CAR_Public/111123.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 23, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 232

                             Headlines

BABCOCK & WILCOX: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit V. NFS
BITECH INC: Removes Song-Beverly Act Suit to Calif. Dist. Ct.
BP: Alabama, Louisiana Can't Recover Damages Under State Law
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Nigeria to File Class Action Over Price Fixing
CANADIAN CELLPHONE COS: Court Allows Class Action to Proceed

CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Securities Class Action Suits Remain Pending
CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq Continues to Defend "Fulghum" Suit
CHUBB CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss NJ Antitrust Suits
DIAMOND FOODS: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action in Calif.
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Violates Credit Transactions Act, Suit Claims

DONALD RUMSFELD: Military Sexual Assault Class Action Stalls
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued Over Promised Free Battlefield Copy
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in N.Y.
FRIENDFINDER: Class Action Arbitration in California Still Pending
FUEL DOCTOR: Class Action in California Still Pending

GOV'T OF CANADA: B.C. First Nation Bands to File Class Action
HANOVER INSURANCE: Continues to Defend "Durand" Suit in Kentucky
HANOVER INSURANCE: "Katrina" Suit Remains Pending in Louisiana
HEALTH NET: Continues to Defend Unaccounted-for Server Drives Suit
HURONIA REGIONAL: Plaintiff's Bid to Expedite Trial Date Granted

IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Florida
LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Antitrust Suit Stays in State Court
PENN MILLERS: Defends Suit Over ACE American Merger
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Greenwich Appeals Duty to Defend Suit Ruling
RICH DAD: Faces Class Action Over Aggressive "Sales Scam"

RTC GROUP: Sends Unsolicited Fax Advertisements, Suit Claims
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Product-related Suits
STATE OF ALABAMA: Sued for Refusing to Issue Marriage License
STATE OF TEXAS: Tyler ISD Joins Class Action Over School Funding
SUNSET JUNCTION: Ticketholders to File Class Action

TELENAV INC: Expects Ruling on $3.8MM Class Action Settlement
TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Negotiate Post-Settlement Deals
TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From Monetary Claims Settlement Pending
TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Employment Reports
TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Re Va. Public Records

TREE.COM INC: Court Grants Home Loan's Summary Judgment Motion
TREE.COM INC: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Suit in California
TREE.COM INC: "Gaines" Suit in California Still Pending
TREND MICRO: Accused of Renewing Subscriptions Without Consent
ZST DIGITAL: Files Motion to Dismiss "Scott" Class Action Suit

* Judge Bennett Praises Lawyers in Concrete Sector Class Action





                          *********

BABCOCK & WILCOX: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit V. NFS
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Babcock & Wilcox Company is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to dismiss a class action complaint over alleged releases
of radioactive materials from one of the Company's facilities, the
Company disclosed in its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In June 2011, approximately 18 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit styled
as a "class action" in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee against Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc, B&W,
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. ("B&W PGG"), Babcock
& Wilcox Technical Services Group, Inc. ("B&W TSG"), NOG-Erwin
Holdings, Inc. and others relating to the operation of the NFS
facility in Erwin, Tennessee.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
and punitive damages alleging personal injuries and property
damage resulting primarily from alleged releases of radioactive
materials as a result of operations at the facility. In October
2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the original
complaint increasing the number of plaintiffs to approximately
140, and B&W filed a motion to dismiss.  No date has been set for
the plaintiffs to respond to B&W's motion.  B&W intends to
vigorously defend this matter, which is in its initial stage.  No
discovery has been conducted and no trial date has been set.  B&W
is in the process of evaluating insurance and Price Anderson
indemnity coverage for this matter and believe that coverage for
the claims of the nature currently asserted in this matter is
available to it.  The ultimate outcome of these proceedings is
uncertain and an adverse ruling, should coverage not be available,
could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations and cash flow.

Based in Charlotte, NC, in The Babcock & Wilcox Company supplies
fossil-fueled steam generation systems, replacement nuclear steam
generators and emission control systems for power plants.  The
company also supplies nuclear material and equipment primarily for
the U.S. Navy and operates various sites for the U.S. Department
of Energy.  B&W, together with its debtor-affiliates,
filed for Chapter 11 protection on February 22, 2000, (Bankr. E.D.
La. Case No. 00-10992), and emerged from Chapter 11 on
Feb. 22, 2006.  Jan Marie Hayden, Esq., at Heller, Draper, Hayden,
Patrick & Horn, L.L.C., represented the Debtors.


BITECH INC: Removes Song-Beverly Act Suit to Calif. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Lamb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bitech, Inc., d/b/a Performance Bicycle Shop, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. CGC-11-515148 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., October 17, 2011) seeks to enjoin Performance
Bike's unlawful practice of requiring and recording private
consumer information in violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act of 1971.

The Plaintiff is a resident of California.

Performance Bike is a North Carolina corporation and conducts
business throughout the United Stales of America and California.

Performance Bike removed the lawsuit on November 17, 2011, from
the Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because the amount in controversy greatly exceeds
$5,000,000.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-
05583 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Jennifer M. Chapman, Esq.
          CHAPIN FITZGERALD SULLIVAN & BOTTINI LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 241-4810
          Facsimile: (619) 955-5318
          E-mail: fbottini@cfsblaw.com
                  jchapman@cfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          Facsimile: (312) 427-1850
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul S. Rosenlund, Esq.
          Jessica E. La Londe, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          Spear Tower
          One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
          Telephone: (415) 957-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 957-3001
          E-mail: PSRosenlund@duanemorris.com
                  JELalonde@duanemorris.com


BP: Alabama, Louisiana Can't Recover Damages Under State Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that U.S.
District Judge Carl Barbier ruled that Alabama and Louisiana may
recover damages arising from the April 2010 explosion of the
Deepwater Horizon rig, including punitive damages, under the
federal Oil Pollution Act and maritime law.  But Judge Barbier
said damages under state law cannot be applied.

Judge Barbier last week granted in part and denied in part oil
spill defendants' motions to dismiss complaints from the states of
Alabama and Louisiana.  In a separate ruling, Judge Barbier said
BP cannot use Transocean's liability insurance.

Judge Barbier, who is overseeing the massive consolidated
litigations, ruled that the states may recover damages under the
Clean Water Act (CWA).  But Judge Barbier's order sets the maximum
CWA fine as much as $1,300 less per barrel of spilled oil than was
stated as recently as April this year in oil spill litigation
documents.

Fines previously ranged between $1,100 and $4,300 per barrel for
oil spilled.  Judge Barbier's ruling sets possible fines between
$1,000 and $3,000 per barrel.

Because the Deepwater Horizon was operating on the Outer
Continental Shelf in federal waters, Judge Barbier concluded in a
previous decision related to all B1 oil spill claims that maritime
law preempted state law.

The B1 pleading bundle includes all claims for private or
"nongovernmental economic loss and property damages."  It includes
claims for economic damages filed by fishermen, seafood processors
and distributors, recreational and commercial businesses, plant
and dock workers and those who worked for BP's Vessels of
Opportunity program.

During the hearing on whether states' claims could apply,
attorneys for the states argued that state law should "fill the
gap" where federal and maritime laws do not apply.

But Judge Barbier ruled that for state law and B1 bundle claims
alike, "there were no substantive gaps for state law to fill.  . .
.  Thus, the B1 order stated that it would contravene one of
maritime law's fundamental purposes -- 'harmony and appropriate
uniform rules relating to maritime matters' -- if the defendants
in the B1 master complaint were subjected to the various laws of
each of the affected Gulf States into which oil passively flowed."

A footnote explains that it is not that state law cannot apply
here; it is that it does not apply.  The footnote states that
during oral argument attorneys for the states pointed to instances
of state law extending outside of state waters, as has sometimes
happened.  "However, as to a broader point implicated by these
cases, the court notes that the B1 order did not conclude that
state law could never apply outside state waters; rather, that
state law could not apply in this circumstance: 'Thus, to the
extent state law could apply to conduct outside state waters, in
this case it must 'yield to the needs of a uniform federal
maritime law."

In the September hearing on state law, attorneys for the states
raised a concern that without having the power to impose severe
fines, oil companies will have no incentive not to pollute state
waters.  They argued that because damages recovered under federal
law go into the federally overseen oil spill liability trust fund,
not directly to the states affected, the states might not be able
to recover adequately.

Judge Barbier disagreed with both assertions.

"As to the states' argument that without state penalties, there is
no incentive for a defendant to prevent its oil spill from
entering state waters, the court does not agree.  The CWA and its
corresponding regulations require owners or operators of vessels
and facilities to submit a plan for responding to an oil spill. .
. .  In the event of a spill, parties must immediately carry out
provisions of its response plan, as well as notify the National
Response Center.  . . . Failure to comply with the response plan
or an order from the federal removal authority triggers specific
CWA penalties.  . . . These penalties are separate from those
imposed by the CWA when there is a 'harmful' discharge, which,
given that they are based on either the days a discharge occurs or
the volume of oil released, create another incentive to stop the
source of a discharge (and thus limit the amount of oil that could
potentially flow into state waters).  . . . Failure to report a
discharge, provide assistance when requested by a responsible
official, or comply with a federal removal order will also revoke
OPA's [Oil Pollution Act] defenses and limit of liability.  . . .
Thus, while they may not specifically target state waters, federal
laws provide substantial incentives for a discharger to promptly
and efficiently stop the spread of oil and remediate its effects.
It is also worth noting that amounts paid pursuant to CWA
penalties are applied to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund,
which, in turn, are used to pay for future oil spill response
actions, fund natural resource damage assessment and restoration,
and pay uncompensated removal costs and damages claims.  . . .
Thus, CWA penalties indirectly benefit all states."

(Although not stated in the ruling, since April, the maximum fine
possible for CWA violations has shrunk in legal documents from
$4,300 a barrel maximum, which BP previously rebutted on grounds
that a different federal agency had said the maximum fine was
$4,000, to now, as cited in this order, just $3,000 per barrel
maximum fine for "willful misconduct.")

A document filed by BP in April argued that the $4,300 maximum
fine could not be imposed on the oil company, even if it were
found guilty of negligence, because a lower maximum of $4,000
already Oil Pollution Act been stated by the other federal agency.

BP's April document stated: "According to the government's
December 2010 complaint, BP and other oil spill defendants will be
subject fines of $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled."

BP said in the document that even if the government were to prove
gross negligence or willful misconduct at trial, the maximum
penalty for which BP could be held liable is $4,000 per barrel,
not $4,300, as the U.S. complaint from December 2010 had stated.

Judge Barbier's ruling said the states must present their OPA
claims to BP as the Responsible Party before proceeding in court,
but said that the states have already satisfactorily done so.

Attorneys were not immediately available for comment.

In the separate ruling on Transocean's insurance policy, Judge
Barbier ruled: "Because Transocean did not assume the oil
pollution risks pertaining to the Deepwater Horizon incident -- BP
did -- Transocean was not required to name BP as an additional
insured as to those risks. Because there is no insurance
obligation to those risks, BP is not an 'insured' (or 'additional
insured') for those risks.  Therefore, BP is not entitled to
declaration of coverage it seeks."

The first trial in the oil spill litigation will be a limitation
trial.  It is set to begin Feb. 27 in New Orleans.

A copy of the Order and Reasons in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Case
No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.), is available at:

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


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Nigeria to File Class Action Over Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nigeria's federal government is to file a class action suit
against British Airways (BA) and Virgin Atlantic Airways (VAA),
after both indicated unwillingness to pay a fine of US$235 imposed
on them by the regulatory Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA)
for alleged price-fixing on the Nigeria-UK route.

The private Punch newspaper reported on Nov. 18 that the class
action suit is aimed at compelling the airlines to pay the fine.

Following the report of an investigation panel by NCAA, which
found that the airlines engaged in price-fixing on the route
between 2004 and 2006, NCAA fined BA US$135 million and VAA US$100
million as compensation to the country and Nigerian travellers.

"The ministry is perfecting some technicalities on the Nigeria
Civil Aviation Authority's report.  We are working on the papers.
The office of the Attorney-General of the Federation will be
filing a class action suit on behalf of Nigerians against the BA
and VAA very soon.

"Government has decided that there is no going back on the matter.
The government knows they will not agree to pay just like that,"
the Punch quoted an unnamed top official of the Ministry of
Aviation as saying.

The airlines have rejected the allegation and vowed to defend
themselves, in an indication they are not willing to pay the fine.

In a statement issued on Nov. 17, BA said: "We reject the
allegations made by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority and we
are vigorously defending our position."

On his part, VAA's representative in Nigeria, Chief John Adebanjo,
told journalists here: "I don't think we have violated Nigerian
law in any way.  We hold the Director-General of NCAA and the
agency in high esteem.  We respect the laws of the land.  A full
response will be coming from our head office later."

The Nigerian government believes the airlines, especially BA, have
continued to charge Nigerian travellers along the route higher
fares.

On Nov. 15, following talks between Nigerian and British aviation
authorities, BA offered a 20% cut in fares on the route, but the
Nigerian government rejected the offer, saying it is too low.

PANA reports that a one-way, first class fare along the Lagos-
London route is US$5,408, whereas the same booking for a passenger
on the Accra-London route is US$2,399.

Also, a one-way, business class fare on the Lagos-London route is
US$3,685, compared to the US$2,049 fare on the same booking on the
Accra-London route.


CANADIAN CELLPHONE COS: Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Barb Pacholik, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a class-
action lawsuit which, if successful, could find cellphone
companies on the hook for about C$18 billion, has received the
green light by the Saskatchewan Court Appeal.

"It's an absolutely phenomenally large sum of money at stake,"
Regina lawyer Tony Merchant said on Nov. 18.  Merchant Law Group
represents the cellphone users who have launched the action.

In a unanimous ruling released last week, three judges from the
province's top court upheld a lower-court ruling that certified
the suit could proceed as a class action, rather than individual
cellphone users having to sue separately.  It stems from a suit
launched against six corporations that provide cellular or
wireless voice services operating in Canada, including Bell
Mobility Inc., Telus Mobility, Rogers Inc., Microcell, Aliant
Telecom Inc., and SaskTel.

The suit had been on hold pending the appeal court's ruling
regarding certification.  Unless the defendants pursue an appeal
to the Supreme Court of Canada, the door is now open for the
action to continue and determine if, in fact, money is owed to
cellphone users.

In their claim, the customers allege companies engaged in "unjust
enrichment" by improperly charging "system access fees" over a
period of roughly 20 years.  In the words of the judge who
certified the suit, "the central issue is the legitimacy of those
fees."  The companies maintain the fees are legitimate.

Mr. Merchant believes the outcome could have an impact beyond
cellphone contracts, adding the suit takes aim at allegedly
"deceptive" marketing practices.  For example, he likened the
situation to booking a hotel room through the Internet -- and only
upon arrival discovering additional fees to access the hotel
services.

"I think it's really a bad direction for society unless the courts
stop this," Mr. Merchant contended.  "The case is a hugely
significant case."

If the suit succeeds, he estimates an average, individual
cellphone user could be awarded about $600 to $800.

The suit was initially launched in 2004.  Certification as a class
action was at first rejected by the courts, but the class was
modified and subsequently accepted in 2007.

Eight appeals regarding the certification orders were argued in
December 2010.

Lawyers for the cellphone companies argued Court of Queen's Bench
Justice Frank Gerein had erred in concluding all the necessary
criteria was met to certify the suit as a class action in this
jurisdiction.

In a 79-page ruling authored by Justice Georgina Jackson, all of
the appeals were rejected.  Justice Jackson concluded, Justice
Gerein "committed no error in concluding that the allegations in
the statement of claim were sufficient to support a claim in
unjust enrichment."

Among the appeals, lawyers for the companies had argued there
wasn't a clearly defined class given the sheer volume of cellphone
users.  But Justice Jackson disagreed.

"The class is large, but its size must not be exaggerated.  As a
national class action, there is a potential for the class to
number 12 million, but in reality it will be much smaller," she
said, noting Justice Gerein had made certain orders that will
limit the class.  For example, non-resident plaintiffs will have
to opt into it.

Justice Jackson also agreed with the plaintiffs' position that
class size alone shouldn't matter.  "Otherwise a defendant
committing a wrong against a large number of plaintiffs escapes
liability simply because of the magnitude of the number of
potential victims," she noted.

The ruling was made unanimous by Justices William Vancise and Gene
Anne Smith.


CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Securities Class Action Suits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits against Capital Financial Holdings,
Inc., alleging various securities law or conduct violations,
remain pending, according to the Company's November 8, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company operates in a legal and regulatory environment that
exposes it to potentially significant litigation risks.  As a
result, the Company is involved in various disputes and legal
proceedings, including litigation, arbitration and regulatory
investigations, including a number of investigatory matters and
legal proceedings arising out of customer allegations related to
past commissioned sales of alternative investment products.  In
2007 through the first quarter of 2009 a substantial amount
(approximately 10% to 20%) of the Company's sales of commissioned
products were in private placements of alternative products, two
of which as of December 31, 2009 (Medical Capital Corporation and
related issuer entities and Provident Royalties, LLC and related
issuer entities) were placed in receivership by action of the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission and issuers of
certain other alternative products sold by the Company are in
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy or may have other financial difficulties.
Additionally, difficult economic conditions in general and the
stock market decline have contributed to decline in the Company's
broker-dealer subsidiary's client portfolio values.  As a result
of such alleged failings of alternative products and the
uncertainty of client recovery from the various product issuers,
the Company is subject to regulatory scrutiny and a number of
legal and/or arbitration proceedings, including two proceedings
seeking certification as class actions which name the Company as
one of a number of defendants and allege various securities law or
conduct violations, one with respect to private placements of
Medical Capital Corporation and related issuer entities for which
the broker-dealer subsidiary placed approximately $100 million of
debt securities and the other with regard to private placements of
Provident Royalties, LLC and related issuer entities for which the
broker-dealer subsidiary placed approximately $60 million of debt
securities.  The Company vigorously contests the allegations of
the various proceedings and believes that there are multiple
meritorious legal and fact based defenses in these matters.  The
cases, according to the Company, are subject to many
uncertainties, and their outcome is often difficult to predict,
including the impact on operations or on the financial statements,
particularly in the earlier stages of a case.  The Company makes
provisions for cases brought against it when, in the opinion of
management after seeking legal advice, it is probable that a
liability exists, and the amount can be reasonably estimated.  The
current proceedings are subject to uncertainties and, thus, the
Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or a range of loss
that may result; however, results in these cases that are against
the interests of the Company could have a severe negative impact
on the financial position of the Company.


CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq Continues to Defend "Fulghum" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, Inc.'s subsidiary, Embarq Corporation, continues to
defend itself against a class action lawsuit related to its
retiree benefits program, according to the Company's November 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company acquired Embarq Corporation in July 2009.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas (Civil Action No. 07-CV-2602), a group of
retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
decisions to make certain modifications in retiree benefits
programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and
prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006
and January 1, 2008.  Defendants include Embarq, certain of its
benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual
plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans.  Additional
defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans.
The Court has certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims,
but rejected class certification as to other claims. Embarq and
other defendants continue to vigorously contest these claims and
charges.  The Company believes it is premature to estimate the
impact this lawsuit could have to its results of operations or
financial condition.  In 2009, a ruling in Embarq's favor was
entered in an arbitration proceeding filed by 15 former Centel
executives, similarly challenging the benefits changes.

Headquartered in Monroe, La., CenturyLink --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest
telecommunications company in the United States.  The company
provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to
consumers and businesses across the country.  It also offers
advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)
Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands.  In addition, the company
provides data, voice and managed services to enterprise,
government and wholesale customers in local, national and select
international markets through its high-quality advanced fiber
optic network and multiple data centers.


CHUBB CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss NJ Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation continues to await rulings on its motion to
dismiss class action complaints alleging violations of insurance
antitrust laws, according to the Company's November 7, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Individual actions and purported class actions arising out of the
investigations into the payment of contingent commissions to
brokers and agents have been filed in a number of federal and
state courts.  On August 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its
subsidiaries were named in a putative class action entitled In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (N.J. District Court).  This
action, brought against several brokers and insurers on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased insurance through the broker
defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act, state law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent commission
agreements.  On September 28, 2007, the N.J. District Court
dismissed the second amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs in
its entirety.  In so doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs'
Sherman Act and RICO claims with prejudice for failure to state a
claim, and it dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims without
prejudice because it declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over them.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
their second amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit (Third Circuit).  On August 13, 2010, the Third
Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the N.J. District
Court decision and remanded the case back to the N.J. District
Court for further proceedings.  As a result of the Third Circuit's
decision, the plaintiffs' state law claims and certain of the
plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO claims were reinstated against
the Corporation.  The Corporation and the other defendants filed
on October 1, 2010 motions to dismiss the reinstated claims.
Since that time, several of the other defendants entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs, which currently are
awaiting final court approval.
In light of these settlements and their impact on the litigation,
the N.J. District Court on June 17, 2011, dismissed without
prejudice the motions to dismiss filed by the Corporation and the
other non-settling defendants.  On October 21, 2011, the
Corporation and the other non-settling defendants refiled their
motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed their statements in
opposition.  No date has yet been set for any further proceedings
with respect to these motions.

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries also have been named as
defendants in other putative class actions relating or similar to
the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that have been
filed in various state courts or in U.S. district courts between
2005 and 2007.  These actions have been subsequently removed and
ultimately transferred to the N.J. District Court for
consolidation with the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation.  These actions are currently stayed.

In the various actions described, the plaintiffs generally allege
that the defendants unlawfully used contingent commission
agreements and conspired to reduce competition in the insurance
markets.  The actions seek treble damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief and attorneys' fees. The Corporation believes
it has substantial defenses to all of the aforementioned legal
proceedings and intends to defend the actions vigorously.

The Corporation cannot predict at this time the ultimate outcome
of the aforementioned ongoing investigations and legal
proceedings, including any potential amounts that the Corporation
may be required to pay in connection with them. Nevertheless,
management believes that it is likely that the outcome will not
have a material adverse effect on the Corporation's results of
operations or financial condition.

Headquartered in Warren, N.J., The Chubb Corporation provides
property and casualty insurance for personal and commercial
customers worldwide through 8,500 independent agents and
brokers. The Company's global network includes branches and
affiliates throughout North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia
and Australia.


DIAMOND FOODS: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Diamond
Foods, Inc. on Nov. 18 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Diamond Foods
securities between December 9, 2010 and November 4, 2011.

Diamond Foods processes and distributes snack products.  On
April 5, 2011, the Company announced the proposed acquisition of
the Pringles snack business from The Procter & Gamble Company.
The Company represented to investors that the Acquisition would be
completed by December 2011.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company was underestimating the ultimate price to be
paid to walnut growers; (2) the Company was improperly accounting
for its cost of sales; (3) as a result, the Company's financial
results were overstated; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal
and financial controls; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times; and (6), as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's positive statements about Diamond Foods'
business, operations, prospects, and the timing of the
Acquisition, lacked a reasonable basis.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased Diamond Foods securities between
December 9, 2010 and November 4, 2011, you have until January 6,
2012, to move for lead plaintiff status.  To be a member of the
class you need not take action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
class member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

        Howard G. Smith, Esq.
        Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
        3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
        Bensalem, PA 19020
        Telephone: (215) 638-4847
                   (888) 638-4847
        E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
        Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Violates Credit Transactions Act, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Lipkis, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., a foreign corporation,
Domino's Pizza of Illinois, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Fisher
Pizza, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and James B. Fisher, Case
No. 2011-CH-39816 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., November 17, 2011)
seeks redress for willful and negligent violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, as amended by the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003, by the Defendants through their
disclosure of the expiration date and more than the last five
digits of the account number of the Plaintiffs' credit and debit
card, thereby increasing the risk of identity theft.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, punitive
damages, costs of litigation and attorneys' fees, all of which are
expressly available through the private attorneys general
regulatory scheme embedded in the FCRA and injunctive relief
requiring Defendants to develop practices and procedures designed
to keep them apprised of changes in consumer protection and
identity theft reduction laws.

Ms. Lipkis is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Domino's Pizza is a foreign corporation having a registered agent
and office in the County of Cook, Illinois.  Domino's of Illinois
and Fisher Pizza are Illinois corporations having their registered
office and agent in Cook County, Illinois.  Mr. Fisher is a
resident of Cook County.  Fisher Pizza is acting individually and
as an authorized agent of Domino's Pizza and Domino's of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hall Adams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HALL ADAMS, LLC
          33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 445-4900
          Facsimile: (312) 445-4901
          E-mail: hall@adamslegal.net


DONALD RUMSFELD: Military Sexual Assault Class Action Stalls
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Kime, writing for Army Times, reports that twenty-eight
current and former service members who say they were sexually
assaulted while in uniform must wait several weeks to learn
whether their class-action lawsuit, filed against former Defense
Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, will move forward.

A federal judge in Alexandria, Va., listened to arguments on
Nov. 18 from government defense lawyers, as well as plaintiffs'
attorney Susan Burke, on a motion to dismiss Cioca v. Rumsfeld,
but made no ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge Liam O'Grady said he would issue a
ruling on the motion to dismiss "as soon as we can."

Ms. Burke said she believes a ruling could come in two to three
weeks.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages from Messrs. Rumsfeld and
Gates for what they say was the failure of the Pentagon leaders to
provide the military with a judicial system that could handle
their cases.

The plaintiffs also allege the defense secretaries neglected to
implement institutional reforms mandated by Congress to prevent
rape and sexual assault in the military.

"No justice was done because of those two men's personal failure
to act as they were ordered by Congress to do," Ms. Burke argued.

Justice Department attorneys representing the government cited
Supreme Court cases involving service members who sued senior
officials for personal damages or filed suit against the
government seeking damages for service-related injuries.  In both
cases, the court ruled against the plaintiffs.

Justice attorney Marcus Meeks said the Defense Department has
taken great strides to alleviate sexual harassment and assault in
the ranks, and that Messrs. Rumsfeld and Gates, who had no
personal knowledge of the 28 cases that comprise the class, cannot
be held liable.

"There's long-standing legal precedent that prevents plaintiffs
from seeking damages based on allegations relating to leadership,"
Mr. Meeks said.

A 1950 Supreme Court case, known as the Feres doctrine,
effectively bars current or former service members from suing the
government for damages for personal injuries during their service.

But Cioca v. Rumsfeld skirts Feres by directly naming the two
former defense secretaries in alleging that the plaintiffs'
constitutional rights were violated due to their personal
inadequate oversight.

In fiscal 2010, 3,158 sexual assaults were reported to military
channels.  Of those, 2,617 cases involved victims who were service
members, according to Defense Department figures.

Based on the 2010 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active
Duty Members, officials estimate more than 19,000 incidents
occurred in 2010.

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is Jessica Kenyon, a former
Army private who said she was harassed at her first duty station
and raped by a National Guard member who was never punished.  She
said before the hearing that the class group wants to call
attention to the plight of service members forced to leave the
military for reporting crimes committed against them.

"There's no oversight or enforcement under the current policies.
I was robbed of my chance to serve my country," she said.

Judge O'Grady gave little indication on his thoughts on the case.
He asked the attorneys pointed questions about judicial precedent
and at one point grilled Ms. Burke on that topic.

"How do I get around what I believe is a clear mandate [from the
Supreme Court] to not involve the court in what clearly are
military oversight issues?" Judge O'Grady asked.

About a dozen members of the class attended the hearing, as did
lawsuit supporters Service Women's Action Network.

Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Gates was present.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued Over Promised Free Battlefield Copy
---------------------------------------------------------
VG24/7 reports that legal firm Edelson McGuire has filed a class-
action lawsuit against Electronic Arts on behalf of consumers who
were promised a free copy of Battlefield 1943 as an incentive to
purchase the PS3 version of Battlefield 3.

According to the lawsuit, the main complaint is not so much that
EA reneged on the offer, but that it did so after consumers
already purchased BF3 with the expectation of receiving BF1943.
Adding further insult to the injury, is the fact that EA announced
the deal change over Twitter instead of a more formal venue, which
resulted in many consumers missing out on the announcement.

The firm is also none-to-pleased with the replacement deal of
handing out BF3 expansions "early to PS3 customers" as pacifier,
which the firm feels does not compensate with the loss of a full
videogame.

Furthermore, the suit claims that since the BF1943 offer enticed
thousands of consumers to purchase the PS3 version over a PC or
360 copy, the firm has "misled and profited from thousands of
their customers by making a promise that they could not, and never
intended, to keep."

A spokesperson for the law firm which filed the suit, has told
Kotaku that those they represent are only after "compensatory
relief", meaning they only want their copy of Battlefield 1943 as
was originally intended.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Falconstor Software, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit in New York,
according to the Company's November 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In October 2010, two purported securities class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
Company between February 5, 2009 and September 29, 2010.  The two
Actions contained substantially similar allegations and causes of
actions.  The complaint in each of the Actions named as defendants
the Company and ReiJane Huai, as well as Wayne Lam a former
officer of the Company and James Weber the Company's Vice
President of Operations and formerly the Chief Financial Officer
of the Company.  On November 3, 2010, the Actions were
consolidated before Judge Edward R. Korman.  On August 29, 2011,
the Magistrate Judge assigned to the Action appointed a "lead
plaintiff" and "lead counsel" in the Class Action.  Objections to
the Magistrate Judge's ruling were rejected by Judge Korman on
September 23, 2011.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in
the Class Action on November 3, 2011.  The Consolidated Amended
Complaint names as defendants the Company, Mr. Huai, Mr. Huai's
estate, the executor(s) of Mr. Huai's estate and Mr. Weber.  Mr.
Lam is no longer named as a defendant.  The Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants made a series of materially
false and misleading statements related to the Company's business
and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The following adverse facts are alleged:  (i) that
FalconStor was making improper payments to a material customer;
(ii) that the defendants hid this information; (iii) that the end
of the payments resulted in a decline in revenues from the
customer; and (iv) that because of the decline in business from
this customer, the Company could not meet its earnings
projections.  The plaintiffs seek damages from the defendants.
The Company has until December 21, 2011 to answer or move to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

Key issues such as whether a class will be certified and, if so,
who the members of the class will be and what time period the
class will cover, have not yet been determined.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to some or all of the claims
of the Class Action as filed and intends to file a motion to
dismiss.  The Company is therefore unable to estimate reasonably
its exposure for the Class Action.


FRIENDFINDER: Class Action Arbitration in California Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer class action arbitration filed against Various Inc. in
California is still pending, according to FriendFinder Networks
Inc.'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 or about November 27, 2006, a claimant filed a consumer class
action arbitration at Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services,
Inc. or JAMS in San Jose, California, alleging a nationwide class
action against Various under a variety of legal theories related
to, among other things, representations regarding the number of
active users on its internet dating websites, causing the
appearance of erroneous member profiles, and a failure to
adequately remove or account for alleged erroneous member
profiles.  The claimant is seeking unspecified damages.  Various
disputes the claims and intends to defend the arbitration
vigorously.

On December 6, 2007, FriendFinder acquired Various, an operator of
social networking and interactive multimedia websites.


FUEL DOCTOR: Class Action in California Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Fuel Doctor Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is a defendant in a matter entitled Drinville, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Fuel Doctor,
LLC and DOES 1-20, Inclusive filed March 16, 2011, in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
This purported class action alleges violation of various
violations of California statutes principally related to false
advertising and consumer protection in that the company's products
are alleged not to provide the benefits claimed.  The suit seeks
class certification, unspecified damages and exemplary damages,
among other things.  The lawsuit is in an early stage and the
Company will vigorously defend the same.


GOV'T OF CANADA: B.C. First Nation Bands to File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cam Fortems, writing for Kamloops Daily News, reports that a
lawsuit undertaken by two B.C. First Nations Bands seeking
compensation for a few hundred residential school day students is
the first step in an effort to represent thousands of people
across Canada.

Chiefs from the Sechelt Indian Band (SIB) and Tk'emlups Indian
Band spoke to reporters on Nov. 18 about demands to compensate
students who attended Indian residential schools during the
daytime only.

Only those who lived in dormitories or suffered specific abuses
were eligible under claims settled in 2008 with the federal
government.  Assembly of First Nations chief Shawn Atleo was also
on hand for the announcement.

"A lot of it is the loss of our culture and language," said SIB
Chief Garry Feschuk.  "They attended the same schools [as resident
students] and went through the same abuses."

Lawyer Len Marchand Jr. said papers have not yet been filed and it
has not been determined whether the suit will be filed in B.C.
Supreme Court or Federal Court.  The Kamloops lawyer was part of
the legal team that settled the compensation agreement in 2008.

"The message is for no one to be left behind," said Mr. Atleo.

Also present was Stewart Phillip, head of the B.C. Union of Indian
Chiefs.

About 340 people in the two Bands are affected by the most recent
legal action.  It will seek compensation for loss of language and
culture.

Tk'emlups Band chief Shane Gottfriedson said the fact that only
10% of members are speakers of the Shuswap language is a legacy of
residential schools that affects all students, not just those who
lived in dormitories.

The show of leadership behind the two Bands is a sign the
Aboriginal groups are seeking more than to settle for their own
members.  Mr. Marchand said the Bands will seek to certify the
lawsuit as a class proceeding to represent others across Canada.
Potentially thousands of former students would be affected by the
outcome and any potential settlement.

"It's anticipated more people will come forward," Mr. Gottfriedson
said.

Mr. Gottfriedson advanced a motion at the Assembly of First
Nations mandating the group co-ordinate political action to seek
redress for day scholars, as they are called.

The common experience payment negotiated with Ottawa in 2008
provided C$10,000 for the first year in a residential school,
followed by C$3,000 a year thereafter.

Money was also paid for commemorative activities and a truth and
reconciliation commission.

"We'll be looking for something similar," Mr. Marchand said,
adding efforts would also be sought to fund a healing foundation
and for money to be paid to communities for other efforts.

Mr. Marchand said that deal was some 15 years in the making and
came in the wake of a number of legal precedents.

"There was a lot of political pressure until Ottawa decided the
right thing to do was to arrive at a national settlement," he
added.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Continues to Defend "Durand" Suit in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from
a class action lawsuit filed by former employee Jennifer A. Durand
in a Kentucky federal court, according to the Company's
November 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  The named
plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution
from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the
time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly
situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution
because in computing the lump sum, the Company understated the
accrued benefit in the calculation.

The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009.  In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010.  In addition to the pending claim challenging the
calculation of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint
includes: (a) a claim that the Plan failed to calculate
participants' account balances and lump sum payments properly
because interest credits were based solely upon the performance of
each participant's selection from among various hypothetical
investment options (as the Plan provided) rather than crediting
the greater of that performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b)
a claim that the 2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest
crediting for all participants from the performance of
participant's investment selections to the 30 year Treasury rate,
reduced benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for participants who had account
balances as of the amendment date by not continuing to provide
them performance-based interest crediting on those balances; and
(c) claims for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice
requirements arising from the various interest crediting and lump
sum distribution matters of which Plaintiffs complain.  The
District Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the
additional claims on statute of limitations grounds by a
Memorandum Opinion dated March 31, 2011, leaving the claims
substantially as set forth in the original March 12, 2007
complaint.  Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the District Court's decision to dismiss the additional claims.
At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the
outcome of the suit is unfavorable.  This matter is still in the
early stages of litigation.  The extent to which any of the
Plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which are
overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel, are
accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the Plan's
or the Company's potential liability.  It is not clear whether a
class will be certified or, if certified, how many former or
current Plan participants, if any, will be included.  The statute
of limitations applicable to the alleged class has not yet been
finally determined and the extent of potential liability, if any,
will depend on this final determination.  In addition, assuming
for these purposes that the Plaintiffs prevail with respect to
claims that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan were
understated, then there are numerous possible theories and other
variables upon which any revised calculation of benefits as
requested under Plaintiffs' claims could be based.  It is likely
that any adverse judgment in this case would be against the Plan.
Such a judgment would be expected to create a liability for the
Plan, with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay
benefits.  The Company's future required funding of the Plan could
also be impacted by that liability.


HANOVER INSURANCE: "Katrina" Suit Remains Pending in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit related to the State of Louisiana's "The
Road Home" program created after Hurricane Katrina remains
pending, according to The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s
November 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In August 2007, the State of Louisiana filed a putative class
action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
State of Louisiana, entitled State of Louisiana, individually and
on behalf of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,
Office of Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C.
Foti, Jr., The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana,
individually and as a class action on behalf of all recipients of
funds as well as all eligible and/or future recipients of funds
through The Road Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 07-
8970.  The complaint named as defendants over 200 foreign and
domestic insurance carriers, including the Company, and asserts a
right to benefit payments from insurers on behalf of current and
former Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or
will receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program.  The
case was thereafter removed to the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

On March 5, 2009, the court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants.  The
court dismissed all claims for bad faith and breach of fiduciary
duty and all claims for flood damages under policies with flood
exclusions or asserted under Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, but
rejected the insurers' arguments that the purported assignments
from individual claimants to the state were barred by anti-
assignment provisions in the insurers' policies.  On April 30,
2009, Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth
Circuit"), which was granted.  On July 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit
certified the anti-assignment issue to the Louisiana Supreme
Court.  On May 10, 2011, the Supreme Court of Louisiana issued a
decision holding that the anti-assignment provisions were not
violative of public policy.  The court also indicated, however,
that those provisions would only serve to bar post-loss
assignments if they clearly and unambiguously expressed that they
apply to post-loss assignments.  On June 28, 2011, the Fifth
Circuit remanded the case to the Federal District Court for
further proceedings consistent with the Louisiana's Supreme
Court's opinion.  On September 12, 2011, the State of Louisiana
filed a Motion to Remand the case to state court, which was denied
by an Order dated October 28, 2011.

At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability.  The
Company is unable to determine how many policyholders have
assigned claims under the Road Home program and, in any case, has
no basis to estimate the amount of any differences between what
the Company paid with respect to any claim and the amount that the
State of Louisiana may claim should properly have been paid under
each policy.


HEALTH NET: Continues to Defend Unaccounted-for Server Drives Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit arising from unaccounted-for server drives, 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 a defendant in three related litigation matters
pending in California state and federal courts relating to
information security issues.  On January 21, 2011, International
Business Machines Corp., which handles the Company's data center
operations, notified the Company that it could not locate several
hard disk drives that had been used in the Company's data center
located in Rancho Cordova, California.  The Company has since
determined that personal information of approximately two million
former and current Health Net members, employees and health care
providers is on the drives.  Commencing on March 14, 2011, the
Company provided written notification to the individuals whose
information is on the drives.  To help protect the personal
information of affected individuals, the Company offered them two
years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to identity
theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of credit
files services, if needed.

On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this
incident was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (the Central District of
California), and similar actions were later filed against the
Company in other federal and state courts in California.  A number
of those actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California (the Eastern
District of California), and the two remaining actions are
currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco (San Francisco County Superior Court) and the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
consolidated amended complaint in the federal action pending in
the Eastern District of California is filed on behalf of a
putative class of over 800,000 of the Company's current or former
members who received the written notification, and also names IBM
as a defendant.  It seeks to state claims for violation of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the
California Customer Records Act, and seeks statutory damages of up
to $1,000 for each class member, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and other relief.  On
August 29, 2011, the Company filed a motion, which is pending
before the court, to dismiss the consolidated complaint.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Plaintiff's Bid to Expedite Trial Date Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honourable J. Patrick Moore on Nov. 18 granted the plaintiff's
request to expedite the trial in a class action lawsuit against
the Ontario Government.  The class action arises from alleged
abuses suffered by former residents of the Huronia Regional
Centre, a government institution in Orillia, Ontario, for the
developmentally disabled.  Justice Moore has indicated that former
residents of Huronia will have their day in court beginning
September 30, 2013.

In a written endorsement, Mr. Justice Moore said that this class
action "involves unique circumstances, including that the class
includes approximately 5,000 people who were institutionalized at
the Huronia Regional Centre between 1945 and 2009, many of whom
are challenged further by advanced age.  Approximately 200 class
members per year are passing away at this point.  This is an
ongoing concern.  I am content to set a trial date [Fri] day,
recognizing the need to move this matter forward to an expeditious
determination."

Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP, representing the plaintiffs, is
pleased about the granting of this request and is optimistic that
those who suffered needlessly during their residence at the
Huronia Regional Centre will see justice.

"Setting a trial date is an important milestone in any case," said
Mr. Baert.  "Justice Moore's decision to expedite this trial is an
important indication about the importance of this case."

There are two similar class actions against the Government of
Ontario that allege negligence and breach of fiduciary duties in
the operation, control and management at former-institutions: The
Rideau Regional Centre, in Smith Falls, and the Southwestern
Regional Centre, outside Chatham.  Like Huronia, these class
actions arise from the Ontario government's alleged negligence for
allowing abuses to occur unchecked for decades, despite the fact
that the Cabinet was in possession of many reports, both official
and unofficial, which should have raised alarm bells.

The representative plaintiffs and their litigation guardians
commenced the class action in April 2009, seeking to represent all
former residents of Huronia and their families.  Koskie Minsky LLP
represents the plaintiffs in this action and the plaintiffs in the
Rideau and Southwestern class actions.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on Nov. 18 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Imperial Holdings, Inc. pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 7,
2011 initial public offering.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com

Imperial is a specialty finance company that, through its
operating subsidiaries, provides customized liquidity solutions to
owners of illiquid financial assets.  According to the Company,
Imperial provides premium financing for individual life insurance
policies and also purchases life insurance policies in the life
settlement and secondary markets for resale to investors.  In
connection with the Company's February 7, 2011 IPO, Imperial sold
approximately 17.6 million shares of common stock to the public at
a price of $10.75 per share.  The Company received net proceeds of
approximately $174.4 million from the IPO, which were to be used
to support Imperial's premium finance transactions and its
structured settlement activities.

On September 27, 2011, after the close of trading, Imperial issued
a press release announcing that it had been served with a search
warrant issued by a Magistrate Judge for the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The Company
disclosed that "it and certain of its employees, including its
chairman and chief executive officer, and its president and chief
operating officer, are under investigation in the District of New
Hampshire with respect to its life finance business."  On this
news, shares of the Company's stock declined $4.11 per share, or
65.24%, to close at $2.19 per share on September 28, 2011, on
unusually heavy trading volume.  This closing price represented a
cumulative loss of $8.56, or 79.63%, of the value of the Company's
shares at the IPO price of $10.75 per share, just months earlier.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially false
and misleading and/or omitted to state that the Company had
engaged in serious wrongdoing in connection with its life finance
business, which would expose Imperial and certain of its
employees, including its chief executive officer and its chief
operating officer, to a criminal investigation by the FBI in
conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the
District of New Hampshire.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal
requirements.  To be a member of the class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

        Michael Goldberg, Esq.
        Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
        1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
        Los Angeles, CA 90067
        Telephone: (310) 201-9150
        Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
        E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
        Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Antitrust Suit Stays in State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that an antitrust suit
brought by Illinois' Attorney General against eight manufacturers
of LCD panels is not a disguised class action and cannot be moved
from state to federal court, a federal appeals court ruled on
Nov. 18.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that even though the state
attorney general had sued on behalf of its citizens to recover
illegal profits from an alleged price-fixing scheme, the lawsuit
did not meet the technical criteria of a "class action" for the
LCD manufacturers to transfer the case to federal court.

The Illinois AG sued the companies, including LG Display Co and
Samsung Semiconductor Inc, in 2010 for allegedly inflating the
price of LCD products sold to the state and its residents.

The manufacturers tried to have the case transferred from state to
federal court on the theory that the Indiana AG has a hometown
advantage in Indiana state court.  A 2005 law known as the Class
Action Fairness Act allows defendants to move a case to federal
court when at least one class member and one defendant come from
different states and the amount at stake exceeds $5 million.

LG Display and the other companies argued that by seeking damages
on behalf of Illinois consumers, the AG was acting on behalf of an
identifiable class of purchasers. The AG responded that it was
acting on behalf of the state in attempting to enforce the
Illinois Antitrust Act.  The district court sided with the AG, and
the 7th Circuit agreed.

Michael Lazerwitz, a lawyer for LG Display, declined to comment on
the litigation.  Robert Wick, an attorney for Samsung, was not
immediately available for comment.

Natalie Bauer, a spokeswoman for the AG, said the office was
pleased with the decision and would pursue the matter in state
court now.

The 7th Circuit joins the 9th and 4th Circuits in holding that the
Class Action Fairness Act does not apply suits brought by AGs on
behalf of citizens, known as parens patriae suits.  In a case
against CVS Pharmacy and five other pharmacies, the 4th Circuit
ruled in May that a lawsuit brought by West Virginia's Attorney
General alleging violations of a state generic drug statute could
not be removed to federal court.  The 9th Circuit also reached the
same conclusion in October in a similar LCD price-fixing case.

The 5th Circuit came down the other way in a 2008 case against
Allstate Insurance Co and others for alleged violations of the
Louisiana Monopolies Act, allowing the insurance companies to
remove the case to federal court.  In that case, Louisiana had
hired outside counsel that included class action attorneys.

Russell Jackson, a lawyer at Skadden who defends companies against
class actions, described the latest opinion as "disturbing" and
"contrary to Congress' purpose in passing CAFA, which was designed
to prevent gamesmanship to remain in state court."

Mr. Jackson pointed to the Illinois Antitrust Act, which states
that "no person shall be authorized to maintain a class action . .
. for indirect purchasers asserting claims under this Act, with
the sole exception of this State's Attorney General."

"The statute calls this a class action," Mr. Jackson said, a fact
the court did not address in its opinion.

The case is LG Display Co Ltd et al v. Madigan, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 11-8017.

For LG Display Co: Michael Lazerwitz of Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton.

For Samsung Semiconductor Inc: Robert Wick of Covington & Burling.

For the Illinois Attorney General: Rachel Murphy.


PENN MILLERS: Defends Suit Over ACE American Merger
---------------------------------------------------
Penn Millers Holding Corp. is defending itself against a class
action lawsuit in connection with its proposed merger with a
subsidiary of ACE American Insurance Company, 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 September 7, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement), whereby Panther
Acquisition, a Pennsylvania corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of ACE American Insurance Company (ACE), will merge
with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of ACE (the Merger).  ACE is a Pennsylvania
domestic stock property and casualty insurance company and a
wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of ACE Limited, a Zurich based
insurance and reinsurance organization.  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, each outstanding share of Company common stock will be
canceled and converted into the right to receive $20.50 per share
in cash (without interest and less any applicable withholding
taxes).  The Merger Agreement was unanimously approved by the
board of directors of the Company.  The adoption of the Merger
Agreement requires the affirmative vote of the holders of not less
than a majority of the votes cast by shareholders of the Company
entitled to vote on the proposal at a special meeting to be held
on November 29, 2011.

On October 26, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Merger was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County on behalf of a proposed class of shareholders of the
Company, by one of the shareholders who made demand on the Company
without waiting for the Company's reply to that demand.  The
complaint is a derivative action, on behalf of the Company, and a
shareholder class action and names as defendants the members of
Penn Millers Holding Corporation's board of directors, as well as
ACE American Insurance Company.  The complaint generally alleges,
among other things, that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger Agreement because of
a conflict of interest and through an inadequate process, failed
to disclose adequately all material information relating to the
proposed Merger, and intentionally interfered with contractual
voting rights by failing to provide adequate disclosure.  The
lawsuit challenges the Merger and seeks various forms of relief,
including injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the
Merger from being consummated in accordance with the Merger
Agreement.

On November 4, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order, seeking to enjoin the meeting of the
shareholders at which the shareholders are to vote upon the
Merger.  At a hearing held on November 7, 2011, the Court declined
to grant the temporary restraining order.  Instead, pursuant to
Pennsylvania law, the Court permitted limited and expedited
discovery focused upon the special litigation committee's process.

On November 8, 2011, the special litigation committee issued its
report (1) concluding that a suit by the Company against the ten
directors is not in the best interests of the Company or its
shareholders and that there is no basis to assert the claims set
forth in the Demand Letter, (2) rejecting the demand made by the
plaintiff, and (3) concluding that there is no basis for the suit
filed by the plaintiff and the Company should seek dismissal of
the Complaint filed by the plaintiff.  Consistent with the special
litigation committee report, the Company believes that the claims
made in the letter and the allegations in the lawsuit are without
merit and intends to contest them vigorously.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Greenwich Appeals Duty to Defend Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greenwich Insurance Company, Prosper Marketplace, Inc.'s insurance
carrier, has filed an appeal from a court decision finding that
Greenwich has a duty to defend a class action lawsuit against
Prosper, according to Prosper's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs, Christian Hellum, William
Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company, certain of its executive officers and its
directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California.  The suit was brought on behalf of all loan
note purchasers in the Company's online lending platform from
January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges
that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and unregistered
securities in violation of the California and federal securities
laws.  The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages and the
right of rescission against Prosper and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against Prosper and the
award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest.

Some of the individual defendants filed a demurrer to the First
Amended Complaint, which was heard on June 11, 2009 and sustained
by the court with leave to amend until July 10, 2009.  The
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2009, to
which the same individual defendants demurred.  On September 15,
2009, this demurrer was sustained by the court without leave to
amend.  On February 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint, which removed David Booth as a plaintiff and added
Brian Russom and Michael Del Greco as plaintiffs.  The new
plaintiffs are representing the same putative class and
prosecuting the same claims as the previously named plaintiffs. On
April 29, 2011, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's decision sustaining the individual defendants' demurrer to
the Second Amended Complaint. On June 9, 2011, the individual
defendants filed a petition before the California Supreme Court
seeking review of the Court of Appeal's opinion.

Prosper's insurance carrier with respect to the class action
lawsuit, Greenwich Insurance Company has denied coverage.  On
August 21, 2009, Prosper filed suit against Greenwich in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Prosper is entitled to
coverage under its policy with Greenwich for losses arising out of
the class action lawsuit as well as damages and the award of
attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On January 26, 2011, the court issued a final statement of
decision finding that Greenwich has a duty to defend the class
action lawsuit, and requiring that Greenwich pay Prosper's past
and future defense costs in the class action suit up to $2
million.  As of June 30, 2011, Greenwich made payments to Prosper
in the amount of $1,896,844 to reimburse Prosper for the defense
costs it had already incurred in the class action suit.  Greenwich
is required to reimburse Prosper for up to an additional $103,156
in defense costs for the class action suit going forward.  Each
such reimbursement will be due within 30 days of Prosper incurring
any such costs and presenting the applicable invoice to Greenwich.
Greenwich is also required to pay Prosper pre-judgment interest on
the defense costs incurred by Prosper in the class action suit
prior to the Court's decision.  The amount of this pre-judgment
interest is $142,584.

On July 1, 2011, Prosper and Greenwich entered into a Stipulated
Order of Judgment pursuant to which Prosper agreed to dismiss its
remaining claims against Greenwich.  On August 12, 2011, Greenwich
filed a notice of appeal of the court's decision regarding
Greenwich's duty to defend up to $2 million.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the class action lawsuit.
It cannot, however, presently determine or estimate the final
outcome of the lawsuit, and there can be no assurance that it will
be finally resolved in its favor.  If the class action lawsuit is
not resolved in its favor, the Company might be obliged to pay
damages, and might be subject to such equitable relief as a court
may determine.


RICH DAD: Faces Class Action Over Aggressive "Sales Scam"
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims Rich Dad Education and its affiliates use their
"free classes" and $199 seminars about financial success as a
come-on in a high-pressure "sales scam" to sell worthless courses
for tens of thousands of dollars.

Named plaintiff Robert Crewe says Rich Dad's "sales scam is built
on a misleading three-tiered sales pitch where customers are sold
increasingly expensive financial training programs using pressures
tactics and false promises."

Mr. Crewe says he paid $199 to attend a "Rich Dad Education Stock
Success 3-day Training program, which was supposed to provide
training and education in trading stocks."

But he says, "Defendants did not provide any training or education
at the workshop.  Instead, the sole purpose of the workshop was to
up-sell 'students' into additional useless but more-expensive
coursework and monitoring, which costs up to $64,899 per
enrollee."

Also sued are Cashflow Technologies, Tigrent Learning and two
entities, two Rich Dad affiliates, and Robert Kiyosaki, who lives
in or around Phoenix and allegedly "approved, authorized, either
expressly or tacitly directed, ratified and/or participated in the
acts complained of herein".

Mr. Crewe says the defendants advertise their 3-day program as
"'designed to help you effectively pursue the many wealth-building
opportunities provided by the stock and options market.  You now
have the entire Rich Dad education team to share their knowledge
and experience in the markets with you.  . . .

"Your 3-Day Training is comprehensive.  It will cover everything
from thinking like the rich to developing a personal plan and
executing on that plan."

But Mr. Crewe says, "Rich Dad Education workshops and training do
not provide attendees with any financial education that leads to
financial success or independence.  Rather, they comprise an
aggressive sales scam where attendees are encouraged to spend up
to tens of thousands of dollars and encumber themselves with
crippling debt to buy useless courses.

"Defendants' sales scam is built on a misleading three-tiered
sales pitch where customers are sold increasingly expensive
training programs using pressure tactics and false promises
concerning the programs' ability to produce financial results for
trainees.  Initially, customers are lured to attend one of two
free workshops that are advertised as providing a financial
education to attendees in a specific area of investing.  However,
the workshops do not provide any financial education, and their
whole purpose is to sell attendees the paid 3-day training
programs that are associated with those free classes.  In turn,
the purpose of the paid 3-day training programs is not to provide
financial education and skills training as promised, but to sell
attendees on additional 'advanced' training courses and personal
mentoring.  This is the laddered sales pitch, or up-sell, that
forms the core of defendants' business.

"In large part, the up-sell is executed by defendants' training
instructors who hold themselves out as experts in their investment
field but have no discernible investing expertise or successful
track record."

The defendants are Rich Dad Education LLC, Rich Global LLC, Rich
Dad Operating Co. LLC, Cashflow Technologies Inc., Tigrent Inc,
Tigrent Learning Inc., Tigrent Brands Inc., and Robert Kiyosaki.

Mr. Crewe seeks costs and damages for breach of contract, breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trading Practices Act, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6535
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113


RTC GROUP: Sends Unsolicited Fax Advertisements, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Addison Automatic, Inc., individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. The RTC Group, Inc., John
Reardon and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2011-CH-38952 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., November 9, 2011) challenges the Defendants' practice
of sending unsolicited facsimiles to advertise their goods and
services.

The Plaintiff argues that unsolicited faxes damage their
recipients and waste the recipient's valuable time that would have
been spent on something else.

Addison is an Illinois corporation.

RTC Group is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in San Clemente, California.  Mr. Reardon is an officer,
director, shareholder and control person of RTC Group.  The Doe
Defendants will be identified in discovery but are not presently
known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Product-related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits related to its strap tie holdown products,
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.

Four lawsuits have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii
First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 ("Case 1"); Ke Noho
Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and
Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM ("Case
2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06
VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 ("Case
4").  Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Cases 2 and 3 were
originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Case 4 was filed on August 19,
2009.  The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage.  Case 1 is a class action
brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses.
Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc.,
Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case
No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed
with a new representative plaintiff.  Case 2 is an action by the
builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the Company,
claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are
defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to
provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility
to corrosion in certain environments.  Case 3 is a subrogation
action brought by the insurance company for the builders and
developers against the Company claiming the insurance company
expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the
Company's products.  Case 4 is a putative class action brought,
like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.
In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc. ("Haseko"), the developer of the
Ocean Pointe development, has brought a third party complaint
against the Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may
be liable are actually the fault of the Company.  None of the
Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought, although each
of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive
damages.  The Company is currently investigating the facts
underlying the claims asserted in the Cases, including, among
other things, the cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of
any problems shown to exist; the buildings affected; the
responsibility of the general contractor, various subcontractors
and other construction professionals for the alleged damages; the
amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if
needed.  At this time, the likelihood that the Company will be
found liable for any property damage allegedly suffered and the
extent of the liability, if any, are unknown.  Management believes
the Cases may not be resolved for an extended period.  The Company
intends to defend itself vigorously in connection with the Cases.

Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Company
believes that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may
be covered by its insurance policies. On April 19, 2011, an action
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v.
Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 11-00254
ACK. In this action, Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("National Union"), which
issued certain Commercial General Liability insurance policies to
the Company, seeks declaratory relief in the Cases with respect to
its obligations to defend or indemnify the Company, Simpson
Strong-Tie Company Inc., and a vendor of the Company's strap tie
holdown products. The Company has moved to dismiss or stay, or
transfer, National Union's action.  If the National Union action
is not dismissed, the Company intends vigorously to defend all
claims advanced by National Union and to assert all of its own
claims against National Union.

Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd; Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.;
and Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Civil no. 11-1-1522-07, was
filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on
July 20, 2011.  The case alleges premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products in a housing development at
Ewa Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii.  The case is a putative class
action brought by owners of allegedly affected homes.  The
Complaint alleges that the Company's strap products and mudsill
anchors are insufficiently corrosion resistant and/or fail to
comply with Honolulu's building code.  The Company is currently
investigating the claims asserted in the complaint, including,
among other things: the existence and extent of the alleged
corrosion, if any; the building code provisions alleged to be
applicable and, if applicable, whether the products complied; the
buildings affected; the responsibility of the general contractor,
various subcontractors and other construction professionals for
the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and
the costs of repair, if any are needed.  At this time, the
likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any damage
allegedly suffered and the extent of that liability, if any, are
unknown.  The Company has not yet been formally served with the
Complaint, but denies any liability of any kind and intends to
defend itself vigorously in this case.


STATE OF ALABAMA: Sued for Refusing to Issue Marriage License
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, a
U.S. citizen says Alabama unconstitutionally refuses to issue her
a license to marry her fiance, a Haitian who has been supporting
her and her daughter, because he does not have a Social Security
number or other proof of citizenship.

A copy of the Complaint in Loder, et al. v. McKinney, Case No. 11-
cv-00979 (M.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/18/Marriage.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary Bauer, Esq.
          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Ave.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334)956-8200
          E-mail: mary.bauer@splcenter.org
                  samuel.brooke@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Daniel Werner, Esq.
          James Knoepp, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          233 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2150
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 521-6700
          E-mail: daniel.werner@splcenter.org
                  jim.knoepp@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Freddy Rubio, Esq.
          RUBIO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          438 Carr Avenue, Suite I
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 443-7858
          E-mail: frubio@rubiofirm.com


STATE OF TEXAS: Tyler ISD Joins Class Action Over School Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Underwood, writing for KETK News, reports that Tyler ISD
voted to join a class-action lawsuit against the state of Texas
during their regularly scheduled school board meeting on Nov. 17.

School officials tell KETK, the vote was unanimous, 6-0, with one
member not present.

Tyler now joins several East Texas school districts, and hundreds
of others from across the state, that are a part of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is a challenge to the Texas funding system for public
schools.  Supporters of the lawsuit are hoping it will bring more
equality to the way funding is distributed to schools.

East Texas school districts already involved in the lawsuit
include Diboll ISD, Lufkin ISD, and Union Grove ISD.


SUNSET JUNCTION: Ticketholders to File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Andrea Domanick, writing for LA Weekly, reports that it's been
nearly three months since Sunset Junction was canceled, but most
people still haven't gotten their refunds.  Frustrated
ticketholders are now taking steps to file a class-action lawsuit
against the Sunset Junction Neighborhood Alliance, whose founder
and organizer Michael McKinley has been AWOL since late August,
when the festival's permit was denied by the city.

"I'm completely aggravated.  It just isn't legal," says Michelle
Stimson, a tax law attorney and ticketholder who is spearheading
the suit.  Ms. Stimson will not serve as counsel on the case.  She
announced her intentions on Sunset Junction's official Facebook
page, and has since been joined by a handful of other prospective
ticket-buyers.

She says those interested in joining the suit should contact her
at MichelleMStimson@yahoo.com

Sunset Junction organizers' failure to refund tickets has caused
widespread consternation; the festival's Facebook page remains
saturated with angry comments.  Initially there was hope that
prospective festival-goers would be reimbursed, when Mr. McKinley
provided refunds to one hundred or so folks who bought tickets
through Origami Vinyl or the Sunset Junction farmer's market.

However, the majority of passes were sold through Sunset
Junction's Web site, and those buyers remain in the lurch.  With
prices ranging from $15-$25 each (VIP tickets were $100) and an
average festival attendance of 100,000, misplaced funds could well
amount to a million dollars.

"I want to know what happened to all that money," Ms. Stimson
says.

Sunset Junction organizers did not respond to repeated requests
for comment.  The office phone line was disconnected upon the
festival's collapse; now, the line appears to be working but its
voicemail has been full.

"It's weird that they don't respond to anyone," says Carlos Nunez,
a Reseda resident who is owed about $50 for two tickets he bought
online.  "It's just wrong, and people aren't just going to forget
about it -- especially not in this economy."

Some people have been successful in getting refunds through their
debit card companies.  Vendor Carlos Guillen was owed $1,400 by
Sunset Junction for the deposit and rental fees he paid to run his
smoothie stand at the festival, and was promised a refund by
festival organizers.  When it didn't pan out, he managed to get a
refund from his debit card company -- but only after pressing his
bank for weeks.  Mr. Guillen says he used a copy of his receipt
and a copy of West Coast Sound's coverage of the cancelation and
fallout as proof to get reimbursed.

Artists scheduled to play the festival continue to be owed money
by the organization as well.

Unpaid debt, of course, was the reason for the festival's downfall
in the first place.  Organizers' nearly $400,000 in outstanding
fees from previous years led to the denial of the festival's
permit.

City officials could not be reached for comment.


TELENAV INC: Expects Ruling on $3.8MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Telenav, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on the class settlement
resolving a stockholder class action complaint, which was
scheduled for hearing this month, the Company disclosed in its
November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On September 2, 2010, a purported stockholder class action was
filed by David Smith in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:10-CV-03942-SC)
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of its underwriters for the Company's May 13, 2010 IPO,
alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
On March 21, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint purporting
to be brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock pursuant to its IPO and alleging that the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of its
underwriters for the IPO violated the Securities Act by issuing
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiff
alleges contained material misstatements and omissions in
violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.
The amended complaint sought class certification, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such
other relief as the court may deem proper.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint on May 4, 2011.
On June 2, 2011, following a successful mediation between the
parties, the Court entered a stipulation and order regarding
settlement and staying all proceedings.  A hearing to approve of
the settlement of the case will be held in November 2011.  The
settlement will include a payment of $3.8 million to resolve all
claims as to all defendants to the litigation. The entire
settlement amount will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier.
The Company does not anticipate any liability as a result of this
matter.

TeleNav, Inc. -- http://www.telenav.com/-- is a leader in
location-based applications delivered via a mobile device.  One of
the first to launch a GPS navigation and mobile workforce
management service on a cell phone in North America, TeleNav is
partnered with every significant wireless carrier and device
manufacturer.  TeleNav offers products in 29 countries on 16
carriers on 600+ devices-more devices than any other location-
based services provider.  TeleNav began trading on NASDQ under the
stock symbol TNAV in May 2010.


TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Negotiate Post-Settlement Deals
-------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion Corp. continues to negotiate deals with post-settlement
claimants with respect to the remaining settlement funds in the
"Privacy Litigation" and "Louisiana Action," the Company disclosed
in its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

TransUnion Corp. is a defendant in 16 purported class actions that
arose from activities of its Performance Data Division that was
discontinued over 10 years ago.  Fifteen of these purported class
actions alleging violations of federal law were consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) and are known as
In Re TransUnion Corp. Privacy Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1350.
These matters are referred to as the "Privacy Litigation."  A
companion class action alleging violation of Louisiana state law
was filed in 2002 (Andrews v. Trans Union LLC, case No. 02-18553,
Civil District, Parish of Orleans, Louisiana), and this matter is
referred to as the "Louisiana Action."

The Privacy Litigation, which began in 2000, was the result of the
Company's sale of information, including names and addresses of
individuals, to businesses for marketing purposes.  The Federal
Trade Commission challenged the Company's target marketing
practice in 1992, which challenge resulted in a final decision
rendered in 1999 holding that certain target marketing lists that
the Company sold were consumer reports as defined in the FCRA, and
were sold for purposes not permitted under the United States Fair
Credit Reporting Act or FCRA.  Following that decision, the 15
purported class actions were filed, alleging that each target
marketing list was sold in willful violation of the FCRA and
seeking statutory damages.

A settlement of the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action
was approved on September 17, 2008.  Pursuant to the terms of
settlement, the Company paid $75.0 million into a fund and agreed
to provide free credit monitoring services for the benefit of
class members.  All class members released their procedural rights
to pursue the claims alleged in these matters through the pending,
or any new, class action.  However, all class members (other than
the named plaintiffs in the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana
Action) did retain their right to bring a separate, individual
action against the Company for the claims alleged in these matters
provided these post-settlement claims were asserted on or before
September 16, 2010.  The settlement agreement provides that any
money remaining in the fund after payment of notice costs, class
counsel fees and administrative expenses will be used to satisfy
any such post-settlement claims, with remaining funds distributed
on a pro-rata basis to class members who elected to receive a
potential cash payment as part of the consideration to release
their procedural rights.

The Company has been advised that there are approximately 100,000
post-settlement claimants seeking payment from the settlement
fund.  Through court monitored mediation with counsel representing
the class members and the post-settlement claimants, the Company
has entered into agreements to settle substantially all of these
post-settlement claims for payments from the fund to bring this
matter to conclusion.  The Company believes the remaining amount
of the fund will be sufficient to meet all demands asserted by any
non-settling post-settlement claimants.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a leading provider of credit
reporting data and information management services to companies
and individual consumers.


TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From Monetary Claims Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging approval of a $51 million settlement of
monetary claims in a class action complaint over reporting of
consumer debt obligations are pending, TransUnion Corp.  disclosed
in its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In a matter captioned White, et al v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California), plaintiffs sought class action status against
Equifax, Experian and the Company in connection with the reporting
of delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations on a
consumer report after the consumer was discharged in a bankruptcy
proceeding.  The claims allege that each national consumer
reporting company did not automatically update a consumer's file
after their discharge from bankruptcy and such non-action was a
failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum file
accuracy, a requirement of the FCRA.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, the Company has agreed to a
settlement of this matter.  On August 19, 2008, the Court approved
an agreement whereby the Company and the other industry defendants
voluntarily changed certain operational practices. These changes
require the Company to update certain delinquent records when the
Company learns, through the collection of public records, that the
consumer has received an order of discharge in a bankruptcy
proceeding.  These business practice changes did not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's operations or those of
its customers.

In 2009, the Company also agreed, with the other two defendants,
to settle the monetary claims associated with this matter and to
deposit $17.0 million each ($51.0 million in total) into a
settlement fund that will be used to pay the class counsel's
attorney fees, all administration and notice costs of the fund to
the purported class, and a variable damage amount to consumers
within the class based on the level of harm the consumer is able
to confirm.  The Company's share of this settlement was fully
covered by insurance.  Final approval of this monetary settlement
by the Court occurred on July 15, 2011.  Certain objectors to this
monetary settlement have appealed the decision of the Court.

If the monetary settlement is not upheld, the Company expects to
vigorously litigate this matter and to assert what the Company
believes are valid defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs.
Although the Company believes it has valid defenses and has not
violated any law, and although it has additional insurance
coverage available with respect to this matter, the ultimate
outcome of this matter is not certain.  However, the Company does
not believe any final resolution of this matter will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a leading provider of credit
reporting data and information management services to companies
and individual consumers.


TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Employment Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion Corp. is defending itself against a Pennsylvania class
action complaint relating to employment records, the Company
disclosed in its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On April 8, 2011, a claim (Leslie Ellis Thomas v. VeriFirst
Background Screening LLC and Trans Union LLC, No. 211-CV-02461-PD,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania) was filed purporting to be a class action alleging
that consumers did not timely receive a copy of a letter from the
Company or VeriFirst Background Screening LLC (an unrelated third
party), which letter notified the consumer that a consumer report
containing an adverse public record was provided by the defendants
to a prospective employer of the consumer.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this
matter as it does not believe it has acted in a manner that is
inconsistent with current law and regulatory guidance.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a leading provider of credit
reporting data and information management services to companies
and individual consumers.


TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Re Va. Public Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion Corp. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit relating to the accuracy of reports entered in a Virginia
court, the Company disclosed in its November 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The purported class action entitled Donna K. Soutter v. Trans
Union LLC No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, was filed in 2010 and alleges
that the Company failed to maintain reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible file accuracy with respect to the
collection and reporting of the satisfaction, release, dismissal
or appeal of judgments entered in the Virginia state court system.
The Company, like its competitors, contract with a third-party
vendor to collect public records on a timely basis. The plaintiff
alleges that the diligence used to gather and report
satisfactions, releases, dismissals or appeals is inadequate and
that the established intervals between trips to the various state
courthouses to gather this information is too infrequent.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend this matter as it
believes it has acted in a lawful manner.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a leading provider of credit
reporting data and information management services to companies
and individual consumers.


TREE.COM INC: Court Grants Home Loan's Summary Judgment Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court granted the motion for summary
judgment filed by Tree.Com Inc.'s subsidiary in the class action
lawsuit, styled Mortgage Store Inc. v. LendingTree Loans d/b/a
Home Loan Center Inc., 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 November 30, 2006, The Mortgage Store, Inc., and Castleview
Home Loans, Inc., filed the putative class action against HLC in
the California Superior Court for Orange County.  Plaintiffs, two
former Network Lenders, allege that HLC interfered with
LendingTree's contracts with Network Lenders by taking referrals
from LendingTree.  The complaint is largely based upon the factual
allegations made in the Schnee complaint.  In "Schnee v.
LendingTree, LLC and Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 06CC00211 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)," plaintiffs alleged that they used the
LendingTree.com Web site to find potential lenders and without
their knowledge were referred to LendingTree's direct lender, HLC;
that Lending Tree, LLC and HLC did not adequately disclose the
relationship between them; and that HLC charged Plaintiffs higher
rates and fees than they otherwise would have been charged.

Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs The Mortgage
Store, Inc., and Castleview Home Loans, Inc., assert claims for
intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law and California Business and
Professions Code Section 17500. Plaintiffs purport to represent
all Network Lenders from December 14, 2004 to date, and seek
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted April 29,
2010.  HLC's motion for summary judgment was filed April 12, 2011.
On October 17, 2011, HLC's motion for summary judgment was
granted.


TREE.COM INC: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Tree.Com Inc. continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit styled Boschma v. Home Loan Center Inc.,
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 May 25, 2007, Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
against HLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  Plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM"
(adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear
and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate
was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the
loan had a prepayment penalty.  Based upon these factual
allegations, Plaintiffs assert violations of the federal Truth in
Lending Act, violations of the UCL, breach of contract, and breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Plaintiffs
purport to represent a class of all individuals who between
June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained through HLC an option ARM
loan on their primary residence located in California, and seek
rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs have filed a total of eight complaints in connection
with this lawsuit.  Each of the first seven complaints has been
dismissed by the federal and state courts.  Plaintiffs filed the
eighth complaint (a Second Amended Complaint) in Orange County
(California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the
fraud and UCL claims.  As with each of the seven previous versions
of Plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was
dismissed in April 2010.  Plaintiffs appealed and filed their
opening brief in November 2010.  Company's responsive appellate
brief was filed in February 2011.  On August 10, 2011 the
appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal indicating
that Plaintiffs' complaint was sufficient to withstand demur
despite Plaintiffs' lack of damages.  The case will be remanded to
superior court.  The Company believes plaintiff's allegations lack
merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously.


TREE.COM INC: "Gaines" Suit in California Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Tree.Com Inc. continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit styled Gaines v. Home Loan Center Inc.,
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 June 13, 2008, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action
against HLC and LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  Plaintiffs allege, in essence,
that (1) HLC failed to disclose that the bundled amount for
certain loan closing services that HLC charged to Plaintiffs was
greater than HLC's actual costs for those services; (2) HLC's
option ARM note failed to tell Plaintiffs that the stated interest
rate and payment amounts would change after the first month and
that the payment amount stated in the note was not sufficient to
pay interest charges, resulting in negative amortization; and (3)
HLC misrepresented that Plaintiffs would have to obtain a home
equity line of credit in order to obtain a low interest rate on
their option ARM loans.  Based upon these factual allegations,
Plaintiffs assert violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, the TILA, the California UCL,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, the CLRA,
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion, and money had and
received.

Plaintiffs purport to represent all HLC customers who, since
December 14, 2004 (1) were charged by HLC and paid an amount that
exceeded HLC's actual costs for those services; and/or (2) entered
into option ARM loan agreements with HLC; and/or (3) were misled
into taking out a home equity line of credit along with their
option ARM mortgage. Plaintiffs seek restitution, disgorgement,
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

A RICO claim, certain claims alleging problems involving home
equity lines of credit and all contract-based claims were
dismissed with prejudice in May, 2010.  This lawsuit was scheduled
for trial in April 2011, but has been continued indefinitely.

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


TREND MICRO: Accused of Renewing Subscriptions Without Consent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Gentges, an individual, Marion Kersting, an individual,
John Nekoranec, an individual, and Leanna Nekoranec, an
individual, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Trend Micro, Inc., a California corporation,
and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:11-cv-05574 (N.D. Calif.,
November 16, 2011) alleges that Trend Micro has stolen money from
its own customers by renewing the customers' software membership
without their knowledge or consent.

When buying a Trend Micro product, at no point during the checkout
process does Trend Micro notify consumers that it will
automatically renew the consumers' software subscriptions upon the
expiration of the term, or that Trend Micro will automatically
charge consumers for the renewals without seeking the consumers'
consent, the Plaintiffs allege.  They contend that Trend Micro
certainly never discloses to consumers that it will automatically
charge consumers to renew the Trend Micro subscription.

Ms. Gentges is a resident of Jefferson City, Missouri, while Ms.
Kersting is a resident of Melrose, Wisconsin.  The Nekoranecs are
residents of Chandler, Arizona.  The Plaintiffs have bought Trend
Micro products.

Trend Micro is a California corporation with its principal office
in Cupertino, California.  Trend Micro advertises and sells
computer security and anti-virus software to businesses and
individuals on its Internet Web site located at
http://www.trendmicro.com. The Plaintiffs are uncertain of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Virginia A. Sanderson, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
          E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com
                  jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
                  ginny@KRInternetLaw.com


ZST DIGITAL: Files Motion to Dismiss "Scott" Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZST Digital Networks, Inc., and other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the securities class action lawsuit filed by Robert Scott,
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 and several of its directors and officers have been
named as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The complaint was filed on April 25, 2011, and is
captioned Robert Scott v. ZST Digital Networks, Inc., et al.  The
complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors violated Federal securities laws by
making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects, performance, and internal controls.  Named in the
complaint as individual defendants are Zhong Bo, the Company's CEO
and Chairman of the Board; Zhong Lin, COO and a member of Board;
and John Chen and Zeng Yun Su, two former CFOs.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the
Company pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus filed in connection with the Company's October 20, 2009
public offering (the "Registration Statement"), and claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period October 20, 2009, to April 21, 2011.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement contained falsely stated revenue for fiscal 2008 and the
first six months of fiscal 2009 and that the Company's Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 ("2009 Form 10-K")
provided false revenue amounts for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.  In
support of its allegations, the complaint, inter alia, references
an April 21, 2011, report published by an online financial news
Web site entitled http://seekingalpha.com/that reported that
documents filed by the Company's subsidiary Zhengzhou Shenyang
Technology Company Limited with the State Administration of
Industry and Commerce ("SAIC") in the People's Republic of China
(the "PRC") reported revenue amounts for the applicable periods
that were substantially lower than revenue reported in the
Company's Registration Statement and 2009 Form 10-K.

The plaintiff has also asserted claims under Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) against the underwriters of the Company's public
offering, who are also named as defendants to the action.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at
trial including interest, reasonable litigation costs and
expenses, rescission damages, and such further relief as the Court
may deem proper.

On July 13, 2011, the Court entered an order appointing J. Malcolm
Gray as lead plaintiff.  On August 22, 2011, the Court entered a
scheduling order whereby lead plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint, if any, by September 23, 2011 and the Company and the
underwriters of the Company's public offering shall answer or move
to dismiss the amended complaint by November 4, 2011.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss prior to the deadline.  Lead plaintiff
shall file his opposition to such motion by December 16, 2011 and
the Company is required to have its reply brief in further support
of it motion by January 17, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against each of
the lawsuits.  However, no assurance can be given that these
matters will be resolved in the Company's favor.


* Judge Bennett Praises Lawyers in Concrete Sector Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge says he was stunned by
the incredible legal work done by attorneys who settled a class-
action lawsuit alleging price-fixing conspiracies in the concrete
industry.

U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett said that in his 36 years as a
lawyer, he's never been prouder than when he saw lawyers for both
sides "plying their chosen craft" and putting their clients'
interests ahead of their own.

He compared watching them work to seeing famous pieces of art such
as the Mona Lisa and said he was "overcome with a rare and
gargantuan sense of awe that will likely last a lifefime."

Judge Bennett made the comments in a recent order awarding $6.7
million in legal fees to attorneys who represented customers who
overpaid for concrete.  They negotiated an $18.5 million
settlement.


                           *********

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  * * *