notebaert, as former CEO, President and Director of
Tellabs.  Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in
the United States District Court of the Northern District of
Illinois.  All nine of these actions were subsequently
consolidated, and on December 3, 2002, a consolidated amended
class action complaint was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr.
Notebaert, and certain other of the Company's current or former
officers and/or directors.  The consolidated amended complaint
alleged that during the class period (December 11, 2000 to June
19, 2001), the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements, including,
among other things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that
were false and misleading, misrepresenting demand for the
Company's products, and reporting overstated revenue for the
fourth quarter 2000 in the Company's financial statements.
Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have
violated the federal securities laws by trading the Company's
securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public
information about the Company pertaining to these matters.  The
consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified restitution,
damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to
replead.  On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, re-alleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.  On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On
March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on January 21, 2005.  On January 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings.  On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with
the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc.  On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered
plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which
was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.  On July 10, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor
modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the district
court.  On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the
district court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining
claims.  On October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the United
States Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking
to appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision.  On January 5, 2007, the
defendants' petition was granted. The United States Supreme Court
heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the
United States Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings. On November 1,
2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded
case. On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of
the district court, and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceedings. On February 24, 2009, the district court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On August 13,
2010, the Court granted in large part Tellabs' motion for summary
judgment. Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit
and on July 27, 2011, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement and dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice.  The lawsuit is scheduled to be
dismissed with prejudice on June 15, 2012.  All settlement amounts
will be paid by Tellabs' insurers.

Tellabs, Inc., is a telecommunications company that designs and
manufactures equipment for service providers.


TERMINAL ONE: Passengers File Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action seeks damages
from Terminal One Group Association for passengers on 28
international flights who were stranded on the tarmac at JFK
airport for up to 11 hours during a snowstorm on Dec. 26-27, 2010;
the FAA fines airlines $27,500 per passenger similarly stranded
for more than 3 hours -- but only on domestic flights.

A copy of the Complaint in Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group
Association, L.P., Case No. 11-cv-05535 (E.D.N.Y.) (Weinstein,
J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/16/Trapped.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thatcher A. Stone, Esq.
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          LAW OFFICE OF THATCHER A. STONE
          Suite 2000
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 332-2477
          E-mail: thatcher@thatcher-stone-legal.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: sas@chimicles.com
                  tnm@chimicles.com


TORCHMARK CORP: United American Continues to Defend Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
All causes of action, except for a breach of contract claim, in a
putative class action lawsuit against Torchmark Corporation's
subsidiary, United American Insurance Company, were dismissed, 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.

United American was named as defendant in purported class action
litigation filed on May 31, 2011, in Cross County Arkansas Circuit
Court (Kennedy v. United American Insurance Company (Case No. CV-
2011-84-5).  In the litigation, filed on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of owners of certain limited hospital and
surgical expense benefit policies from United American, the
plaintiff alleges that United American breached the policy by
failing and/or refusing to pay benefits for the total number of
days an insured is confined to a hospital and by limiting payment
to the number of days for which there are incurred hospital room
charges rather than also including benefits for services and
supplies.  Claims for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, bad
faith refusal to pay first party benefits, breach of the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, and violation of
the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act were initially
asserted.  The plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief,
restitution and/or monetary damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys fees.  In September 2011, the plaintiff dismissed all
causes of action, except for the breach of contract claim.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary, Trustmark
National Bank, continues to defend a purported class action
complaint related to the collapse of Stanford Financial Group,
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 lawsuit against TNB was filed on August 23, 2009 in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain,
Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis
Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions unaffiliated with the Company as defendants.  The
complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from
each of the defendants in the amount of fees received by each
defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford
(collectively, the "Stanford Financial Group") and (ii) damages
allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of
the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud
and/or aid and abet fraud arising from the facts set forth in
pending federal criminal indictments and civil complaints against
Mr. Stanford, other individuals and the Stanford Financial Group.
Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not
quantify damages.  In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to
federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the
United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court
in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford
related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit, which remain pending, although the plaintiffs
have yet to file any responsive briefing.  Instead, the plaintiffs
have sought to stay the lawsuit pending the conclusion of the
federal criminal trial of R. Allen Stanford in Houston, Texas.
The court has not ruled on the plaintiff's motion to stay at this
time.

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

Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas.  The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.


UPONOR PEX: Class Action.Org Attorneys Review Plumbing Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyers working with Class Action.org are reviewing
allegations of Uponor PEX failure from home and business owners
whose plumbing systems were outfitted with these brass fittings.
Certain Uponor PEX brass plumbing fittings can allegedly fail
earlier than expected due to a chemical reaction known as
dezincification, which can cause reduced water pressure, leaks and
other problems.  Because these plumbing fittings are allegedly
defective, property owners who suffered damages as a result of
Uponor PEX failure may be able to seek financial compensation.  To
find out if you have legal recourse for the Uponor PEX failure of
your plumbing fittings, visit http://www.classaction.org/uponor-
pex-plumbing-fittings.html today for a free case evaluation.

Potentially, homeowners who experienced Uponor PEX failure of
certain brass plumbing fittings may be able to participate in an
Uponor PEX class action.  A class action lawsuit is a type of
legal action in which a large number of consumers join together to
collectively file a claim in court.  Through an Uponor PEX failure
lawsuit, financial compensation for repair and replacement costs,
as well as other damages may be available.

In light of the allegations concerning Uponor PEX failure, Class
Action.org is offering a free case evaluation to property owners
whose plumbing systems were equipped with these fittings.  To
receive a complimentary online case review of Uponor PEX failure,
visit Class Action.org today.  The Uponor lawsuit attorneys
working with the site are providing this consultation at no cost
and remain committed to protecting the rights of individuals who
suffered damages as a result of Uponor PEX failure.

                      About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.

Contact Information: ClassAction.org
                     Tara Nagel
                     Telephone: 800-449-1970


VANGUARD NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources LLC is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in
Delaware, 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 11, 2011, Vanguard and Encore Energy Partners LP ("ENP")
announced the execution of a definitive agreement that would
result in a merger whereby ENP would become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC ("VNG"), Vanguard's
subsidiary, through a unit-for-unit exchange.

On April 5, 2011, Stephen Bushansky, a purported unitholder of
ENP, filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court
of Chancery on behalf of the unitholders of ENP.  Another
purported unitholder of ENP, William Allen, filed a similar action
in the same court on April 14, 2011.  The Bushansky and Allen
actions have been consolidated under the caption In re: Encore
Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6347-VCP (the
"Delaware State Court Action").  On August 12, 2011, those
plaintiffs jointly filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint naming as defendants ENP, Scott W. Smith, Richard A.
Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C.
Baggett, Martin G. White, and Vanguard.  That putative class
action complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
breached the partnership agreement by proposing a transaction that
is not fair and reasonable and that the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus omitted material information.  Plaintiffs
seek an injunction prohibiting the proposed merger from going
forward and compensatory damages if the proposed merger is
consummated.  In response, Vanguard has filed a motion to dismiss
and says it intends to defend vigorously against this lawsuit.

Vanguard and ENP say they cannot predict the outcome of the case
or any other lawsuits that might be subsequently filed, nor can
they predict the amount of time and expense that will be required
to resolve the lawsuit.  Vanguard, ENP and the other defendants
named in the lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against this and
any other actions.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hysong" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources LLC is awaiting a court decision on its
and other defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
commenced by Donald A. Hysong, 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 11, 2011, Vanguard and Encore Energy Partners LP ("ENP")
announced the execution of a definitive agreement that would
result in a merger whereby ENP would become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC ("VNG"), Vanguard's
subsidiary, through a unit-for-unit exchange.

On September 6, 2011, Donald A. Hysong, a purported unitholder of
ENP, filed a putative class action complaint against ENP, Encore
Energy Partners GP LLC ("ENP GP"), Scott W. Smith, Richard A.
Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C.
Baggett, Martin G. White, and Vanguard on behalf of the
unitholders of ENP in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware that is captioned Hysong v. Encore Energy
Partners LP. et al., 1:11-cv-00781-SD.  Hysong alleges that the
named defendants violated either Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder or
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
disseminating a false and materially misleading proxy statement in
connection with the merger. Plaintiff seeks an injunction
prohibiting the proposed merger from going forward.  On
September 14, 2011, in accordance with recent practice in
Delaware, this case was assigned to Judge Stewart Dalzell of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On September 29, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to preliminarily enjoin the
merger.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
all discovery and proceedings have been stayed pending resolution
of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or a showing by the plaintiff
that he is entitled to have the stay lifted.  The defendants named
in this lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against it.

Vanguard and ENP say they cannot predict the outcome of the case
or any other lawsuits that might be subsequently filed, nor can
they predict the amount of time and expense that will be required
to resolve the lawsuit.  Vanguard, ENP and the other defendants
named in the lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against this and
any other actions.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Consolidated "O'Neal" Suit Stayed in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit arising from Vanguard Natural
Resources LLC's proposed merger with Encore Energy Partners LP has
been stayed, 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 March 29, 2011, John O'Neal, a purported unitholder of Encore
Energy Partners LP ("ENP"), filed a putative class action petition
in the 125th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, on behalf
of unitholders of ENP.  The Company and ENP have executed a
definitive agreement that would result in a merger whereby ENP
would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vanguard Natural Gas,
LLC ("VNG"), Vanguard's subsidiary, through a unit-for-unit
exchange.

Similar petitions were filed on April 4, 2011, by Jerry P. Morgan
and on April 5, 2011, by Herbert F. Rower in other Harris County
district courts.  The O'Neal, Morgan, and Rower lawsuits were
consolidated on June 5, 2011, as John O'Neal v. Encore Energy
Partners, L.P., et al., Case Number 2011-19340, which is pending
in the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County.  On
July 28, 2011, Michael Gilas filed a class action petition in
intervention.  On July 26, 2011, the current plaintiffs in the
consolidated O'Neal action filed an amended putative class action
petition against ENP, Encore Energy Partners GP LLC ("ENP GP"),
Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy
Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C. Baggett, Martin G. White, and
Vanguard.  That putative class action petition and Gilas's
petition in intervention both allege that the named defendants are
(i) violating duties owed to ENP's public unitholders by, among
other things, failing to properly value ENP and failing to protect
against conflicts of interest or (ii) are aiding and abetting such
breaches.  Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting the merger
from going forward and compensatory damages if the merger is
consummated.  On October 3, 2011, the Court appointed Bull &
Lifshitz, counsel for plaintiff-intervenor Gilas, as interim lead
counsel on behalf of the putative class.  On October 21, 2011, the
court signed an order staying this lawsuit pending resolution of a
state court action pending in Delaware subject to plaintiffs'
right to seek to lift the stay for good cause.  The defendants
named in the Texas lawsuits intend to defend vigorously against
them.

Vanguard and ENP say they cannot predict the outcome of the case
or any other lawsuits that might be subsequently filed, nor can
they predict the amount of time and expense that will be required
to resolve the lawsuit.  Vanguard, ENP and the other defendants
named in the lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against this and
any other actions.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Defends "Goldstein" Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources LLC is defending a class action lawsuit
commenced by Herman Goldstein in connection with its proposed
merger with Encore Energy Partners LP, 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 11, 2011, Vanguard and Encore Energy Partners LP ("ENP")
announced the execution of a definitive agreement that would
result in a merger whereby ENP would become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC ("VNG"), Vanguard's
subsidiary, through a unit-for-unit exchange.

On August 28, 2011, Herman Goldstein, a purported unitholder of
ENP, filed a putative class action complaint against ENP, Encore
Energy Partners GP LLC ("ENP GP"), Scott W. Smith, Richard A.
Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C.
Baggett, Martin G. White, and Vanguard in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of the
unitholders of ENP.  That lawsuit is captioned Goldstein v. Encore
Energy Partners LP. et al., United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, 4:11-cv-03198.  Goldstein alleges that
the named defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder by disseminating a false and materially misleading
proxy statement in connection with the merger.  Plaintiff seeks an
injunction prohibiting the proposed merger from going forward.
The defendants named in this lawsuit intend to defend vigorously
against it.

Vanguard and ENP say they cannot predict the outcome of the case
or any other lawsuits that might be subsequently filed, nor can
they predict the amount of time and expense that will be required
to resolve the lawsuit.  Vanguard, ENP and the other defendants
named in the lawsuit intend to defend vigorously against this and
any other actions.


VITACOST.COM INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Miyahira" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitacost.com, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit pending in
Florida, 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 May 24, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR. The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws during the period by, among
other things, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material facts concerning the Company's current and
prospective business and financial results.  The complaint also
alleges that as a result of these actions the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated during the class period.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and
expenses.

On October 19, 2010, the Southern District of Florida appointed a
lead plaintiff to represent the purported class of shareholders.
Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2011.
The amended complaint additionally named as defendants the
Company's underwriters for its initial public offering and the
Company's former registered independent public accounting firm,
added additional claims of alleged false and misleading statements
and/or omissions under both the Securities Act and the Exchange
Act, and expanded the class period to extend as late as December
7, 2010.  On April 28, 2011, lead plaintiff filed a notice of
dismissal without prejudice of the accountant defendants, and on
May 4, 2011, the court dismissed the former registered independent
public accounting firm without prejudice.  The remaining
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 28, 2011.  Lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion
to dismiss on June 20, 2011, and defendants' filed their reply on
July 20, 2011.

The Company records provisions in its consolidated financial
statements for pending litigation when it determines that an
unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be
reasonably estimated.  As of September 30, 2011, the Company has
concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred
and is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable verdict.  Therefore, the Company
has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial
statements for an unfavorable outcome.  The Company believes, and
has been so advised by counsel, that it has meritorious defenses
to the complaint pending against it and will vigorously defend
against it.  It is possible that the Company's consolidated
balance sheets, statements of operations, or cash flows could be
materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome.

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


VIVUS INC: Court Dismisses "Kovtun" Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A district court judge in California dismissed a putative class
action lawsuit against Vivus Inc., with leave to amend, 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 two of its officers are defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v. Vivus Inc., et al., Case
No. CV10-4957 PJH, pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California.  The action, filed in November 2010,
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with
the Company's clinical trials and New Drug Application, or NDA,
for Qnexa as a treatment for obesity.  In his Amended Class Action
Complaint filed April 4, 2011, the plaintiff alleged generally
that the defendants misled investors regarding the prospects for
Qnexa's NDA approval, and the drug's efficacy and safety.  On
June 3, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was
heard by the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton on October 12, 2011. At
the hearing, Judge Hamilton ruled from the bench and granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Judge Hamilton
also issued an order on October 13, 2011, which confirmed her
ruling at the hearing. If the plaintiff elects to amend his
complaint again, the defendants anticipate filing another motion
to dismiss.  Pending the outcome of that motion to dismiss,
discovery will continue to be stayed.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Has Until Dec. 8 to Reply to Amended Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WMS Industries Inc. has until December 8, 2011, to file a reply to
the amended class action lawsuit by Wayne Conlee, 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 May 25, 2011, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee.
On October 13, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in the Conlee lawsuit.  As amended, the lawsuit alleges that,
during the period from September 21, 2010 to August 4, 2011, the
Company made material misstatements and omitted material
information related to its fiscal year 2011 guidance. Plaintiff
seeks to certify a class of stockholders who purchased stock
between these dates.  The lawsuit specifically alleges violations
of (i) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section
20(a) of the 34 Act.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.
Defendants' response to the amended complaint is due  December 8,
2011.

WMS Industries Inc. is engaged in the design, manufacture and
sale of coin-operated and home video games, pinball and novelty
games and video lottery terminals and gaming devices.


WORLDWIDE INFO: Judge Allows Hartford to Intervene in Privacy Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Goldberg at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that U.S. District
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey on Tuesday allowed Hartford Casualty
Insurance Co. to make its case as to why a $40 million monetary
judgment shouldn't be imposed in a class action against
now-bankrupt Hartford policyholder Worldwide Information Inc. over
Driver's Privacy Protection Act violations.

Law360 relates that Judge Laughrey granted Hartford's motion to
intervene in the suit, three months after granting a win to a
putative class of Missouri drivers who claimed Worldwide's
reselling of its entire database of driver's license information
violated the DPPA.

                           *********

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  * * *