---

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

           Tuesday, November 22, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 231

                             Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
99 CENTS: Awaits "Niemiller" Plaintiff to Commence Arbitration
99 CENTS: Bench Trial in "Bright" Suit Set for January 23
99 CENTS: Enters Settlement to Resolve "Palencia" Suit in Calif.
99 CENTS: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in "Allen" Suit

99 CENTS: Still Defends Going Private-Related Suits in Calif.
99 CENTS: Feb. 27 Hearing on Summary Judgment Bid in "Reed" Suit
99 CENTS: To Present Consolidated Class Suit Settlement Today
ADOLOR CORP: Faces Six Suits Over Cubist's Proposed Acquisition
AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Defends Seven Shareholder Class Actions

AMEREN AND UNION: Faces Class Action for Ducking Municipal Taxes
APPLE INC: Sued Over Alleged Conspiracy With Book Publishers
APPLE REIT: Class Action Suits Over Sale of Apple Units Pending
ARCADIA RESOURCES: Enters Into Settlement of Wage Suit in Calif.
ATRINSIC INC: Expects Mobile Messenger Dispute to End in 4th Qtr.

AUTOBYTEL INC: Appeal From "Lack of Standing" Opinion Pending
AUTOBYTEL INC: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit vs. Unit Pending
CHINA NATURAL GAS: Ordered to Respond to Class Suit by Dec. 12
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Gift Card Redemption
CUMULUS MEDIA: Unit Awaits Court Okay of Wage Suit Settlement

CUMULUS MEDIA: Citadel Merger-Related Suit in Nevada Dismissed
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Conclusion of IPO Suit Settlement
EXTREME NETWORKS: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit Remains Pending
FREDERICK COUNTY: Gets Final Court OK of Class Suit Settlement
GUITAR CENTER: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Antitrust Lawsuit

GUITAR CENTER: Defends Against Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
GUITAR CENTER: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Personal Info
HARVARD CLUB: Accused of Not Handing Out Service Charges to Staff
INSWEB CORP: Court Says Objectors Have No Standing to Appeal
INTERCLICK INC: "Bose" Suit in New York Still Pending

INTERCLICK INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Yahoo
MAJOR LEAGUE: Sued Over False Claims on Titanium Bracelets
MEDIACOM LLC: Appeal From Order Decertifying "Ogg" Class Pending
MEDIACOM LLC: "Knight" Suit vs. Parent Dismissed in August
MEDIACOM LLC: Parent Paid $10.3MM in July to End Merger Suits

MONSANTO COMPANY: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Texas
MONSANTO COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss "Rochester" Suit Pending
MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Sets Jan. 3 Trial Date for "Bibb" Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Pay Commissions
OCLARO INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Still Pending

OCLARO INC: Continues to Defend "Westley" Suit in California
ONVIA INC: Appellant Seeks Reconsideration With Second Circuit
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals in IPO Settlement Suit Pending
ORCHID CELLMARK: Class Suits in New Jersey Still Stayed
ORCHID CELLMARK: Consolidated Class Suit in Delaware Still Pending

PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Feb. 22
PRUCO LIFE: Motion to Dismiss "Phillips" Suit Remains Pending
PRUCO LIFE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Retained Asset Accounts
PRUCO LIFE: Continues to Defend "Huffman" ERISA Lawsuit
QUEPASA CORP: "Unauthorized Text Message" Suit Bound For Florida

RADIO ONE: Shareholder Appeal on No Standing Ruling Still Pending
REDDY ICE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Suit
REDDY ICE: Discovery in Consolidated Suit in Michigan Ongoing
REDDY ICE: Still Awaits Approval of Suit Settlement in Canada
SCIQUEST INC: Appeals From Suit Settlement Order Remain Pending

SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York
SWK HOLDINGS: Objector Appeals Non-Class Member Ruling
TEKELEC: Being Sold to Titan for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
TIM HORTONS: Franchisees' Class Suit in Canada Remain Pending
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Unit Reaches $35MM Deal to Settle "Larsen" Suit

UNIVERSITY COMMONS: Violates Ill. Consumer Fraud Act, Suit Says
VERENIUM CORP: Shareholder Appeal on Status Remains Pending





                          *********
1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc., (along with Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as
defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the
Company alleging violations  arising under the  Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act among other statutes, and for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-
transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's
subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party
vendors.  Plaintiffs seek to have this case certified as a class
action and seek restitution and other damages, all in an amount in
excess of $5 million.  The Company says it intends to defend this
action vigorously.

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.


99 CENTS: Awaits "Niemiller" Plaintiff to Commence Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores is waiting for Linda Niemiller to commence an
individual arbitration with respect to her claims against the
Company, according to its November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2011.

Plaintiff in the lawsuit Linda Niemiller v. 99 Cents Only Stores,
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
a former assistant manager for the Company, filed this action in
March 2011.  She asserts claims on behalf of herself, and a
putative class of all others allegedly similarly situated, under
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California
Business and Professions Code based on allegations that the
Company has a pattern or practice of denying and/or failing to
promote women to the position of Store Manager and failing to
provide them with compensation equal to that of men doing equal
work.  She also asserts an individual claim for retaliation based
on the allegation that the Company failed to promote her in
retaliation for her having opposed and objected to discrimination
based on gender.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all
allegedly similarly situated current, past and future women as to
whom the Company has denied hiring and promotion to the position
of Store Manager and equal compensation in the State of California
on the basis of gender.  She seeks to recover back pay, front pay,
general and special damages, punitive damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, an order assigning herself and members of the
putative class to those jobs they purportedly would have held but
for the Company's allegedly discriminatory practices, an
adjustment of the wage rates, benefits, and seniority rights for
herself and members of the putative class to that level which they
purportedly would be enjoying but for the Company's alleged
discriminatory practices, pre-judgment interest and attorney's
fees and costs.

The Company brought a motion asking the court to compel Plaintiff
to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis and stay the
remainder of the action pending the completion of the individual
arbitration.  On August 26, 2011, the court granted this motion.
Plaintiff has yet to commence an individual arbitration.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
the amount of potential loss, if any, the Company could face as a
result of such lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Bench Trial in "Bright" Suit Set for January 23
---------------------------------------------------------
A California court set a bench trial for January 23, 2012, with
respect to the lawsuit commenced by Eugina Bright against 99 Cents
Only Stores, 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 1, 2011.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, captioned
Eugina Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company on June
12, 2009, alleging a single violation of California Labor Code
Section 1198, which makes it unlawful to violate provisions of an
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.  She brings her claim
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California
Labor Code Section 2699, which allows aggrieved employees to bring
civil actions to enforce the Labor Code.  Plaintiff asserts that
the Company failed to provide seats for its cashiers behind
checkout counters.  This claim is based on section 14 of Wage
Order 7-2001, which applies to employees in the retail industry.
Section 14 provides in part: "All working employees shall be
provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work
reasonably permits the use of seats."  Plaintiff seeks civil
penalties of $100 to $200 per violation, per each pay period for
each affected employee, and attorney's fees.

On October 15, 2009, the Superior Court sustained the Company's
demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend.  On
November 23, 2009, pursuant to the sustaining of the demurrer, the
action was dismissed and judgment entered for the Company.  Ms.
Bright appealed the Court's ruling in December 2009.  On November
12, 2010, the Court of Appeal issued a published opinion reversing
the trial court's ruling.  The Company's Petition for Review with
the California Supreme Court was denied on
February 16, 2011, and remittitur issued on March 1, 2011.  The
Company has answered the complaint, denying all material
allegations, and discovery has commenced.  Ms. Bright informed the
Company in early November 2011 that she would not seek class
certification in this matter but rather would proceed on a
representative basis only.  The Court has set a bench trial date
of January 23, 2012.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
the amount of potential loss, if any, the Company could face as a
result of such lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Enters Settlement to Resolve "Palencia" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve a lawsuit commenced by Luis Palencia in California, 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 1, 2011.

Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Luis Palencia v. 99 Cents Only
Stores, Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento is a former assistant manager for the Company, who was
employed with the Company from June 12, 2009, through
September 9, 2009.  He filed this action in June 2010, asserting
claims on behalf of himself and all others allegedly similarly
situated under the California Labor Code for alleged unpaid
overtime due to "off the clock" work, failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide
proper wage statements, failure to pay wages timely during
employment and upon termination and failure to reimburse business
expenses.  Mr. Palencia also asserted a derivative claim for
unfair competition under the California Business and Professions
Code.  Mr. Palencia sought to represent three sub-classes: (i) an
"unpaid wages subclass" of all non-exempt or hourly paid employees
who worked for the Company in California within four years prior
to the filing of the complaint until the date of certification,
(ii) a "non-compliant wage statement subclass" of all non-exempt
or hourly paid employees of the Company who worked in California
and received a wage statement within one year prior to the filing
of the complaint until the date of certification, and (iii) an
"unreimbursed business expenses subclass" of all employees of the
Company who paid for business-related expenses, including expenses
for travel, mileage or cell phones in California within four years
prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of
certification.  Plaintiff sought to recover alleged unpaid wages,
interest, attorney's fees and costs, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties and liquidated damages.  He also
sought to recover civil penalties as an "aggrieved employee" under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Following a mediation of this matter, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement on November 2, 2011.  The settlement
agreement remains subject to court approval.  The Company has
accrued approximately $1.8 million in the second quarter of fiscal
2012, and in addition, it will accrue approximately $0.4 million
in the third quarter of fiscal 2012, for a total of $2.2 million
for expected payments in connection with the settlement.  If the
settlement agreement is not approved by the court, the Company
says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in "Allen" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores is awaiting a ruling on its motion to compel
Plaintiff Thomas Allen to arbitrate his claims on an individual
basis, 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 1, 2011.

Plaintiff, a former store manager for the Company, filed the
action Thomas Allen v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, on March 18, 2011.  He
asserts claims on behalf of himself and all others allegedly
similarly situated under the California Labor Code for alleged
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to pay wages timely upon termination, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.  Mr. Allen also asserted a
derivative claim for unfair competition under the California
Business and Professions Code.  Mr. Allen seeks to represent a
class of all employees who were employed by the Company as
salaried managers in 99 Cents Only retail stores from March 18,
2007 through the date of trial or settlement.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory penalties, interest,
attorney's fees and costs, declaratory relief, injunctive relief
and restitution.

On October 17, 2011, the court heard the Company's motion to
compel Plaintiff Allen to arbitrate his claims on an individual
basis, and following the hearing, the court ordered the parties to
submit further briefing and scheduled a further hearing for
November 21, 2011.  The Company says it cannot predict the outcome
of this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, the
Company could face as a result of such lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Still Defends Going Private-Related Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores is still defending class action lawsuits
arising from its going private transaction, 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 1, 2011.

Following the March 2011 announcement by the Company of the
receipt of a going private proposal, eight complaints were filed
related to the proposal, all in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court (the "Actions").  The Actions are:  Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. David Gold, et al. (filed
March 14, 2011, amended March 23, 2011);  John Chevedden v. 99
Cents Only Stores, et al. (filed March 16, 2011); Rana Fong v. 99
Cents Only Stores, et al. (filed March 17, 2011);  Norfolk County
Retirement Board v. Jeff Gold, et al. (filed March 22, 2011);
Tammy Newman v. 99 Cents Only Stores, et al. (filed March 25,
2011);  Key West Police and Fire Pension Fund v. Eric G.
Flamholtz, et al. (filed April 5, 2011); and Allen Mitchell v. 99
Cents Only Stores, et al. (filed April 11, 2011).  The plaintiffs
in the Actions claim to be shareholders of the Company and propose
to represent a class of all of the Company's public shareholders.
The Actions name the Company, various of its officers and
directors and Leonard Green & Partners L.P. (and in one instance
certain entities affiliated with Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.)
as defendants.

The Actions assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs seek to enjoin
a going private transaction and, in the alternative, seek
unspecified damages in the event such a transaction is
consummated.  Pursuant to stipulation, at the initial status
conference on June 24, 2011, the court ordered the Actions
consolidated, established a leadership structure among plaintiffs'
counsel, provided for consolidation with the Actions of any
subsequently-filed actions arising out of the same facts, and
stayed the Actions.

On October 11, 2011, after the Company announced its agreement
(subject to shareholder approval) to go private, an additional
shareholder action was filed in the same court, Harold Litwin v.
99 Cents Only Stores, et al., with allegations and claims similar
to those of the Actions.  Lead plaintiffs in the Actions have
filed a notice of related case in the Litwin action, calling the
court's attention to the order concerning consolidation in the
Actions.  On October 21, 2011, lead plaintiffs in the Actions
filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint, adding allegations
concerning the agreement to go private and deleting the claims for
aiding and abetting against Leonard Green & Partners L.P. and
affiliates.  The First Amended Consolidated Complaint demands an
injunction against the merger and other relief including damages
in an unspecified amount.  A status conference was scheduled in
the Actions on November 12, 2011.


99 CENTS: Feb. 27 Hearing on Summary Judgment Bid in "Reed" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing date of February 27, 2012, has been set for 99 Cents
Only Stores' and other parties' cross motions for summary judgment
or summary adjudication in the class action lawsuit filed by
Sheridan Reed, 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 1, 2011.

Plaintiff in Sheridan Reed v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, filed in April
2010 is a former store manager for the Company.  He originally
asserted claims on behalf of himself and all others allegedly
similarly situated under the California Labor Code for alleged
failure to pay overtime at the proper rate, failure to pay vested
vacation wages, failure to pay wages timely upon termination of
employment and failure to provide accurate wage statements.  Mr.
Reed also asserted a derivative claim for unfair competition under
the California Business and Professions Code.  In September 2010,
Mr. Reed amended his complaint to seek civil penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Mr. Reed seeks to represent four sub-classes: (i) all non-exempt
or hourly current or former employees who worked for the Company
in California within four years prior to the filing of the
complaint until the date of certification who were paid bonuses,
commissions or incentive wages, who worked overtime, and for whom
the bonuses, commissions or incentive wages were not included as
part of the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, (ii) all
non-exempt or hourly current or former employees who worked for
the Company in California within four years prior to the filing of
the complaint until the date of certification who earned vacation
wages and were not paid their vested vacation wages at the time of
termination; (iii) all non-exempt or hourly current or former
employees who worked for the Company in California within four
years prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of
certification who were not furnished a proper itemized wage
statement; and (iv) all non-exempt or hourly current or former
employees who worked for the Company in California within four
years prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of
certification who were not paid all wages due upon termination.
Plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory
penalties, interest, attorney's fees and costs, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief and restitution.  He also seeks to
recover civil penalties as an "aggrieved employee" under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Discovery has commenced but no class certification or trial date
has been set.  The court has set a hearing date of February 27,
2012, for the parties' cross motions for summary judgment/summary
adjudication.  The parties mediated this matter unsuccessfully on
February 7, 2011.  The Company says it cannot predict the outcome
of this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, the
Company could face as a result of such lawsuit.


99 CENTS: To Present Consolidated Class Suit Settlement Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores' settlement to resolve a consolidated class
action lawsuit pending in California will be presented to the
court for preliminary approval on November 22, 2011, according to
the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2011.

In these now consolidated actions, Phillip Kavis, Debra Major,
Barbara Maines, and Susan Jonas v. 99 Cents Only Stores, David
Gold, Jeff Gold, Howard Gold, and Eric Schiffer, Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles; and Leonard
Morales and Steven Calabro v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Plaintiffs
filed putative class action complaints against the Company in July
2010, claiming violations of California's Unfair Competition Law
(California Business & Professions Code Section 17200), False
Advertising Law (California Business & Professions Code Section
17500), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code
Section 1770), as well as intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, arising out of the
Company's September 2008 change in its pricing policy.  Plaintiffs
seek actual damages, restitution, including disgorgement of all
profits and unjust enrichment allegedly obtained by the Company,
statutory damages and civil penalties, equitable and injunctive
relief, exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and their attorney's fees and costs.

The Company filed a demurrer to all of the causes of action in
this complaint as well as a motion to strike certain portions of
it.  In response to these motions, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  The Company filed a demurrer and
motion to strike directed toward portions of the amended
complaint, and these motions were heard on April 27, 2011.  The
court has now granted these motions, and in doing so, the court
eliminated several of the plaintiffs' causes of action without
leave to amend and also struck the plaintiffs' main claims for
monetary relief.

Following this ruling, the plaintiffs and the Company reached a
proposed class action settlement, which would require the Company
to make certain postings in its stores and pay a total of $100,000
in attorneys' fees, costs and plaintiff enhancements in exchange
for a judgment extinguishing the claims relating to the revised
pricing structure by all Company customers in all states of
operation from September 8, 2008, through the date of judgment.
This settlement is subject to court approval, and the parties plan
to present the settlement to the court for preliminary approval on
November 22, 2011.

Since the execution of this settlement, the Company has received a
letter from another customer (Judy Ross) stating essentially
identical allegations under the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The Company has responded to this letter denying any
violation.

Because the pending settlement is subject to court approval and
thus not final, the Company says it cannot predict the outcome of
these lawsuits or of any action or lawsuit that may be brought
against the Company with regard to these matters.


ADOLOR CORP: Faces Six Suits Over Cubist's Proposed Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adolor Corporation is facing six purported class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed acquisition by Cubist Pharmaceuticals,
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 October 24, 2011, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Cubist) and the
Company announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement
under which Cubist will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
the Company.  The transaction is expected to be completed in the
fourth quarter of 2011.

Since the announcement of the proposed transaction with Cubist,
the Company has received notice of six purported class action
lawsuits that have been filed against the Company, its Board of
Directors, Cubist and its wholly-owned subsidiary, FRD Acquisition
Corporation, alleging breach of duties in connection with Cubist's
tender offer and the proposed merger and seeking injunctive
relief.  The Company expects additional complaints to be filed
relating to the proposed transaction.  The Company says it intends
to vigorously defend these current and any future actions.


AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Defends Seven Shareholder Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
AgFeed Industries, Inc., is defending itself against seven
shareholder class actions in Tennessee and Colorado, according to
the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 10, 2011.

Seven putative shareholder class action complaints were filed
between October 18, 2011 and November 2, 2011, against the Company
and a number of its current and former executive officers and
directors.  Five of these putative class actions were filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
and two were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.  The complaints assert claims under
Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock during the
period March 12, 2008, and September 29, 2011.  The complaints
generally allege that the Company and its officers and directors
made materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial results.  The Company intends to defend
vigorously against these claims.  At this time, the Company cannot
predict the probable outcome of these claims.

The Company has incurred, and continues to incur, significant
costs and expenses in connection with the investigation by the
special committee and the pending litigation, which has had and is
expected to continue to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, operations, financial results and financial
condition.  If the Company does not prevail in the class action
lawsuits, the Company may be required to pay a significant amount
of monetary damages, which also would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, operations, financial results
and financial condition.


AMEREN AND UNION: Faces Class Action for Ducking Municipal Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Ameren and
Union Electric underreport revenue to duck municipal taxes, two
Missouri cities say in a class action.  Winchester and Creve Coeur
say the power giants, which own their electric-transmission poles,
refuse to pay taxes on the extra money they earn by letting cable
TV companies and other telecoms attach devices to the poles.

Ameren and Union Electric claim that cities' gross receipts tax
laws apply only to their income from power distribution, not to
the extra revenue from telecom attachments.

"Plaintiffs do not know the nature and extent of other gross
receipts that defendants have unilaterally excluded from the
license tax base," the cities say.  "Plaintiffs' codes and
ordinances require defendants to file statements showing the gross
receipts derived from their business(es) in plaintiffs and, at the
same time, to pay license taxes thereon.  In practice, defendants
report a total amount of gross receipts without itemization.
Plaintiffs have reason to believe that there is underreporting
based on defendants' stated position that only customer service
rates in tariffs approved by the Missouri Public Service
Commission are subject to municipal taxation, which is incorrect
as a matter of law."

The class consists of all Missouri municipalities and political
subdivisions that tax businesses that provide electrical service.
They seek declaratory judgment that gross receipts from pole
attachments are subject to taxation, accounting, and an
injunction.

A copy of the Complaint in City of Winchester, Missouri, et al. v.
Ameren Corporation, et al., Case No. 11SL-0004561 (Mo. Cir. Ct.,
St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/17/Ameren.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Hoffman, Esq.
          Douglas R. Sprong, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844

               - and -

          Leland B. Curtis, Esq.
          Carl J. Lumley, Esq.
          CURTIS, HEINZ, GARRETT & O'KEEFE, P.C.
          130 S. Bemiston, Suite 200
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-8788
          E-mail: lcurtis@lawfirmemail.com
                  clumley@lawfirmemail.com

               - and -

          John F. Mulligan, Jr., Esq.
          101 South Hanley, Ste. 1280
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-1135

               - and -

          HOWARD PAPERNER, P.C.
          9322 Manchester Road
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 961-0097


APPLE INC: Sued Over Alleged Conspiracy With Book Publishers
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Horowitz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Apple Inc.; Hatchette Book Group, Inc.; HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc.; Macmillan Publishers, Inc.; Penguin Group (USA)
Inc.; and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-05538 (N.D.
Calif., November 16, 2011) alleges that under the Publisher
Defendants' new pricing model, known as the "Agency model", they
have restrained trade by coordinating their pricing to directly
set retail prices higher than had existed in the previously
competitive market.

The Publisher Defendants' unlawful combination and pricing
agreement would not have succeeded without the active
participation of Apple, Ms. Horowitz says.  She argues that Apple
facilitated changing the eBook pricing model and conspired with
the Publisher Defendants to do so.

Ms. Horowitz is a resident of Montclair, New Jersey.  She
purchased at least one eBook at a price above $9.99 from a
Publisher Defendant for use on her Apple iPad.

Apple is a California corporation and is a leading manufacturer of
mobile devices designed to distribute, store, and display digital
media.  Hachette Book is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and its
imprints include Little, Brown & Co. and Grand Central Publishing.
HarperCollins is a leading U.S. trade publisher and its imprints
include Ecco, Harper, Harper Perennial and William Morrow.
Macmillan is a group of leading publishing companies and its U.S.
publishers include Farrar Straus and Giroux, Henry Holt & Company,
Picador, and St. Martin's Press.  Penguin Group (USA) is the U.S.
affiliate of Penguin Group, one of the largest English-language
trade book publishers in the world.  Penguin's imprints include
Viking, Riverhead Books, Dutton and Penguin Books.  Simon &
Schuster is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and is part of CBS
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          Kelly Tucker, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyfaucher.com

               - and -

          Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
          Daniel Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: csanchez@caffertyfaucher.com


APPLE REIT: Class Action Suits Over Sale of Apple Units Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Ten Inc. continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits which stemmed from the sale of units of the Apple REIT
Companies, according to its November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.

The Company is currently engaged in three ongoing putative class
action lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers of Units of at
least one of the Apple REIT Companies during June 2011.  One of
these complaints was amended in October 2011.

On October 10, 2011, the plaintiffs in Kronberg et al. v. David
Lerner Associates Inc., et al, Case No. 2:11-cv-03558, filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, adding new parties and new claims
to the action originally filed on June 20, 2011.  The plaintiffs
are residents of New York, Connecticut, and Florida alleged to be
investors in the Company, Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT
Nine, Inc.  The new defendants are directors of these companies
and Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., and Apple
Fund Management, LLC.  The amended complaint adds claims on behalf
of subclasses of residents of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut
and Florida, in addition to the putative nationwide class, and no
longer includes purchasers of Apple REIT Six, Inc. and Apple REIT
Seven, Inc.  The amended complaint asserts new claims for breach
of fiduciary duty and for violation of the securities laws of the
states of New Jersey, Connecticut and Florida, and seeks
certification of the subclasses, monetary damages including pre-
and post-judgment interest, equitable relief and fees and costs.
In addition to the allegations contained in the original
complaint, the amended complaint alleges that David Lerner
Associates, Inc., and the directors breached a fiduciary duty to
the shareholders by failing to disclose material information about
the prior Apple REIT Companies' sources of distributions and share
valuation, that they aided and abetted one another's breaches, and
that the Apple REIT entities and directors are jointly and
severally liable for the acts of David Lerner Associates, Inc.
The amended complaint also asserts that plaintiffs are entitled to
recover under certain state securities laws.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


ARCADIA RESOURCES: Enters Into Settlement of Wage Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arcadia Health Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Arcadia Resources, Inc., has entered into a settlement of a wage-
related class action lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company was served with a complaint filed in the Marin County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Douglas et al.
vs. Arcadia Health Services, Inc., Case No. CIV 1102982 on June
20, 2011. The complaint is brought as a purported class action on
behalf of California employees of Arcadia Health Services, Inc.
("AHSI"), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. The
complaint alleges that (a) AHSI failed to properly compensate the
plaintiff and purported class members for meal period and rest
breaks under Sections 226.7 and 512 of the California Labor Code,
(b) AHSI failed to pay continuing wages under California Labor
Code Section 203, (c) AHSI failed to pay overtime compensation in
accordance with California Labor Code Section 1194, and (d) that
the foregoing allegations also constitute a violation of
California Business and Professional Code Section 17200. The
plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of claimants, one
representing claimants under the California Labor Code claims set
forth in (a) through (c) and another representing claimants under
Section 17200 under the California Business and Professional Code.
On July 18, 2011, AHSI filed an answer in the Marin County
Superior Court denying all of the allegations in the complaint. On
July 19, 2011, AHSI filed a petition to remove the case to federal
court. The Lawsuit has been removed to federal court and is now
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On November 8, 2011, AHSI entered into a Settlement Agreement and
General Release with Ruth L. Douglas individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated providing for both the settlement of the
Lawsuit.  The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval of the
District Court.  The named plaintiff has filed a motion seeking
approval of the Settlement by the District Court and a hearing on
the request for preliminary approval is scheduled for December
2011.

The Agreement provides for, among other things, the (1) dismissal
by Douglass and qualified members of the Class for asserted claims
in the Lawsuit; (2) agreement to amend the Complaint to add the
additional claims for relief of alleged damages under California
Labor Code section 226 and alleged civil penalties under
California Labor Code section 2699; and (3) a complete release of
AHSI, Arcadia Services, inc., RKDA, Inc and the Company from any
and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations,
guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, penalties, damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, or a remedy of any other type
which are based on, arise out of, or are related to the causes of
action of the Lawsuit, including but not limited to, claims made
pursuant to the California Labor Code for failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide adequate meal periods and/or rest
periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure
to pay final wages in a timely fashion; claims under California
Business and Professions Code.

The Company denies the allegations in the Lawsuit and further
contends that the action may not properly be maintained as a class
action.  The Company and AHSI have entered into the Settlement to
avoid the time, expense and the disruption of litigation and the
risk of an adverse determination.

Pursuant to the Agreement, AHSI has agreed to pay a total sum of
$623,000, which shall be funded as follows:  (1) $23,000 shall be
paid within five days of full execution of the Agreement; (2)
$150,000 shall be paid within five business days of the Effective
Date, into a to-be-established escrow interest-bearing account;
(3) $225,000 shall be paid into the interest-bearing escrow
account within 8 months of the Effective Date; and (4) $225,000
shall be paid into the interest-bearing escrow account within 14
months of the Effective Date.  Funding of the Settlement Payment
is solely the obligation of AHSI.

The Effective Date of the Settlement ("Effective Date") is the
date upon which:  (a) the Settlement is finally approved
substantially in accordance with the terms of this Settlement; and
(b) the Court's entry of Judgment and Dismissal of the Lawsuit,
substantially in accordance with the terms of this Settlement,
become final.  For purposes of defining the Effective Date, the
date upon which the Settlement and Judgment become final is the
last date of (a) final approval by the Court if there are no
objections made and no further objections can be made; (b) if
there are objections to the Settlement which are not withdrawn,
and if no appeal, review or writ is sought from the Judgment, the
day after the period for appeal has expired; or (c) if an appeal,
review or writ is sought from the Judgment, the day after the
Judgment is affirmed or the appeal, review or writ is dismissed or
denied and the Judgment is no longer subject to further judicial
review.

The Company recorded the full amount of the Settlement Payment as
a selling and administrative expense during the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.


ATRINSIC INC: Expects Mobile Messenger Dispute to End in 4th Qtr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atrinsic, Inc., expects its ongoing dispute with Mobile Messenger
in relation to some Florida class action lawsuits to end in the
fourth quarter of 2011, the Company disclosed in its November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In November, 2009, the Company reached a settlement regarding a
suit it had filed earlier that year against Mobile Messenger
Americas, Inc. and Mobile Messenger Americas Pty, Ltd. to recover
monies owed to the Company in connection with transaction activity
incurred in the ordinary and normal course of business.  The
complaint also sought declaratory relief concerning demands made
by Mobile Messenger for indemnification for amounts paid by Mobile
Messenger in late 2008 in settlement of a class action lawsuit in
Florida, Grey v. Mobile Messenger, et al.  Mobile Messenger
brought upon the Company a cross complaint, seeking injunctive
relief, indemnification for the settlement of the Florida Class
Action and other matters.  The terms of the settlement are
confidential, but in general resulted in a complete dismissal of
the entire action, including the cross-complaint, with prejudice.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, independent auditors
conducted an accounting of payments made to the Company by Mobile
Messenger.  In August 2010, the independent auditors issued their
report detailing their findings which Mobile Messenger disputed,
and as dictated by the terms of the settlement agreement, the
parties have engaged in arbitration.  Rather than continuing with
litigation, the Company and Mobile Messenger have agreed to settle
all of the disputes remaining in the litigation.  The terms of the
settlement are confidential, but in general the settlement will
conclude the litigation between Company and Mobile Messenger with
regards to the amount determined by the Auditor to be paid to the
Company and releases the Company of all obligations in this
matter.  It is anticipated that the litigation will conclude by
the end of the 4th quarter of 2011.

New York City-based Atrinsic, Inc., is a marketer of direct-to-
consumer subscription products and an Internet search-marketing
agency.  The Company sells entertainment and lifestyle
subscription products directly to consumers, which the
Company markets through the Internet.  The Company also sells
Internet marketing services to its corporate and advertising
clients.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Appeal From "Lack of Standing" Opinion Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York's opinion that an appellant lacks standing to
appeal a settlement order remains pending, according to Autobytel
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 August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Autobytel, certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers ("Autobytel Individual Defendants") and
underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering.  A
Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  This action purports to
allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act")
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  Plaintiffs
allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.  The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The action is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions
filed against other companies.  The parties in the approximately
300 coordinated cases, including the parties in the Autobytel
case, reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer
defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement
payment on behalf of the issuers, including Autobytel.

On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  The settlement approval was appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was
dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the District Court
to determine if the appellant is a class member with standing to
appeal.  The District Court ruled that appellant lacked standing
to appeal.  The appellant has filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit a notice of appeal of the
District Court's opinion that the appellant lacks standing.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
If the settlement does not survive appeal, and Autobytel is found
liable, it is possible that damages could be greater than
Autobytel's insurance coverage, and the impact on Autobytel's
financial statements could be material.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit vs. Unit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a ruling stating that appellant lacked standing to
appeal a settlement order remains pending, according to Autobytel
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 April and September 2001, eight separate purported class
actions virtually identical to the one filed against Autobytel
were filed against its unit, Autoweb.com, Inc. ("Autoweb"),
certain of Autoweb's former directors and officers ("Autoweb
Individual Defendants") and underwriters involved in Autoweb's
initial public offering.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which
is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  It
purports to allege violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants
agreed to allocate stock in Autoweb's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
Plaintiffs also allege that the prospectus for Autoweb's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The action is
being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  The parties in the
approximately 300 coordinated cases, including Autoweb's case,
reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Autoweb.

On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  The settlement approval was appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was
dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the District Court
to determine if the appellant is a class member with standing to
appeal.  The District Court ruled that appellant lacked standing
to appeal.  The appellant has filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit a notice of appeal of the
District Court's opinion that the appellant lacks standing.

Due to inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says it
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.  If
the settlement does not survive that appeal, and Autoweb is found
liable, it is possible that damages could be greater than
Autoweb's insurance coverage, and the impact on Autobytel's
financial statements could be material.


CHINA NATURAL GAS: Ordered to Respond to Class Suit by Dec. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
China Natural Gas Inc. was ordered to respond to a class action
lawsuit, styled Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas Inc., et al., by
December 12, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

Plaintiff Maxwell Vandevelde filed a putative class action against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors alleging that the defendants violated U.S. federal
securities laws.  On August 12, 2011, the Court entered an order
appointing Robert Skeway, an individual investor, as lead
plaintiff and approving his selection of lead counsel.  Lead
plaintiff and Raimundo Jo-Fung, another individual investor, who
together seek to represent a class of all purchasers and acquirers
of the Company's common stock between March 10, 2010, and
September 21, 2011, filed an amended complaint on October 11,
2011.  Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The amended complaint alleges the defendants made false or
misleading statements in the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K
for the years ended December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010, and
in various quarterly reports, by purportedly failing to disclose a
series of loans and related party transactions.  The amended
complaint also asserts claims against certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors for violations of
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Pursuant to a stipulation agreed on by the parties and order by
the Court, the Company is required to answer, move to dismiss or
otherwise respond to the amended complaint by December 12, 2011.
The Company intends to defend this case vigorously. The Company
cannot provide at this time any assurance that the outcome of this
suit will not be materially adverse to its financial condition,
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or business
prospects.


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Gift Card Redemption
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Graber, on behalf of herself, a class of all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. Cinemark Holdings,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Cinemark USA, Inc., a Texas
corporation; Century Theatres, Inc., a California corporation; and
Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. 1-11-CV-213179 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., November 15, 2011) arises from the
Defendants' failure to comply with Section 1749.5(b)(2) of the
California Civil Code.  Section 1749.5(b)(2) states, in pertinent
part, that any gift certificate with a cash value of less than $10
is redeemable in cash for its cash value.

The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the Defendants'
failures to provide cash to gift card holders wishing to redeem a
gift card with a cash value less than $10, class-wide and public-
wide declaratory, permanent injunctive and monetary relief are
proper.

Ms. Graber is a consumer residing in California.

Cinemark Holdings is a Delaware corporation, Cinemark USA is a
Texas corporation, and Century Theatres is a California
corporation.  Each of them transacts business in the state of
California, including within Santa Clara County.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff
at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melvin B. Pearlston, Esq.
          Robert B. Hancock, Esq.
          PACIFIC JUSTICE CENTER
          50 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 310-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 354-3508


CUMULUS MEDIA: Unit Awaits Court Okay of Wage Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting court approval of a
settlement revolving a wage-related class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

On January 21, 2010, a former employee of CMP Susquehanna Corp.
(CMPSC), which became a subsidiary of Cumulus Media upon
completion of the CMP Acquisition on August 1, 2011, filed a
purported class action lawsuit, pending in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division, against CMPSC claiming (i) unlawful failure to pay
required overtime wages; (ii) late pay and waiting time penalties;
(iii) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (iv)
failure to indemnify for necessary expenses and losses; and (v)
unfair trade practices under California's Unfair Competition Act.

On September 2, 2011, CMPSC and this former employee entered into
a Joint Stipulation re: Settlement and Release of Class Action
Claims with respect to such lawsuit.  The Settlement, which
remains subject to the approval of the Court, provides for the
payment by CMPSC of a maximum of $0.9 million in full and final
settlement of all of the claims made in the lawsuit.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Cumulus Media Inc. (NASDAQ: CMLS) --
http://www.cumulus.com/-- is the second largest radio broadcaster
in the United States based on station count, controlling 350 radio
stations in 68 U.S. media markets.  In combination with its
affiliate, Cumulus Media Partners, LLC, the Company believes it is
the fourth largest radio broadcast company in the United States
when based on net revenues.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Citadel Merger-Related Suit in Nevada Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nevada consolidated class action complaint relating to Cumulus
Media Inc.'s merger transaction with Citadel Broadcasting
Corporation has been dismissed, according to the Company's
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On March 9, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, Cumulus Media
Holdings Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
and Cadet Merger Corporation, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary
of the Company.

On March 14, 2011, Citadel, its board of directors and Cumulus
Media were named in a putative stockholder class action complaint
filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, by a
purported Citadel stockholder.  On March 23, 2011, these same
defendants, as well as Cumulus Holdings and Cadet Merger
Corporation, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
("Merger Sub"), were named in a second putative stockholder class
action complaint filed in the same court by another purported
Citadel stockholder.  The complaints alleged that Citadel's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger
for allegedly inadequate consideration and following an allegedly
unfair sale process.  The complaint in the first action also
alleged that Citadel's directors breached their fiduciary duties
by allegedly withholding material information relating to the
merger.  The two complaints further alleged that Citadel and
Cumulus Media aided and abetted the Citadel directors' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties, and the complaint filed in the
second action alleged, additionally, that Cumulus Holdings and
Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaints sought, among other things, a declaration
that the action could proceed as a class action, an order
enjoining the completion of the merger, rescission of the merger,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deemed just
and proper.  The complaint filed in the second action also sought
rescissory damages.  On June 23, 2011, the court consolidated the
two Nevada actions and appointed lead counsel.  On July 29, 2011,
and August 16, 2011, respectively, lead counsel filed separate
Notices of Voluntary Dismissal dismissing the plaintiffs' claims
against all defendants without prejudice, because the plaintiffs
no longer had standing to pursue claims on their own behalf or on
behalf of the putative class.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Cumulus Media Inc. (NASDAQ: CMLS) --
http://www.cumulus.com/-- is the second largest radio broadcaster
in the United States based on station count, controlling 350 radio
stations in 68 U.S. media markets.  In combination with its
affiliate, Cumulus Media Partners, LLC, the Company believes it is
the fourth largest radio broadcast company in the United States
when based on net revenues.


EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Conclusion of IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against eGain Communications Corporation,
and certain of its then officers and directors and underwriters
connected with its initial public offering of common stock.  The
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The complaints alleged generally
that the prospectus under which such securities were sold
contained false and misleading statements with respect to
discounts and excess commissions received by the underwriters as
well as allegations of "laddering" whereby underwriters required
their customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket
in exchange for an allocation of IPO shares.  The complaints
sought an unspecified amount in damages on behalf of persons who
purchased the common stock between September 23, 1999 and December
6, 2000.  Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters
and more than 300 other companies and other individuals.  The over
1,000 actions were consolidated into a single action called In re
Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig.  In 2003, the Company and the
other issuer defendants (but not the underwriter defendants)
reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as
to the Company's liability and that of its officers and directors.
The settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration
by the Company or its officers and directors and no admission of
liability.  On August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the
Court held a public hearing on the fairness of the proposed
settlement.  Meanwhile the consolidated case against the
underwriters proceeded.  In October 2004, the Court certified a
class.  On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the class
certified by the District Court could not be certified.  In re
Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006),
modified F 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007).  The Second Circuit's holding,
while directly affecting only the underwriters, raised doubt as to
whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer
settlement could be approved.  On June 25, 2007, the district
court entered a stipulated order terminating the proposed issuer
settlement.  Thereafter pretrial proceedings resumed.  In March
2009, all parties agreed on a new global settlement of the
litigation; this settlement included underwriters as well as
issuers.  Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and it would
bear no financial liability.  The Company, as well as the officer
and director defendants, who were previously dismissed from the
action pursuant to a stipulation, would receive complete
dismissals from the case.  On June 10, 2009, the Court entered an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement.  On October
5, 2009, the Court issued an order finally approving the
settlement.  Starting on or about October 23, 2009, some would-be
objectors to the certification of a settlement class (which
occurred as part of the October 5, 2009 order) petitioned the
Court for permission to appeal from the order certifying the
settlement class, and on October 29 and November 2, 2009, several
groups of objectors filed notices of appeal seeking to challenge
the Court's approval of the settlement.  On November 24, 2009, the
Court signed, and on, December 4, 2009, the Court entered final
judgment pursuant to the settlement dismissing all claims
involving the Company.  The appeals remain pending and briefing on
the appeals is set to begin in October 2010 and end in the spring
of 2011.

On October 7, 2010, lead plaintiffs and all but two of the
objectors filed a stipulation pursuant to which these objectors
withdrawing their appeals with prejudice.  The remaining two
objectors, however, are continuing to pursue their appeals and
have filed their opening briefs.  On December 8, 2010, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeals.  On March 2, 2011, one of the two
appellants, appearing pro se, filed a stipulated dismissal of his
appeal with prejudice.  On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the appeals of two of the three remaining appellants,
and directed the district court to determine whether the third and
final appellant had standing.  On August 25, 2011, the district
court determined that the final appellant lacked standing.  This
litigation will be concluded unless that determination is
successfully appealed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

If the settlement and final judgment were to be overturned on
appeal and litigation were to proceed, the Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to
defend the action vigorously.  The Company has not accrued any
liability in connection with this matter as it does not expect the
outcome of this litigation to have a material impact on its
financial condition.

Headquartered in Mountain View, California, eGain Communications
Corporation -- http://www.egain.com/-- is a provider of customer
service and contact center software and services.  eGain
Service(TM) 7, the company's software suite, available licensed or
hosted, includes integrated applications for customer email
management, live web collaboration, service fulfillment, knowledge
management, and web self-service.  These applications are built on
the eGain Service Management PlatformT, designed to be a scalable
next-generation framework that includes end-to-end service process
management, multi-channel, multi-site contact center management, a
flexible integration approach, and certified out-of-the-box
integrations with leading call center, content and business
systems.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a ruling that all objectors to the settlement in
the consolidated lawsuit involving Extreme Networks, Inc., lacked
standing to appeal 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.

Beginning on July 6, 2001, purported securities fraud class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The cases were consolidated and
the litigation is now captioned as In re Extreme Networks, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The operative
amended complaint names the Company as defendants; six of the
Company's present and former officers and/or directors, including
its former CEO; and several investment banking firms that served
as underwriters of its initial public offering and October 1999
secondary offering.  The complaint alleges liability under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not
disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain
customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  The parties to the lawsuits have reached a
settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 6, 2009.
Extreme Networks is not required to make any cash payments in the
settlement.  The Court subsequently entered a final judgment of
dismissal.  Certain objectors have appealed the judgment.
Subsequently, the District Court ruled that all objectors lacked
standing to appeal.

One of the objectors has appealed that ruling.  If the appeal is
successful, the Company says it intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time.


FREDERICK COUNTY: Gets Final Court OK of Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Maryland court entered in August 2011 final approval of a
settlement resolving a class action lawsuit over notice
requirement against Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., according to
the Company's November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On July 15, 2010, the Bank was sued in a case titled Piontek v.
Frederick County Bank that was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.  The complaint alleged non-
compliance with the ATM notice requirements of the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act.  The case was filed as a putative class
action.  Without admitting any liability and subject to the
approval of the court, the Bank entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiff which provided for the Bank to make
certain payments for the benefit of the plaintiff, plaintiff's
counsel and a proposed settlement class.  Those payments, which
did not change materially from the amount established last year,
were made and are reflected in the Company's September 30, 2011
financial statements and did not have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial statements.  The settlement
received final approval of the court on August 31, 2011, and a
final judgment was entered releasing the Bank of any further
liability in connection with the lawsuit.


GUITAR CENTER: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Antitrust Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a California antitrust lawsuit against
Guitar Center Holdings, Inc., the Company disclosed in its
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On September 11, 2009, a putative class action was filed by an
individual consumer named David Giambusso in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
complaint alleged that Guitar Center and other defendants,
including a trade association and a large musical instrument
manufacturer, exchanged sensitive information and strategies for
implementing minimum advertised pricing, attempted to restrict
retail price competition and monopolize at trade association-
organized meetings, all in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
Subsequently, numerous additional lawsuits were filed in several
federal courts (and one state court) attempting to represent
comparable classes of plaintiffs with parallel allegations.  Some
of these lawsuits have expanded the group of defendants to include
other manufacturers and others have alleged additional legal
theories under state laws.

In December 2009 and January 2010, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued several orders which had the
effect of consolidating all pending actions in federal court under
the caption In Re Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. MDL-2121 ("MDL 2121"), except one filed in
Tennessee.  A consolidated amended complaint in MDL 2121 was filed
on July 16, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.  On August 20, 2010, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The
hearing was held on November 1, 2010.  The court rendered its
opinion on August 19, 2011, granting the motion to dismiss with
leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
class action complaint on September 22, 2011.  The court has
allowed limited discovery to commence.  With regard to the
Tennessee action, the Company had previously filed a motion to
dismiss on September 3, 2010.  On February 22, 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, for which the Company filed an
additional motion to dismiss on March 24, 2011.  The parties in
the Tennessee action have agreed to cooperate with regard to a
scheduling order, accordingly there is no hearing date set for the
motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated actions are
seeking an injunction against further behavior that has been
alleged, as well as monetary damages, restitution and treble
damages in unspecified amounts.  The plaintiffs in the Tennessee
action are seeking no more than $5.0 million in compensatory
damages.  The Company is not currently able to estimate a probable
outcome or range of loss in this matter.

Guitar Center Holdings, Inc., is a holding company whose sole
asset is Guitar Center, Inc.  Guitar Center, Inc., headquartered
in Westlake Village, California, is a large musical retailer in
the United States.


GUITAR CENTER: Defends Against Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary is defending itself
against an amended class action complaint in San Francisco,
California, over improper labor practices, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On August 31, 2011, a putative class action was filed by a former
employee in San Francisco Superior Court in an action entitled
Carson Pellanda vs. Guitar Center, Inc.  The complaint alleges
that Guitar Center allegedly violated California wage and hour
laws, including failure to provide required meal periods, rest
breaks, unpaid work time, and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.  On October 4, 2011, a first amended complaint
was filed, adding new allegations, including wrongful termination.
Guitar Center has retained defense counsel and will be filing a
responsive pleading.  The first amended complaint seeks injunctive
relief as well as monetary damages in unspecified amounts.  The
Company is currently not able to estimate a probable outcome or
range of loss in this matter.

Guitar Center Holdings, Inc., is a holding company whose sole
asset is Guitar Center, Inc.  Guitar Center, Inc., headquartered
in Westlake Village, California, is a large musical retailer in
the United States.


GUITAR CENTER: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend
against a class action complaint in Los Angeles, California, over
the procurement of personal information in credit card
transactions, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011

On May 24, 2011, a putative class action was filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court in an action entitled Jason George vs. Guitar
Center, Inc., and Guitar Center Stores, Inc.  The complaint
alleges that Guitar Center violated the California Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act by requesting that its customers provide personal
identification information in connection with the use of their
credit cards.  The complaint seeks monetary damages including
statutory civil penalties in amounts of up to $1,000 per
violation.  The Company is currently not able to estimate a
probable outcome or range of loss in this matter.

Guitar Center Holdings, Inc., is a holding company whose sole
asset is Guitar Center, Inc.  Guitar Center, Inc., headquartered
in Westlake Village, California, is a large musical retailer in
the United States.


HARVARD CLUB: Accused of Not Handing Out Service Charges to Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Bertrand, Susana Cabrera, and John McCarthy, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Harvard Club of
Boston, Case No. SUCV2011-04100 (Mass. Super. Ct., November 10,
2011) is brought on behalf of wait staff employees, who have
worked for Harvard Club.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Harvard Club failed to distribute
the total proceeds of service charges and other gratuities to its
wait staff employees, in violation of the Massachusetts Tips Law.
The Plaintiffs seek restitution for themselves and all other
similarly situated employees for the improperly-withheld
gratuities, including statutory trebling of damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs, all as provided for by law.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Massachusetts, and employed by
Harvard Club in Boston.

Harvard Club is a private social club for students, associates,
faculty, and alumni of Harvard University.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  hschwab@llrlaw.com
                  bcasavant@llrlaw.com


INSWEB CORP: Court Says Objectors Have No Standing to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
A court has ruled that objectors of a class action settlement
have no standing to appeal, according to Insweb Corporation's
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, (the "Court") purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from July 22, 1999, through
December 6, 2000. The complaint named as defendants InsWeb,
certain current and former officers and directors, and three
investment banking firms that served as underwriters for InsWeb's
initial public offering in July 1999. The complaint, as
subsequently amended, alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10 and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
prospectuses incorporated in the registration statements for the
offering failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the
underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the
underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the
shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings and (ii) the
underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby
the underwriters agreed to allocated shares of the stock sold in
the offering to those customers in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional shares of InsWeb stock in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. No specific damages are
claimed. Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating
to more than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999
and 2000, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes. In October 2002, all claims against the individual
defendants were dismissed without prejudice. In February 2003, the
Court dismissed the claims in the InsWeb action alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but allowed the
plaintiffs to proceed with the remaining claims. In June 2003, the
plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a settlement proposal to
all of the issuer defendants. Under the proposed settlement, the
plaintiffs would dismiss and release all claims against
participating defendants in exchange for a contingent payment
guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for
insuring the issuers in all the related cases, and the assignment
or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer
defendants may have against the underwriters. InsWeb and most of
the other issuer defendants have accepted the settlement proposal.
While the District Court was considering final approval of the
settlement, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the class
certification of plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters in
six cases designated as focus or test cases. On December 14, 2006,
the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the
lawsuits pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the Second
Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class
certification issue. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but clarified that the
plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the
District Court. Because of the significant technical barriers
presented by the Court's decision, the parties withdrew the
proposed settlement and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Representatives of all of the parties to the IPO litigation agreed
to a revised settlement; as with the earlier settlement proposal,
the revised settlement proposal does not require InsWeb to
contribute any cash. The revised settlement was approved by the
District Court on October 5, 2009, but a number of plaintiffs
appealed the approval to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
Subsequently, the District Court determined that none of the
objectors had standing to appeal.  One of the putative objectors
has filed a notice of appeal of the determination as to him. There
is no assurance that the new settlement will be upheld on appeal.
If the settlement is not upheld, InsWeb intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously. The litigation and settlement process is
inherently uncertain and management cannot predict the outcome,
though, if unfavorable, it could have a material adverse effect on
InsWeb's financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.


INTERCLICK INC: "Bose" Suit in New York Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
interclick inc. continues to defend itself from an amended
complaint filed in New York alleging privacy violations, according
to the Company's November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On or about December 8, 2010, Sonal Bose commenced an action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Sonal Bose v. Interclick, Inc., Case No. 10 Civ. 9183-DAB
(S.D.N.Y.)) alleging that interclick engaged in certain activities
that plaintiff claims violate electronic privacy and computer use
laws.  The plaintiff asserts federal and state law claims, and
seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution,
and reimbursement of expenses and attorney's fees.  The plaintiff
also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and class action
certification.

Plaintiff also had brought a related action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
certain of the Company's advertisers, which has been voluntarily
dismissed as a separate action now that plaintiff has filed an
Amended Complaint naming the advertisers as defendants in the
action against the Company.  The Company is providing for the
defense of the advertisers.

On August 17, 2011, ruling on the Company's and the advertisers'
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint, the Court dismissed the
sole remaining federal claim alleging violation of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act  and the state law claims for breach of
implied contract and tortious interference with prejudice, and
dismissed all claims against the advertisers with prejudice.  The
only remaining claims are claims against the Company for trespass
to chattels and under New York's Consumer Protection Law (General
Business Law Section 349).

On September 16, 2011, the Company filed an Answer to the Amended
Complaint, denying plaintiff's claims.  The Company believes the
case is entirely without merit and intends to vigorously defend
its prior practices and technology.


INTERCLICK INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Yahoo
------------------------------------------------------
On November 1, 2011, interclick, inc., announced that it had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 31,
2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), with Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo"), a
Delaware corporation and Innsbruck Acquisition Corporation
("Purchaser"), a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Yahoo. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement and upon the
terms and subject to the conditions thereof, Purchaser will
commence a tender offer (the " Tender Offer) to acquire all the
issued and outstanding shares of the common stock of the Company
for $9.00 per share, net to the holder thereof in cash, without
interest and subject to applicable withholding taxes. The Merger
Agreement provides that, among other things, upon its terms and
subjects to the satisfaction or written waiver of certain
conditions, following completion of the Tender Offer, and in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, Purchaser will be merged with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), with the Company continuing as the
surviving corporation in the Merger.

On November 8, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, under
the caption Sam Elghanian, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. interclick, inc. et al., Index No.
653101/2011. The plaintiff alleges that members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, amongst other
things, agreeing to sell the Company for inadequate consideration.
The lawsuit names the Company and the members of the Board of
Directors as defendants and seeks, among other relief, an
injunction over the proposed sale of the Company to Yahoo,
according to the Company's November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2011.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Sued Over False Claims on Titanium Bracelets
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that
titanium bracelets "touted" by Major League Baseball players do
not deliver the "improved blood circulation, enhanced energy,
reduced fatigue, improved health and performance, relaxed muscles,
reduced stress and fatigue, greater range of motion" and so on
that MLB Advanced Media promises.

A copy of the Complaint in Anhalt v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.,
Case No. BER-L-9297-11 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/17/MLB.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net

               - and -

          CHRONAKIS SIACHOS, LLC
          50 Harrison Street, Suite 3
          Hoboke, NJ 07030
          Telephone: (201) 792-7777
          E-mail: phil@cslawllc.com


MEDIACOM LLC: Appeal From Order Decertifying "Ogg" Class Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal from an order decertifying the class in the lawsuit
commenced by Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg against Mediacom LLC 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.

The Company is named as a defendant in a putative class action,
captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April
2001.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company, in areas where there
was no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from
landowners to place its fiber interconnection cable
notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from
other third parties.  While the parties continue to contest
liability, there also remains a dispute as to the proper measure
of damages.  Based on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs
claim compensatory damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal
fees, prejudgment interest, potential punitive damages and other
costs could increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.
Before trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory
of $42.0 million in compensatory damages.  Notwithstanding the
verdict in the Ogg jury trial in 2009, the Company remains unable
to reasonably determine the amount of its final liability in this
lawsuit.  Prior to trial the Company's experts estimated its
liability to be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to
$2.3 million.  This estimate did not include any estimate of
damages for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive
damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.  On
March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary and
Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and punitive
damages of $35,000.  The Court did not enter a final judgment on
this verdict and, therefore, the amount of the verdict could not
at that time be judicially collected.  Although the Company
believes that the particular circumstances of each class member
may result in a different measure of damages for each member, if
the same measure of compensatory damages was used for each member,
the aggregate compensatory damages would be approximately $16.2
million plus the possibility of an award of attorneys' fees,
prejudgment interest, and punitive damages.

On April 22, 2011, the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri,
issued an opinion and order decertifying the class in this
putative class action.  A notice of appeal was filed by the
plaintiff on May 2, 2011, regarding the court's decertification of
the class and the court's refusal to award prejudgment interest on
the Gary and Janice Ogg judgment.  The Company says it will
vigorously defend this appeal as well as any claims made by the
other members of the purported class.

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

The Company believes that the amount of actual liability would not
have a significant effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations, cash flows or business.  There can be no
assurance, however, if the decision of the Circuit Court of Clay
County, Missouri, is reversed, that the actual liability
ultimately determined for all members of the class would not
exceed the Company's estimated range or any amount derived from
the verdict rendered on March 18, 2009.  The Company has tendered
the lawsuit to its insurance carrier for defense and
indemnification.  The carrier has agreed to defend the Company
under a reservation of rights, and a declaratory judgment action
is pending regarding the carrier's defense and coverage
responsibilities.

Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company wholly owned by
Mediacom Communications Corporation, is involved in the
acquisition and operation of cable systems serving smaller cities
and towns in the United States.  The Company's principal operating
subsidiaries conduct all of its consolidated operations and own
substantially all of its consolidated assets.  The Company's
operating subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities
and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to make funds
available to the Company.


MEDIACOM LLC: "Knight" Suit vs. Parent Dismissed in August
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Jim Knight v. Mediacom Communications Corp.
was dismissed and closed in August 2011, according to Mediacom
LLC'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 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled Jim Knight v. Mediacom
Communications Corp., in which the Company's parent, Mediacom
Communications Corporation ("MCC"), is named as the defendant, was
filed on March 4, 2010.  The complaint asserts that the potential
class is comprised of all persons who purchased premium cable
services from MCC and rented a cable box distributed by MCC.  The
plaintiff alleges that MCC improperly "ties" the rental of cable
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The plaintiff also
alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive relief
and unspecified damages.  MCC was served with the complaint on
April 16, 2010.  On August 8, 2011, Mr. Knight dismissed his claim
with prejudice and the case was closed.

Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company wholly owned by
Mediacom Communications Corporation, is involved in the
acquisition and operation of cable systems serving smaller cities
and towns in the United States.  The Company's principal operating
subsidiaries conduct all of its consolidated operations and own
substantially all of its consolidated assets.  The Company's
operating subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities
and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to make funds
available to the Company.


MEDIACOM LLC: Parent Paid $10.3MM in July to End Merger Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement payments totaling $10.3 million were made by Mediacom
LLC's parent in July 2011 to end the shareholder litigation
related to the parent's going private transaction, 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 November 12, 2010, the Company's parent, Mediacom
Communications Corporation ("MCC") entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among MCC, JMC
Communications LLC ("JMC") and Rocco B. Commisso, MCC's founder,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, who was also the sole member
and manager of JMC, for the purpose of taking MCC private (the
"Going Private Transaction").

During 2010, six purported class actions lawsuits were filed
against MCC, its individual directors, including Mr. Commisso, and
JMC alleging, among other things, that the defendant directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of MCC in
connection with Mr. Commisso's proposal to take MCC private.  The
plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages, and an
accounting of all damages.

The defendant directors, including Mr. Commisso, MCC, and JMC
reached agreement with the plaintiffs in all of the foregoing
actions on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in a
settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement was approved by a
Delaware court on June 6, 2011, and all litigation related to the
going private transaction has been dismissed with prejudice.
Settlement payments totaling $10.3 million were made by MCC in
July 2011, of which the Company funded $4.6 million through a
capital distribution to MCC, with the remainder being funded by
Mediacom Broadband LLC, another wholly-owned subsidiary of MCC.

Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company wholly owned by
Mediacom Communications Corporation, is involved in the
acquisition and operation of cable systems serving smaller cities
and towns in the United States.  The Company's principal operating
subsidiaries conduct all of its consolidated operations and own
substantially all of its consolidated assets.  The Company's
operating subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities
and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to make funds
available to the Company.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed in Texas, according to the Company's
November 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2011.

Two purported class action suits were filed against the Company on
Sept. 26, 2006, supposedly on behalf of all farmers who purchased
its Roundup brand herbicides in the United States for commercial
agricultural purposes since Sept. 26, 2002. Plaintiffs essentially
allege that the Company has monopolized the market for glyphosate
for commercial agricultural purposes. Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. In late
February 2007, three additional suits were filed, alleging similar
claims. All of these suits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware. On July 18, 2007, the court ruled
that any such suit had to be filed in federal or state court in
Missouri; the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
two original cases. On Aug. 8, 2007, plaintiffs in the remaining
three cases voluntarily dismissed their complaints, which have not
been re-filed. On Aug. 10, 2007, the same set of counsel filed a
parallel action in federal court in San Antonio, Texas, on behalf
of a retailer of glyphosate named Texas Grain. Plaintiffs seek to
certify a national class of all entities that purchased glyphosate
directly from the Company since August 2003. The magistrate judge
issued his recommendation to the District Court on Aug. 7, 2009,
denying class certification.  The Company believes it has
meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent its
interests vigorously in this matter.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss "Rochester" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company is awaiting court approval of its motion to
dismiss an amended class action lawsuit filed by Rochester
Laborers Pension Fund, according to the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2011.

On July 29, 2010, a purported class action suit, styled Rochester
Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co., et al., was filed against
the Company and three of its past and present executive officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The suit alleged that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements between Jan. 7,
2009, and May 27, 2010, regarding the Company's earnings guidance
for fiscal 2009 and 2010 and the anticipated future performance of
its Roundup business. On Nov. 1, 2010, the Court appointed the
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff in the
action. On Jan. 31, 2011, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and four of its past and present
executive officers in the same action. The amended complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements during the same time
period, regarding the Company's earnings guidance for fiscal 2009
and 2010 as well as the anticipated future performance of its
Roundup business and Seeds and Genomics business. Lead plaintiff
claims that these statements artificially inflated the price of
the Company's stock and that purchasers of its stock during the
relevant period were damaged when the stock price later declined.
Lead plaintiff seeks the award of unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of the alleged class, counsel fees and costs. The Company
believes it has meritorious legal positions and will continue to
represent its interests vigorously in this matter. On Apr, 1,
2011, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On
June 14, 2011, lead plaintiff has filed its opposition to the
motion, and defendants' reply thereto was filed on Aug. 12, 2011.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Sets Jan. 3 Trial Date for "Bibb" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the class action lawsuit styled Zina G. Bibb et al. v.
Monsanto et al. has been set for January 3, 2012, according to
Monsanto Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2011.

On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto,
Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the
successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged
class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and
students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed
to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro,
West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the
contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and
operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture
between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel). Akzo
Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia
was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit
seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate
value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to
test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The
complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination
and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend
Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011,
the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The
class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007. On
Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen
(now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced
Allen as class representative) case as a class action for property
damage and for medical monitoring. On Nov. 2, 2011, the court, in
response to defense motions, entered an order decertifying the
property class.  The court has set a trial date of Jan. 3, 2012,
for the Bibb medical monitoring class action.


MORGAN STANLEY: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Pay Commissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Morgan Stanley, Citigroup
Global Markets and their joint venture failed to pay full
commissions owed to their financial advisors, a class claims.

The case is Austin Park v. Morgan Stanley & Co.; Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney; and Citigroup (C.D. Calif.).


OCLARO INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 26, 2001, the first of a number of securities class
actions was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Oclaro, Inc.'s subsidiary,
New Focus, Inc., now known as Oclaro Photonics, Inc. (New Focus),
certain of the Company's officers and directors, and certain
underwriters for New Focus' initial and secondary public
offerings.  A consolidated amended class action complaint,
captioned In re New Focus, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 5822, was filed on April 20, 2002.  The
complaint generally alleges that various underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in New Focus' initial public offering and seeks unspecified
damages for claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of common stock from May 17, 2000, to December
6, 2000.

The lawsuit against New Focus is coordinated for pretrial
proceedings with a number of other pending litigations challenging
underwriter practices in over 300 cases, as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), including actions
against Bookham Technology plc, now known as Oclaro Technology Ltd
(Bookham Technology) and Avanex Corporation, now known as Oclaro
(North America), Inc. (Avanex), and certain of each entity's
respective officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters
of their public offerings.  In October 2002, the claims against
the directors and officers of New Focus, Bookham Technology and
Avanex were dismissed, without prejudice, subject to the
directors' and officers' execution of tolling agreements.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a
settlement class and granting final approval of the settlement.
Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of the
settlement share allocated to New Focus, Bookham Technology and
Avanex, and New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex will bear no
financial liability.  New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex, as
well as the officer and director defendants who were previously
dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, will
receive complete dismissals from the case.  Certain objectors have
appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  If for any reason the settlement does not
become effective, the Company believes that Bookham Technology,
New Focus and Avanex have meritorious defenses to the claims and
therefore believe that such claims will not have a material effect
on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.

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 1, 2011.


OCLARO INC: Continues to Defend "Westley" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro, Inc., continues to defend a shareholder class action
lawsuit commenced by Curtis and Charlotte Westley in California,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2011.

On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.  The Court subsequently appointed
the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund (Pension Fund) as lead
plaintiff for the putative class.  On October 27, 2011, the
Pension Fund filed an Amended Complaint, captioned as Westley v.
Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between May 6 and October
28, 2010, alleging that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements during this time period regarding the
Company's current business and financial condition, including
projections for demand for the Company's products, as well as the
Company's revenues, earnings, and gross margins, for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well as the full fiscal year.  The
complaint alleges violations of section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as
well as section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  The
complaint seeks damages and costs of an unspecified amount.
Discovery has not commenced, and no trial has been scheduled in
this action.  The Company says it intends to defend this
litigation vigorously.

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


ONVIA INC: Appellant Seeks Reconsideration With Second Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, five securities class action suits were filed against
Onvia, Inc., certain former executive officers, and the lead
underwriter of Onvia's Initial Public Offering, or IPO, Credit
Suisse First Boston, or CSFB.  The suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all persons who acquired securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000
and December 6, 2000.  In 2002, a consolidated complaint was
filed.  The complaint charged defendants with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a Registration Statement
and Prospectus that failed to disclose and contained false and
misleading statements regarding certain commissions purported to
have been received by the underwriters, and other purported
underwriter practices in connection with their allocation of
shares in the offering.  The complaint sought an undisclosed
amount of damages, as well as attorneys' fees.  This action is
being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  At the Court's request,
plaintiffs selected six "focus" cases, which do not include Onvia.
The Court indicated that its decisions in the six focus cases are
intended to provide strong guidance for the parties in the
remaining cases.

The parties in the coordinated cases, including Onvia's case,
reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Onvia.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.  Judgment was entered.
The settlement approval was appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. One appeal was remanded to the
District Court to determine if the appellant is a class member
with standing to appeal.  The District Court ruled that the
appellant is not a class member.  The appellant has appealed the
District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, Onvia cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.  If the
settlement does not survive appeal and Onvia is found liable,
Onvia is unable to estimate or predict the potential damages that
might be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than
Onvia's insurance coverage, and whether such damages would have a
material impact on its results of operations or financial
condition in any future period, according to the Company's
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals in IPO Settlement Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in a settlement resolving an IPO class action lawsuit
against OpLink Communications, Inc., remain pending, according to
the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

In November 2001, Oplink and certain of its officers and directors
were named as defendants in a class action shareholder complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs
alleged that Oplink, certain of Oplink's officers and directors
and the underwriters of Oplink's initial public offering violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that
Oplink's registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and
the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.  Similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that went public in the late 1990s and early
2000s and their IPO underwriters (collectively, the "IPO
Lawsuits").  During the summer of 2008, the parties engaged in a
formal mediation process to discuss a global resolution of the IPO
Lawsuits.  Ultimately, the parties reached an agreement to settle
all 309 cases against all defendants, and entered into a
settlement agreement in April 2009.  The settlement provides for a
$586 million recovery in total, divided among the 309 cases.
Oplink's share of the settlement is roughly $327,458, which is the
amount Oplink will be required to pay if the settlement is finally
approved.  In October 2009, the Court certified the settlement
class in each case and granted final approval to the settlement.
A number of appeals have been filed with the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals, challenging the fairness of the settlement.  A number
of shareholder plaintiffs have also filed petitions for leave to
appeal the class certification portion of Judge Scheindlin's
ruling.  These appeals and petitions are pending.

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

Incorporated in 1995, Oplink Communications --
http://www.oplink.com/-- is a provider of design, integration and
optical manufacturing solutions (OMS) for optical networking
components, modules and subsystems.  Oplink offers advanced and
cost-effective optical-electrical components and subsystem
manufacturing through its facilities in Zhuhai and Shanghai,
China.  In addition, Oplink maintains optical-centric front-end
design, application, and customer service functions at its offices
in Fremont and Woodland Hills, California and has research
facilities in Zhuhai and Wuhan, China and Hsinchu Science-Based
Industrial Park in Taiwan.


ORCHID CELLMARK: Class Suits in New Jersey Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed in New Jersey over Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings' proposed acquisition of Orchid
Cellmark Inc. remain stayed, according to the Company's
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

On April 5, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, a
Delaware corporation, and OCM Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of LabCorp, pursuant to
which LabCorp will acquire the Company in a two-step transaction.

On April 11, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery
Division, Mercer County (Docket No. C 000032 11) against the
Company, LabCorp, OCM Acquisition and individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors.  This action, captioned Bruce
Ballard v. Orchid Cellmark, et al., alleges that (i) individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors violated their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, including the
duties of loyalty, care, candor, and good faith, and failed to
maximize value for the Company's stockholders by agreeing to the
Merger Agreement, and (ii) the Company, LabCorp, and OCM
Acquisition aided and abetted the individual defendants in the
breach of their fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks (i) to
enjoin the acquisition of the Company by OCM Acquisition and
LabCorp or, in the alternative, to rescind the Merger Agreement to
the extent already implemented, (ii) an order requiring the
Company's Board of Directors and LabCorp to disclose all material
information related to the Merger Agreement, and (iii) monetary
damages in an unspecified amount.

On May 2, 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint
regarding a putative class action lawsuit that was filed on
April 19, 2011 by a single plaintiff in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division in Mercer County (Docket No. L-1083-11)
against the Company, LabCorp, OCM Acquisition, and individual
members of the Company's board of directors.  The action,
captioned Harrison Kletzel v. Orchid Cellmark Inc., et al.,
alleges that (i) individual members of the Company's board of
directors violated their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty,
and due care owed to the Company's stockholders by (a) failing to
undertake an appropriate evaluation of the Company's worth as a
merger candidate or in liquidation, (b) failing to engage in a
meaningful auction process and (c) failing to act independently,
and, (ii) LabCorp, the Company and OCM Acquisition aided and
abetted the individual defendants in the breach of their fiduciary
duties.  The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the acquisition of the
Company by OCM Acquisition and LabCorp, (ii) to enjoin the
implementation of the deal protection devices in the Merger
Agreement and deployment of the Company's poison pill, (iii) to
direct the individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary
duties to maximize stockholder value in any proposed sale of the
Company, (iv) to impose a constructive trust, in favor of the
plaintiff and members of the proposed class, upon any benefits
improperly received by defendants as a result of their wrongful
conduct, and (v) monetary damages in an unspecified amount as well
fees and costs, among other relief.

On May 4, 2011, the Company first learned that a putative class
action lawsuit was filed on April 20, 2011 by a single plaintiff
in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Chancery Division
against the Company, LabCorp, OCM Acquisition, and individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors (Docket No. L-1099-
11).  The action, captioned Betty Greenberg v. Orchid Cellmark,
Inc., et al., alleges that: (i) individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of
good faith and loyalty owed to the Company's stockholders by
failing to: (a) fully inform themselves of the Company's market
value, (b) act in the interests of equity owners and (c) maximize
stockholder value; and (ii) LabCorp and the Company aided and
abetted the individual directors' breaches of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiff seeks: (i) to have the Merger Agreement declared
unlawful and unenforceable; (ii) to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with the Merger Agreement or consummating the
transactions unless and until the Company adopts and implements a
procedure or process, such as an auction, to obtain the highest
possible price for the Company; (iii) to rescind, to the extent
already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms
thereof; and (iv) monetary damages in an unspecified amount as
well as costs, fees, disbursements, among other relief.

On May 11, 2011, the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery
Division stayed the actions filed by the three shareholders in
that court, finding that the allegations were substantially
similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the three actions filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery where a motion for preliminary
injunction was scheduled for argument on May 12, 2011.  Under
principles of comity and fairness and in order to avoid
duplicative litigation, the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery
Division ordered the three actions pending in that court be stayed
until further order of the Court.

The Company and LabCorp believe the allegations in each of the
complaints are entirely without merit, and the defendants intend
to vigorously defend each action.


ORCHID CELLMARK: Consolidated Class Suit in Delaware Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Orchid Cellmark
Inc. in the Delaware Court of Chancery is still pending, according
to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On April 5, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, a
Delaware corporation, and OCM Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of LabCorp, pursuant to
which LabCorp will acquire the Company in a two-step transaction.

On April 13, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (Case No. 6373-VCN) against the Company, LabCorp, OCM
Acquisition, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The action, styled Herbert Silverberg v. Thomas
Bologna, et al., alleges that (i) individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of
care and loyalty owed to the Company's stockholders by (a) failing
to properly value the Company, (b) failing to maximize the
Company's value, (c) agreeing to terms in the Merger Agreement and
other terms that favor LabCorp, and (d) putting LabCorp's
interests above those of the Company's stockholders; and (ii)
LabCorp and OCM Acquisition aided and abetted the individual
defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff
seeks (i) to enjoin the acquisition of the Company by OCM
Acquisition and LabCorp and the implementation of deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement and deployment of the Company's
poison pill, and (ii) monetary damages in an unspecified amount.
The Company believes the allegations described in the complaint
are entirely without merit, and the defendants intend to
vigorously defend such action.

On April 18, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (Case No. 6389-VCN) against the Company, LabCorp, OCM
Acquisition, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The action, styled Gene Nannetti v. Thomas Balogna
[sic], et al., alleges that (i) individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of
good faith, independence, and loyalty owed to the Company's
stockholders by (a) failing to maximize the Company's value, (b)
failing to properly value the Company, and (c) ignoring or not
protecting against conflicts of interest resulting from their
interrelationships or connections with the proposed sale of the
Company, and (ii) the Company, LabCorp, and OCM Acquisition aided
and abetted the individual defendants in the breach of their
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the
acquisition of the Company by OCM Acquisition and LabCorp or, in
the alternative, to rescind the sale of the Company and award
plaintiff rescissory damages, and (ii) an accounting of all
profits and any special benefits allegedly improperly received by
the defendants in an unspecified amount.

On April 29, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (Case No. 6433-VCN) against the Company, LabCorp, OCM
Acquisition, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The action, styled Bruce Locke vs. Orchid Cellmark
Inc., et al., alleges that (i) individual members of the Company's
Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of good faith,
loyalty, fair dealing, due care and candor owed to the Company's
stockholders by (a) failing to secure the best transaction
available for the Company's stockholders and (b) agreeing to
unreasonable and preclusive deal protection measures that will
deter superior offers for the Company, and (ii) LabCorp aided and
abetted the individual defendants in the breach of their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, (a) entering into the Merger
Agreement and (b) otherwise rendering substantial assistance to
the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the breaches.
The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the acquisition of the Company
by OCM Acquisition and LabCorp, (ii) rescission, to the extent
already implemented, of the acquisition of the Company by OCM
Acquisition and LabCorp, or alternatively, the awarding of
rescissory damages and appropriate compensatory damages to the
Company's stockholders, (iii) to require the individual defendants
to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders, (iv) to require the individual defendants to
disclose all material information relating to the proposed
transaction and (v) fees and costs, among other relief.

The three actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware have been consolidated into one action, captioned In re
Orchid Cellmark Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Docket Number 6373-
VCN.  On May 4, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer.

On May 12, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied the motion
for a preliminary injunction filed in the consolidated Silverberg,
Nannetti, and Locke actions finding there was no reasonable
likelihood of success on the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
fiduciary duty by the individual directors of the Company's Board
of Directors and thus no attendant likelihood of success on the
plaintiffs' claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company, LabCorp, and the OCM Acquisition.  On May 13,
2011, the plaintiffs in these actions filed a motion to appeal, on
an expedited basis, the denial of their motion for a preliminary
injunction.  On May 16, 2011, the Supreme Court of the State of
Delaware refused to allow the plaintiffs' appeal.

The Company and LabCorp believe the allegations in each of the
complaints are entirely without merit, and the defendants intend
to vigorously defend each action.


PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Feb. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing on the proposed settlement of a class action
lawsuit against PCS Edventures!.com Inc. is scheduled for
February 22, 2012, according to the Company's November 14, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

The Company, along with its former CEO and former CFO, was named
in a class action lawsuit (Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com,
Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Case
1:10-cv-00479-CWD).  The class action was brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
during the period between March 28, 2007 and August 15, 2007.  On
February 24, 2011, the Court granted the motion of Moustafa Salem
to serve as the lead plaintiff.  On June 8, 2011, the lead
plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the former CFO
without prejudice from the lawsuit, which the Court has granted.
In September, the Company announced that it had entered into an
agreement to settle the class action lawsuit, subject to further
proceedings and approval by the Court.  While the Company denies
the allegations made in the class action lawsuit, the settlement
was entered to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation.  If the settlement receives final approval the Company
and its insurance carrier are obligated to pay the sum of $665,000
in full settlement of the class action.  On October 5, 2011, the
Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement, approved the
notices that would be sent to potential class members and
scheduled the Settlement Fairness Hearing for February 22, 2012,
at which time the Court will decide whether to grant final
approval.


PRUCO LIFE: Motion to Dismiss "Phillips" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey continues to await a
court decision on a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
pending in Illinois, according to the Company's November 14, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
complaint is brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of life
insurance policies sold by Prudential for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts that earn interest and are
subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time by the
beneficiaries.  The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose
material information about the accounts, Prudential wrongfully
delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and
seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
and post-judgment interest.  In February 2011, plaintiff appealed
the dismissal.  In December 2009, an earlier purported nationwide
class action raising substantially similar allegations brought by
the same plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was dismissed.  In December 2010, a purported state-wide
class action complaint, Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc.,
was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit,
Williamson County, Illinois.  The complaint makes allegations
under Illinois law, substantially similar to the Garcia cases, on
behalf of a class of Illinois residents whose death benefits were
settled by retained assets accounts.  In January 2011, the case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  In March 2011, the complaint was amended to
drop Prudential Financial as a defendant and add Pruco Life
Insurance Company as a defendant.  The matter is now captioned
Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company.
In April 2011, a motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
filed.

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

Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey (Pruco NJ) commenced
business in 1982, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pruco Life
Insurance Company, which in turn is wholly owned by The Prudential
Insurance Company of America.  In December 2001, Prudential
converted from a mutual to a stock company, and became an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PFI).  Pruco NJ is licensed in New Jersey and New York. Corporate
headquarters are located at 213 Washington Street, Newark, NJ
07102.


PRUCO LIFE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Retained Asset Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey continues to defend
itself against a consolidated class action lawsuit over retained
asset accounts, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In July 2010, a purported nationwide class action that makes
allegations relating to retained asset accounts of beneficiaries
of a group life insurance contract owned by the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA Contract") that covers the
lives of members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces, Lucey et
al. v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The complaint challenges the use of retained asset accounts to
settle death benefit claims, asserting violations of federal and
state law, breach of contract and fraud and seeking compensatory
and treble damages and equitable relief.

In October 2010, Prudential filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In November 2010, a second purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of the same beneficiaries of the VA
Contract, Phillips v. Prudential Insurance Company of America and
Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and makes
substantially the same claims.  In November and December 2010, two
additional actions brought on behalf of the same putative class,
alleging substantially the same claims and the same relief,
Garrett v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America and
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Witt v. The Prudential Insurance
Company of America were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  In February 2011, Phillips,
Garrett and Witt were transferred to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Massachusetts by the Judicial
Panel for Multi-District Litigation and consolidated with the
Lucey matter as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America
SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation.  In March 2011, the motion to
dismiss was denied.

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

Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey (Pruco NJ) commenced
business in 1982, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pruco Life
Insurance Company, which in turn is wholly owned by The Prudential
Insurance Company of America.  In December 2001, Prudential
converted from a mutual to a stock company, and became an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PFI).  Pruco NJ is licensed in New Jersey and New York. Corporate
headquarters are located at 213 Washington Street, Newark, NJ
07102.


PRUCO LIFE: Continues to Defend "Huffman" ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey continues to defend
itself against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

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

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

Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey (Pruco NJ) commenced
business in 1982, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pruco Life
Insurance Company, which in turn is wholly owned by The Prudential
Insurance Company of America.  In December 2001, Prudential
converted from a mutual to a stock company, and became an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PFI).  Pruco NJ is licensed in New Jersey and New York. Corporate
headquarters are located at 213 Washington Street, Newark, NJ
07102.


QUEPASA CORP: "Unauthorized Text Message" Suit Bound For Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nevada court has granted Quepasa Corporation's request to
transfer a class action lawsuit to Florida, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On August 3, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michelle
Kaffko against the Company in the United States District Court of
Nevada. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unauthorized
text messages to thousands of consumers by using equipment that
had the capacity to generate random telephone number.  The
Plaintiff is seeking, for herself and on behalf of the members of
the class, $500 for each alleged violation.  The Company did not
send the unauthorized text.  The Plaintiff's claim is barred by
the state of Nevada's two-year statute of limitations.  The
Company has filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.
The Company has filed a motion to transfer the case from the
Nevada District Court to the Southern District of Florida.
The Court has granted the motion to transfer the case to Florida.
The Company says it intended to vigorously defend against the
"baseless" lawsuit.


RADIO ONE: Shareholder Appeal on No Standing Ruling Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging a district court order on the standing of a
shareholder to appeal remains pending, according to Radio One,
Inc., November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In November 2001, Radio One and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned, In re Radio One, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10160.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court against
hundreds of other public companies that conducted initial public
offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s ("the IPO
Cases").  In the complaint filed against Radio One, as amended,
the plaintiffs claimed that Radio One, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of certain of its public offerings
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act.  The plaintiffs' claim
was based on allegations that Radio One's registration statement
and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by the underwriters, and the stock
allocation practices of the underwriters.  The complaint also
contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that these omissions
constituted a deceit on investors.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

In July 2002, Radio One joined in a global motion, filed by the
Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits.  In October 2002, the court
entered an order dismissing the Company's named officers and
directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an
agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to Radio
One's officers and directors until September 30, 2003.  In
February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to
dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against Radio One
and most of the Issuers.

In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of Radio One's board
of directors approved in principle a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs.  The proposed settlement would have provided for the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the participating
Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Cases and the
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the
Issuers may have against their underwriters.  In September 2003,
in connection with the proposed settlement, Radio One's named
officers and directors extended the tolling agreement so that it
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized.  In June
2004, Radio One executed a final settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.  In 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.  On February 24, 2006, the court
dismissed litigation filed against certain underwriters in
connection with the claims to be assigned to the plaintiffs under
the settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the court held a Final
Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of
the settlement.  On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the district court's earlier decision certifying
as class actions the six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases."
Thereafter, the district court ordered a stay of all proceedings
in all of the IPO Cases pending the outcome of plaintiffs'
petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and
resolution of the class certification issue.  On April 6, 2007,
the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition, but
clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited
class in the district court.  Accordingly, the settlement was
terminated pursuant to stipulation of the parties and did not
receive final approval.

Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six "focus cases" on or
about August 14, 2007.  Radio One is not a defendant in the focus
cases.  In September 2007, Radio One's named officers and
directors again extended the tolling agreement with plaintiffs. On
or about September 27, 2007, plaintiffs moved to certify the
classes alleged in the "focus cases" and to appoint class
representatives and class counsel in those cases.  The focus cases
issuers filed motions to dismiss the claims against them in
November 2007 and an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for the
class certification in December 2007.  On March 16, 2008, the
district court denied the motions to dismiss in the focus cases.
In August 2008, the parties to the IPO Cases began mediation
toward a global settlement of the IPO Cases.  In September 2008,
Radio One's board of directors approved in principle participation
in a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs.  On October 2,
2008, the plaintiffs withdrew their class certification motion.
In April 2009, a global settlement was reached in the IPO Cases
and submitted to the district court for approval.   On June 9,
2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be published
and mailed to class members.   On September 10, 2009, the court
held a Final Fairness Hearing.  On October 6, 2009, the court
certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted final
approval of the settlement.  On or about October 23, 2009, three
shareholders filed a Petition for Permission To Appeal Class
Certification Order, challenging the court's certification of the
settlement classes.  On or about October 29, 2009, a number of
shareholders also filed direct appeals, objecting to final
approval of the settlement.  All but one of the appeals were
eventually dismissed and the appeals court thereafter remanded one
matter to the district court for a determination whether the final
shareholder was a class member with standing to appeal.  In August
2011, the district court determined that the final shareholder was
not a member of the class.  In September 2011, the shareholder
filed an appeal to the district court's determination.  If that
determination is affirmed on appeal, or if the shareholder is
found not to have standing and the settlement is thereafter
affirmed on appeal, the settlement will result in the dismissal of
all claims against the Company and its officers and directors with
prejudice, and the Company's pro rata share of the settlement fund
will be fully funded by insurance.

Radio One, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an urban-
oriented, multi-media company that primarily targets African-
American consumers.  The Company's core business is its radio
broadcasting franchise that is the largest radio broadcasting
operation that primarily targets African-American and urban
listeners.  The Company currently owns and operates 52 broadcast
stations located in 15 urban markets in the United States.


REDDY ICE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its and
other defendants' motions to dismiss a consolidated class action
complaint 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.

Beginning in 2008 a number of lawsuits, including putative class
action lawsuits, were filed against the Company, Reddy Ice
Corporation, Home City Ice Company, Arctic Glacier Income Fund,
Arctic Glacier, Inc. and Arctic Glacier International, Inc., in
various federal and state courts in multiple jurisdictions
alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and
related claims and seeking damages and injunctive relief.  One of
the state court cases filed against the Company was dismissed.
Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the other civil actions have been transferred and
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Home City
entered into a settlement agreement with the direct purchaser
plaintiffs that was approved by the Court on February 22, 2011.
On March 30, 2011, Arctic Glacier announced that it had entered
into a proposed settlement agreement with the direct purchaser
plaintiffs.  Preliminary approval of that settlement was granted
on July 20, 2011, and a final fairness hearing was held on October
28, 2011.  The Court has taken the motion for final approval under
advisement.

Discovery is ongoing regarding the claims asserted on behalf of
direct purchasers against the Company.  On March 11, 2011, the
Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part
motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser claims.  On May 25,
2011, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint asserting violations of the antitrust laws of
various states and related claims.  The Company and the other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.  Those motions were heard on October 28, 2011, and were
taken under advisement by the Court.


REDDY ICE: Discovery in Consolidated Suit in Michigan Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated shareholder class action
lawsuit pending in Michigan, according to Reddy Ice Holdings,
Inc.'s November 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Beginning on August 8, 2008, putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the Company and certain of its current or former senior
officers.  On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the actions
and appointed a lead plaintiff and interim lead plaintiff's
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on November 2, 2009.  That complaint purports to assert
claims on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock and alleges that the defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence of, and the
Company's alleged participation in, an alleged antitrust
conspiracy in the packaged ice industry.  The Company and the
other defendants have filed an answer in that case, a briefing
schedule relating to class certification has been entered, and
discovery is ongoing.


REDDY ICE: Still Awaits Approval of Suit Settlement in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 1, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim was
filed against Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada alleging violations of Part VI of the
Competition Act and seeking general damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
costs.  On March 8, 2010, a putative class action Statement of
Claim was filed against the Company in the Court of Queen's Bench
of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, in Canada, alleging
violations of Part VI of the Competition Act and seeking general
damages, special and pecuniary damages, punitive and exemplary
damages, interest and costs.

An agreement has been reached to resolve the class actions filed
in Canada against Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier, Inc.  The
agreement provides that Arctic Glacier will pay CDN $2,000,000,
all claims asserted against Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier in both
Ontario and Alberta will be dismissed, and Reddy Ice and Arctic
Glacier will be granted full and final releases with regard to
those claims.  Reddy Ice says it is not making any payment in
connection with this settlement.  The agreement is subject to the
execution of final settlement documents and court approval.

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.


SCIQUEST INC: Appeals From Suit Settlement Order Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, SciQuest, Inc., was named as a defendant in several
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York originating
from its December 1999 initial public offering.  The complaints
alleged, among other things, that the prospectus used in the
Company's initial public offering contained material misstatements
or omissions regarding the underwriters' allocation practices and
compensation and that the underwriters manipulated the aftermarket
for the Company's stock.  These complaints were consolidated along
with similar complaints filed against over 300 other issuers in
connection with their initial public offerings.  After several
years of litigation and appeals related to the sufficiency of the
pleadings and class certification, the parties agreed to a
settlement of the entire litigation, which was approved by the
Court on October 5, 2009.  Notices of appeal to the Court's order
have been filed by various appellants.  The Company says it has
not incurred significant costs to date in connection with its
defense of these claims since this litigation is covered by its
insurance policy.

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

The Company believes it has sufficient coverage under its
insurance policy to cover its obligations under the settlement
agreement. Accordingly, the Company believes the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have an impact on its
financial position and, therefore, it has not accrued a contingent
liability as of September 30, 2011 or December 31, 2010 related to
this litigation.


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skypeople Fruit Juice, Inc., disclosed in its November 14, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that it has hired
counsel to serve a motion to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit by
December 2, 2012.

On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor
child N.K.) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its individual officers and/or
directors, Yongke Xue and Xiaoqin Yan, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC,
the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering
consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  On June 20, 2011, plaintiff Benjamin
Padnos filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York against the
Company, all of its individual officers and/or directors, Yongke
Xue, Xiaoqin Yan, Norman Ko, John W. Smagula, Spring Liu, Child
Van Wagner & Bradshaw, PLLC, BDO Limited and Rodman & Renshaw,LLC,
the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering
consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  On August 30, 2011, the court consolidated the
foregoing two actions and appointed Zachary Lewy as lead
plaintiff.  On September 30, 2011, pursuant to the Court's order,
Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.  The consolidated
complaint names the Company, Rodman & Renshaw,LLC, BDO Limited,
Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC and certain of the Company's
current and former directors and majority shareholders as
defendants and alleges violations of Section 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder.  In the consolidated
complaint, the plaintiffs are seeking to be awarded, among other
things, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action.  The Company has retained a defense
counsel to represent it in the matter and intends to file a motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which is currently due to
be served on December 2, 2011.

It is unclear at this time what plaintiff damages will be, if any.
Accordingly, the estimate of loss cannot be made at this stage.


SWK HOLDINGS: Objector Appeals Non-Class Member Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
In July 2001, SWK Holdings Corporation, its underwriters, and
certain officers and directors were named as defendants in a
securities class action lawsuit. This case is one of several
hundred similar cases that have been consolidated into a single
action.  The complaint alleges misstatements and omissions
concerning underwriters' compensation in connection with the
Company's initial public offering.  In February 2003, the Court
denied a motion to dismiss that would have disposed of the claims
against the Company.  A settlement proposal, which did not admit
wrongdoing, had been approved by the Board and preliminarily
approved by the Court.  While the parties' request for court
approval of the settlement was pending, in December 2006 the Court
of Appeals reversed the District Court's finding that six focus
cases could be certified as class actions.  In April 2007, the
Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing,
but acknowledged that the District Court might certify a more
limited class.  At a June 26, 2007 status conference, the Court
terminated the proposed settlement as stipulated among the
parties.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 14,
2007.  On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the six focus cases, which was withdrawn on
October 10, 2008.  On November 13, 2007 defendants in the six
focus cases filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, which the Court denied in March 2008.  Plaintiffs,
the issuer defendants (including the Company), the underwriter
defendants, and the insurance carriers for the defendants, engaged
in mediation and settlement negotiations.  They reached a
settlement agreement, which was submitted to the District Court
for preliminary approval on April 2, 2009.  As part of this
settlement, the Company's insurance carrier agreed to assume the
Company's entire payment obligation under the terms of the
settlement.  On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement.  After
a September 10, 2009 hearing, the District Court gave final
approval to the settlement on October 5, 2009.  Several objectors
have filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeal
for the Second Circuit from the District Court's order granting
final approval of the settlement.

On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit granted the motion to dismiss
one objector's appeal for violations of the Court's rules and
remanded the other appeal to the District Court to determine
whether objector Hayes was a class member. On August 25, 2011, the
District Court issued its decision determining that Hayes was not
a class member. On September 30, 2011, objector Hayes filed a
notice of appeal from the District Court's decision. Although the
District Court has granted final approval of the settlement
agreement, there can be no guarantee that it will not be reversed
on appeal. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
to these claims. If the settlement is not implemented and the
litigation continues against the Company, the Company would
continue to defend against this action vigorously, according to
the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.


TEKELEC: Being Sold to Titan for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Tekelec, a
wireless tech company, is selling itself too cheaply to Titan
Private Holdings, for $780 million or $11 a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Meislin v. de Lange, et al., Case No.
37-2011-00101144-CU-BT-CTL (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/17/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          Michael S. Strimling, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com
                  mstrimling@bramsonplutzik.com

               - and -

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500


TIM HORTONS: Franchisees' Class Suit in Canada Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class suit brought by two franchisees against Tim
Hortons Inc. remains pending before a Canadian court, according to
the Company's November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
by two of its franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule Foods
Ltd., alleging, generally, that the Company's Always Fresh baking
system and expansion of lunch offerings have led to lower
franchisee profitability.  The claim, which seeks class action
certification on behalf of Canadian restaurant owners, asserts
damages of approximately $1.95 billion.  Those damages are claimed
based on breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, negligent misrepresentations, unjust enrichment and
price maintenance.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of the putative class in May of 2009, and the
Company filed its responding materials as well as a motion for
summary judgment in November of 2009.  The two motions are
scheduled to be heard together in August 2011.  The Company
continues to believe the claim is without merit and will not be
successful, and the Company intends to oppose the certification
motion and defend the claim vigorously.  However, there can be no
assurance that the outcome of the claim will be favourable to the
Company or that it will not have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial position or liquidity in the event that the
ultimate determinations by the Court and/or appellate court are
not in accordance with the Company's evaluation of this claim.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: Unit Reaches $35MM Deal to Settle "Larsen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UnionBanCal Corporation's primary affiliate has negotiated a
$35,000,000 settlement resolving the class action lawsuit filed by
Cynthia Larsen, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The class action captioned Cynthia Larsen v. Union Bank, N.A., was
filed on July 15, 2009.  In October 2009, the action was
transferred from the Northern District of California to the
Multidistrict Litigation action (MDL) in the Southern District of
Florida.  Omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints in many of the
suits included in the MDL, including Larsen, were denied on March
12, 2010.  Plaintiffs allege that, by posting charges to their
demand deposit accounts in order from highest to lowest amount,
the Bank charged them more overdraft fees than it would have
charged had the Bank posted items to their accounts in
chronological order.

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts common-law causes of action for
breach of contract and breach of duty of an implied duty of good
faith, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200
et seq.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, return or refund of
all improper overdraft fees, disgorgement of profits derived from
the Bank's alleged conduct, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  Plaintiffs represent a class of other Union Bank
customers who were charged overdraft charges as a result of "re-
sequencing" within the applicable statute of limitations period.
On November 2, 2011, a Notice of Settlement in the Larsen case was
filed with the court.  The proposed settlement, which will be
memorialized in a written settlement agreement and related
documents, and in which Union Bank admits no liability, is subject
to court approval.  If approved by the court, the settlement will
provide for Union Bank's payment of $35 million to create a common
fund for the benefit of the proposed settlement class of all Union
Bank customers in the U.S. who had one or more consumer accounts
and who, from July 16, 2005 through August 13, 2010, incurred an
overdraft fee as a result of Union Bank's prior practice of
sequencing debit card transactions in a customer's account from
highest to lowest amount.

UnionBanCal Corporation is a California-based, financial holding
and commercial bank holding company whose major subsidiary, Union
Bank, N.A., is a commercial bank.  Union Bank provides a wide
range of financial services to consumers, small businesses,
middle-market companies and major corporations, primarily in
California, Oregon, Washington, and Texas, as well as nationally
and internationally.


UNIVERSITY COMMONS: Violates Ill. Consumer Fraud Act, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Naughton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. University Commons Condominiums, its individual board
members, Dorothy Firak, Michael Gordon, Margaret Malone, Marshall
Slutsky, and Denise Young, in their official capacities, and
Draper & Kramer, Inc. d/b/a DK Condo, Case No. 2011-CH-39706 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., November 16, 2011) alleges that the
Defendants did not advise the Plaintiff or the putative class of
any payment allocation process they would use to apply payments
made, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

The Plaintiff says that in addition to her regular, monthly
assessment, she was billed for $100 late fee when she failed to
pay her August 2010 assessment on time.  She was also billed again
and again for an additional $100 late fee for failure to pay the
original late fee, when she refused to pay that original late fee.
The Plaintiff asserts that under the Consumer Fraud Act, it is
unlawful in connection with a transaction involving goods or
services to misrepresent any material fact or conceal or omit to
state any material fact upon which the consumer might rely in
connection with the transaction in question.

Ms. Naughton was a resident of the state of Illinois, County of
Cook, and a condominium owner and resident at University Commons
Condominiums located in Chicago, Illinois.

University Commons is a duly formed and organized Condominium
Association pursuant to applicable Illinois law.  The Individual
Defendants are board members of University Commons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aron D. Robinson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ON ARON D. ROBINSON
          19 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 857-9050
          Facsimile: (312) 857-9054

               - and -

          Anthony B. Bass, Esq.
          Gary A. Grasso, Esq.
          GRASSO BASS, P.C.
          233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2101
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 234-9100
          E-mail: ggrasso@grassolaw.com
                  abass@grassolaw.com

               - and -

          Christina Formeller, Esq.
          Matthew Formeller, Esq.
          FORMELLER & FORMELLER, LLP
          233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2101
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-1682
          Facsimile: (312) 234-9103
          E-mail: cformeller@formellerlaw.com
                  mformeller@formellerlaw.com


VERENIUM CORP: Shareholder Appeal on Status Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging a shareholder's standing to object to the
final approval of a class action settlement is pending, according
to Verenium Corporation's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In June 2004, the Company executed a formal settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in December
2002 in a U.S. federal district court.  This lawsuit is part of a
series of related lawsuits in which similar complaints were filed
by plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies that
conducted an Initial Public Offering of their common stock in 2000
and the late 1990s, or the IPO Cases.  On February 15, 2005, the
Court issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement
purposes and granting preliminary approval of the settlement
subject to modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement. On August 31, 2005, the Court reaffirmed class
certification and preliminary approval of the modified settlement.
On April 24, 2006, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement.  On
December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
lower Court's earlier decision certifying as class actions the six
IPO Cases designated as "focus cases."  The Company is not one of
the six focus cases.  Thereafter, the District Court ordered a
stay of all proceedings in all of the IPO Cases pending the
outcome of the plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit for
rehearing en banc and resolution of the class certification issue.
On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing
petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a
more limited class in the District Court. Accordingly, the
settlement as originally negotiated was terminated pursuant to
stipulation of the parties and will not be finally approved.  On
or about August 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in
the six focus cases, and thereafter moved for certification of the
classes and appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in
those cases.  The six focus case issuers filed motions to dismiss
the claims against them in November 2007 and an opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in December 2007.  The
Court denied the motions to dismiss on March 16, 2008.  On October
2, 2008, the plaintiffs withdrew their class certification motion.

On February 25, 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the
district court that a settlement of the IPO Cases had been agreed
to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties and
preliminary and final approval by the court.  On April 2, 2009,
the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement to the
court and moved for preliminary approval thereof.  On June 11,
2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the tentative
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement to be
published and mailed. The District Court held a final fairness
hearing on September 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District
Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted
final approval to the settlement.  On or about October 23, 2009,
three shareholders filed a Petition for Permission To Appeal Class
Certification Order, objecting to the District Court's final
approval order and, in particular, asserting that the District
Court's certification of the settlement classes violates the
Second Circuit's earlier class certification decisions in the IPO
Cases.  Beginning on October 29, 2009, a number of shareholders
also filed direct appeals to the second circuit, objecting to
final approval of the settlement.  All but one of the appeals were
eventually dismissed, and the second circuit thereafter remanded
to the district court for a determination whether the final
shareholder appellant is a class member with standing to appeal.
In August 2011, the district court found that the final
shareholder was not a member of the class.  In September 2011, the
shareholder filed a notice of appeal of the district court's
determination.

If that determination is affirmed on appeal, or if the shareholder
is found to have standing and the settlement is thereafter
affirmed on appeal, the settlement will result in the dismissal of
all claims against the Company and its officers and directors with
prejudice, and the Company's pro rata share of the settlement fund
will be fully funded by insurance.

The Company says it is covered by a claims-made liability
insurance policy which it believes will satisfy any potential
liability of the Company under this settlement.  Due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because the objecting
shareholders are seeking to challenge the settlement on appeal,
the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted.

Cambridge, Mass.-based Verenium Corporation (NASDAQ: VRNM) --
http://www.verenium.com/-- develops and commercializes high-
performance enzymes for use in industrial processes.  Verenium
currently sells enzymes developed using its R&D capabilities to
industrial customers globally for use in markets including
biofuels, animal health and oil seed processing.

                           *********

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  * * *