CAR_Public/111124.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 24, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 233

                             Headlines

ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: "Rothal" Class Suit Still Pending in Fla.
AOL LLC: May Not Make Charitable Donations to Settle Class Claims
AT&T MOBILITY: 9th Cir. Remands Class Action to District Court
AXA FINANCIAL: Defends "Sivolella" Suit vs. Units in New Jersey
AXA FINANCIAL: Unit Got Final Okay of "Eagan" Suit Deal in June

BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Motion to Dismiss Overdraft Suit Pending
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Decision in Class Suit
CADENCE DESIGN: Wins Preliminary Approval of Suit Settlement
CENTURYLINK INC: Illinois Court Approves Qwest Class Settlement
CLEARWIRE CORP: Settlement Offer Renders Class Action Moot

COMPLETE PRODUCTION: Faces Suits Over Proposed SPN Merger
CONMED HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Judge Certifies MBS Class Action
ENGLOBAL CORP: In Settlement Discussions With "Phillips" Parties
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Wage Claim Class Suits Remain Pending

EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Membership Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
FELTEX CARPETS: Directors Can't Shift Class Action to Auckland
GENTA INC: Continues to Defend "Collins" Suit in New Jersey
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over Tax-Refund Anticipation Loans

HEADWATERS INC: Appeal in "Adtech" Suit Remains Pending
HEADWATERS INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Suit vs. Eldorado
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action in Florida
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
INUVO INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Tarczynski" Class Suit

INVESTORS BANCORP: Enters Into MOU to Settle Shareholder Lawsuits
MICHAELS STORES: Still Faces Class Suit in California
MICHAELS STORES: Suits Over Alleged Credit Card Violation Pending
MICHAELS STORES: Court Approves Settlement of "Rattray" Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Illinois Pending

MORGAN STANLEY: Towanda School Dist. Gets Share From Settlement
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
PANERA: Sets Aside $5 Million to Settle Two Class Actions
PARMALAT: Farmers Mull Class Action Over Milk Price Cut
SINO CLEAN: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in California

STATE OF MONTANA: Ag-Land Tax Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA: Property Owners File Class Action
STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
STERLING FINANCIAL: Shareholder Class Suit Still Pending in Wash.

STURM FOODS: Faces Class Action in New Mexico Over "K-Cups"
SUNPOWER CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
SUTTER MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Medical Data Breach
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: All Claims in "Wilamowsky" Suit Dismissed
TD AMERITRADE: Still Awaits Order on Pleas to Dismiss "Ross" Suit

TD AMERITRADE: Court Okays Settlement With Holober & Zigler
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Still Faces Class Suit in Mississippi
THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Insurance Carrier Reimburses Attorneys' Fees
TIMBERCORP: Investors' Lawyers Appeal Class Action Ruling
TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. AHM

TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Ruling on "Phillips" Suit Dismissal Bid
VISA INC: Trial in Multidistrict Litigation Set for Sept. 12
VISA INC: Appeal From New Mexico Suit Dismissal Still Pending
VISA INC: Class Action Suit in Canada Still Pending
VISA INC: Motion to Dismiss "Data Pass" Suit Still Pending

VISA INC: Final Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Nov. 28
VISA INC: Faces Class Suits Over ATM Access Fee Rules
ZYNEX INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $2.5 Million





                          *********

ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: "Rothal" Class Suit Still Pending in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit involving Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P.,
remains pending in Florida, according to ALP Liquidating Trust's
November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On September 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") completed its liquidation by contributing all of
its remaining assets to ALP Liquidating Trust ("ALP"), subject to
all of the Partnership's obligations and liabilities.  Arvida
Company ("Arvida"), an affiliate of the general partner of the
Partnership, acts as Administrator (the "Administrator") of ALP.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.  In this
lawsuit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003,
plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out
of construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.  On
May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.  Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to expand the class to include
other homes in Weston. The motion to expand the class was denied.
The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010.  The case did not
settle.  The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the
amended complaint.  The Arvida defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.
The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the
class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the
class by order dated September 16, 2010.  On October 15, 2010, the
Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the
certification order.

On June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's
order certifying the class.  The case has been returned to the
trial court for further proceedings including trial.  The
Partnership says it intends to vigorously defend itself.  The
Partnership is not able to determine what, if any, loss exposure
that it may have for this matter.  This case has been tendered to
one of the Partnership's insurance carriers, Zurich American
Insurance Company (together with its affiliates collectively,
"Zurich"), for defense and indemnity.  Zurich is providing a
defense of this matter under a purported reservation of rights.
The Partnership has also engaged other counsel in connection with
this lawsuit.  The ultimate legal and financial liability of the
Partnership, if any, in this matter cannot be estimated with
certainty at this time.  The Partnership is unable to determine
the ultimate portion of the expenses, fees and damages, if any,
which will be covered by its insurance.

On June 23, 2011, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled,
Investors Insurance Company of America ("Investors Insurance") v.
Waterproofing Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:11-cv-61408-DMM,
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Ft. Lauderdale).  In the complaint, as amended, an insurer for
Waterproofing Systems, Inc. and Waterproofing Systems of Miami,
Inc. ("Waterproofing"), the alleged roofer of the homes and co-
defendant in the Rothal case seeks a declaratory judgment order
that it owes no duty of indemnity or defense to Waterproofing for
the damages sought in the Rothal complaint.  In the Investors
Insurance complaint, as amended, the plaintiff declares that ALP
has an interest in the plaintiff's policies that purport to cover
Waterproofing and by its complaint seeks an order that would
effectively adjudicate ALP's rights to any coverage benefits under
the Investors Insurance policies.  The Partnership has filed a
motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and a motion
to stay.  A pretrial scheduling order has been filed.  Mediation
is scheduled for December 13, 2011, and trial is scheduled for a
two week period beginning February 27, 2012.  The Partnership says
it will vigorously defend its interests in the policies written by
plaintiff.  The Partnership is unable to determine what portion of
its fees and damages in the Rothal case, if any, may be
recoverable under these Investors Insurance policies.

On August 4, 2011, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled,
Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Richard Rothal et al, Case No. 11-
61732-civ-dimitrouleas, in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division.  In the
complaint, Scottsdale Insurance Company ("Scottsdale"), an alleged
insurer of Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. ("Waterproofing"),
brings an action for declaratory relief against, among others,
Waterproofing, the class certified in the Rothal action and the
Partnership, seeking a declaration of its rights and obligations
to, among others, Waterproofing, the class certified in Rothal and
Arvida in connection with two policies it allegedly issued in the
years 2000 and 2001.  The declaration sought in this case could
effectively adjudicate ALP's rights in any coverage benefits under
the Scottsdale policies.  This case has been transferred to the
court handling the Investors Insurance matter.  The Partnership
says it will vigorously defend its interests in the policies
written by plaintiff.  The Partnership is unable to determine what
portion of its fees and damages in the Rothal case, if any, may be
recoverable under the Scottsdale policies.


AOL LLC: May Not Make Charitable Donations to Settle Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that AOL should not
have to make $100,000 in charitable donations to settle class
claims over allegedly surreptitious e-mail advertising, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Nov. 21,
rejecting an agreement that objectors have called "a veritable
poster-child for class action abuse."

Plaintiffs representing a class of more than 66 million AOL
subscribers sued the company two years ago in California for
inserting footers containing promotional messages into their
e-mails.

The parties eventually settled, and agreed to a cy-pres (as near
as possible) payout.  AOL claimed that it had made only about $2
million from the offending advertising, the division of which
would have awarded each class member about 3 cents.  Instead, the
finished settlement called on AOL to donate $75,000 to each of
three charities chosen by a federal mediator, and $8,750 to each
of the charities designated by four named plaintiffs.  The
nonprofits poised to benefit included the Boys and Girls Clubs of
Los Angeles and Santa Monica, Los Angeles Legal Aid, the Federal
Judicial Center Foundation, New Roads School of Santa Monica,
Oklahoma Indian Legal Services and the Friars Foundation.

Backed by the Washington, D.C.-based public-interest law firm
Center for Class Action Fairness, class member Darren McKinney
objected to the settlement.

"Three law firms, representing plaintiffs in a putative class
action over the presence of advertising in footers of AOL members'
e-mails, have negotiated an extraordinary settlement that will pay
zero to the millions of class members for extinguishing their
claims, yet over $300,000 to the attorneys," Mr. McKinney's
objection states.  "The non-economic benefit to the class -- a
$75,000 payment to charities that are neither class members nor
have suffered any injury and an additional e-mail to AOL members
regarding policies predating the lawsuit -- is illusory.
Moreover, the representative plaintiffs will get to direct $35,000
to the charities of their choice, hundreds of times more than any
conceivable injury they have suffered.  The case is a veritable
poster-child for class action abuse."

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder disagreed and certified the
settlement in late 2009.  But a three-judge panel of the 9th
Circuit reversed that decision on Nov. 21, finding the agreement
part of a growing tendency among federal judges to "abandon[ ] the
'next best use' principle implicit in the cy pres doctrine."

"When selection of cy pres beneficiaries is not tethered to the
nature of the lawsuit and the interests of the silent class
members, the selection process may answer to the whims and self
interests of the parties, their counsel, or the court," Judge N.
Randy Smith wrote for the federal appeals panel in Pasadena.
"Moreover, the specter of judges and outside entities dealing in
the distribution and solicitation of settlement money may create
the appearance of impropriety."

A copy of the Opinion in Nachshin, et al. v. AOL, LLC, No. 10-
55129 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/moFrGj


AT&T MOBILITY: 9th Cir. Remands Class Action to District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 21 sent a class
action against AT&T Mobility back to a California District Court
in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court finding that federal
arbitration law trumps the state's ban on unconscionable
contracts.

Vincent and Liza Concepcion brought a class action against AT&T
Mobility for allegedly fraudulent taxes on their cellphone
contract.

A San Diego federal judge held that AT&T's arbitration clause
blocking class actions was unconscionable and so unenforceable.
The 9th Circuit affirmed, but that decision was soon overturned by
the high court.

A five-justice majority ruled in April that AT&T could block the
class action by enforcing the arbitration clause because the
Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts California's law on
unconscionable contracts.

A copy of the Order in Laster, et al v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 08-
56394 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/LtBTl7


AXA FINANCIAL: Defends "Sivolella" Suit vs. Units in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Financial, Inc., is defending a purported class action lawsuit
commenced by Mary Ann Sivolella against it subsidiaries, according
to the Company's November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In July 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court of the District of New Jersey, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC ("FMG LLC").  The lawsuit was filed
derivatively on behalf of eight funds.  The lawsuit seeks recovery
under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
amended (the "Investment Company Act"), for alleged excessive fees
paid to AXA Equitable and FMG LLC for investment management
services.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged overpayments,
or alternatively, rescission of the contracts and restitution of
all fees paid.  In November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, adding claims under Section 47(b) and 26(f) of the
Investment Company Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.
In addition, plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class
action in addition to a derivative action.


AXA FINANCIAL: Unit Got Final Okay of "Eagan" Suit Deal in June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
entered in June 2011 final approval of a settlement in the
putative class action lawsuit commenced against a subsidiary of
AXA Financial, Inc., according to the Company's November 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A putative class action entitled Eagan et al. v. AXA Equitable
Life Insurance Company was filed in the District Court for the
Central District of California in December 2006 against AXA
Equitable as plan sponsor and fiduciary for an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 retiree health plan.  The action was
brought by two plan participants on behalf of all past and present
employees and agents who received retiree medical benefits from
AXA Equitable at any time after January 1, 2004, or who will
receive such benefits in 2006 or later, excluding certain retired
agents.  Plaintiffs allege that AXA Equitable's adoption of a
revised version of its retiree health plan in 1993 (the "1993
Plan") was not authorized or effective.  Plaintiffs contend that
AXA Equitable has therefore breached the retiree health plan by
imposing the terms of the 1993 Plan on plaintiffs and other
retirees.  Plaintiffs allege that, even if the 1993 Plan is
controlling, AXA Equitable has violated the terms of the retiree
health plan by imposing health care costs and coverages on
plaintiffs and other retirees that are not authorized under the
1993 Plan.  Plaintiffs also allege that AXA Equitable breached
fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs and retirees by allegedly
misrepresenting and failing to disclose information to them.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution and injunctive
relief prohibiting AXA Equitable from violating the terms of the
applicable plan, together with interest and attorneys' fees.  In
December 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement between the parties and notices were sent to the class
members.

In June 2011, the Court granted final approval of the settlement
between the parties.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Motion to Dismiss Overdraft Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.'s subsidiary bank is still awaiting a
court order on its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
lawsuit associated with overdraft fees.

In November 2010, the two pending class action complaints against
BankAtlantic associated with overdraft fees were consolidated. The
Complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, alleges that
BankAtlantic improperly re-sequenced debit card transactions from
largest to smallest, improperly assessed overdraft fees on
positive balances, and improperly imposed sustained overdraft fees
on customers. BankAtlantic has filed a motion to dismiss which is
pending with the Court.

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


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Decision in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a securities class action lawsuit against
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., and certain other defendants have
filed an appeal from a court verdict in favor of the defendants,
according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In October 2007, the Company and current or former officers of the
Company were named in a lawsuit which alleged that during the
period of November 9, 2005 through October 25, 2007, the Company
and the named officers knowingly and/or recklessly made
misrepresentations of material fact regarding BankAtlantic and
specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and allowance for loan
losses. The Complaint asserted claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and sought
unspecified damages. On November 18, 2010, a jury returned a
verdict awarding $2.41 per share to shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the period of
April 26, 2007 to October 26, 2007 who retained those shares until
the end of the period. The jury rejected the plaintiffs' claim for
the six month period from October 19, 2006 to April 25, 2007.
Prior to the beginning of the trial, the plaintiffs abandoned any
claim for any prior period. On April 25, 2011, the Court granted
defendants' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and
vacated the jury verdict, resulting in a judgment in favor of all
defendants on all claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's
order setting aside the jury verdict.


CADENCE DESIGN: Wins Preliminary Approval of Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Design Systems Inc. obtained a court order preliminarily
approving its settlement of a securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's November 18, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In February 2011, the parties to the federal securities class
action in the case captioned "In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation" including Cadence Design Systems, Inc.,
reached an agreement to settle the Securities Litigation.  The
parties to the related state and federal derivative cases, both
captioned "In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Derivative
Litigation" including Cadence, reached an agreement to settle the
Derivative Litigation.  In connection with the settlement of these
cases, on November 15, 2011, the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement of the Securities Litigation and the
Derivative Litigation, including the Stipulation of Settlement in
the Derivative Litigation, dated June 7, 2011, and approving
distribution of the Notice of Settlement in the Derivative
Litigation.


CENTURYLINK INC: Illinois Court Approves Qwest Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois court has granted final approval of a settlement
resolving a class action against Centurylink, Inc.'s subsidiary,
Qwest Communications International Inc., over the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way, 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 Qwest Communications International Inc., on
April 1, 2011.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in various
courts in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois (where there is a federal and a state court
case), Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington.  For the most part, the
complaints challenge Qwest's right to install its fiber-optic
cable in railroad rights-of-way.  The complaints allege that the
railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include
the right to permit Qwest to install its fiber-optic cable in the
right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent.  Most of the actions
purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named
plaintiffs' respective states, although two of the currently
pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state
classes.  Specifically, the Illinois state court action purports
to be on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, and the Indiana
state court action purports to be on behalf of a national class of
landowners.  In general, the complaints seek damages on theories
of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages.
On July 18, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusetts
entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement of all of
the actions described, except the action pending in Tennessee.  On
September 10, 2009, the court denied final approval of the
settlement on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
On December 9, 2009, the court issued a revised ruling that, among
other things, denied a motion for approval as moot and dismissed
the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The parties
are now engaged in negotiating settlements on a state-by-state
basis, and have filed and received preliminary approval of a
settlement in Alabama federal court, and Tennessee state court.
Preliminary and final approval also has been granted in a federal
court action in Illinois, to which Qwest is a party, and in a
similar action in Idaho, to which Qwest is not a party.  One group
of plaintiffs filed a motion with the judicial panel on multi-
district litigation seeking consolidation of all the federal
actions, which Qwest and all other defendants, as well as a second
group of plaintiffs, opposed.  On August 8, 2011, the multi-
district litigation panel denied the motion.

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.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Settlement Offer Renders Class Action Moot
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Forward, writing for State Bar of Wisconsin, reports that a
cell phone service provider's settlement offer to a customer who
filed a class action lawsuit was enough to render the case moot, a
federal appeals court has ruled.

Jerome Damasco filed a class action lawsuit against Clearwire
Corporation, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227, for sending unsolicited
text messages to an estimated 1,000 customers.

Clearwire offered Mr. Damasco a "full relief" settlement before
Mr. Damasco moved for class certification, offering to pay
Mr. Damasco and up to 10 other affected customers $1,500 for each
unsolicited text message received plus court costs, the maximum
amount allowed under federal law.  Mr. Damasco never responded to
the settlement letter.

After Clearwire removed the case to federal court, it filed a
motion to dismiss, arguing the settlement offer rendered
Mr. Damasco's claim moot because it stripped him of a personal
stake in the outcome of the litigation.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., No. 10-3934 (Nov. 18, 2011), a
three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit ruled that Clearwire's settlement offer indeed rendered
Mr. Damasco's class action moot.

The appeals panel, in an opinion by Jude Ilana Rovner, rejected
Mr. Damasco's argument that Clearwire should not be allowed to buy
off named plaintiffs with involuntary settlement.

"To allow a case, not certified as a class action and with no
motion for class certification even pending, to continue in
federal court when the sole plaintiff no longer maintains a
personal stake defies the limits on federal jurisdiction expressed
in Article III," Judge Rovner wrote.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the jurisdiction of
federal courts to live cases and controversies, and requires
parties to maintain a personal stake in the outcome of a case.

The panel noted that plaintiffs can avoid this result by moving to
certify the class when they file their original complaint.  "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs," Judge Rovner explained.


COMPLETE PRODUCTION: Faces Suits Over Proposed SPN Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Complete Production Services Inc. is facing multiple lawsuits
which stemmed from its proposed merger with SPN Fairway
Acquisition Inc., according to the Company's November 18, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 9, 2011, the Company entered into a merger agreement
with Superior Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
SPN Fairway Acquisition, Inc., a newly formed Delaware corporation
which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of SPN.  Pursuant to
this agreement, each share of the Company's common stock issued
and outstanding immediately prior to the effective date of the
merger will be converted automatically into the right to receive
0.945 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of SPN
and $7.00 in cash.  Pursuant to the agreement, the Company will
merge with and into SPN Fairway Acquisition, Inc., which will be
the surviving corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of SPN.  The completion of the merger is expected to occur in
early 2012, subject to customary conditions, including approvals
of SPN's and the Company's stockholders.

On October 14, 2011, October 26, 2011, and November 11, 2011,
putative class action complaints captioned Hetherington v.
Winkler, et al., C.A. No. 6935-VCL, Walsh v. Winkler, et al., C.A.
No. 6984-VCL, and Wallack v. Winkler, et al., C.A. No. 7040-VCL,
respectively, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on behalf of an alleged class of Complete stockholders.
On November 1, 2011 and November 16, 2011, putative class action
complaints captioned City of Monroe Employees' Retirement System
v. Complete Production Services, Inc., et al., 2011-66385 and
Seniuk v. Complete Production Services, Inc., et al., 2011-69384,
respectively, were filed in the District Court of Harris County,
Texas, on behalf of an alleged class of Complete stockholders.
The complaints name as defendants all members of Complete
Production's board of directors, the Company, SPN and SPN Fairway
Acquisition, Inc.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in
connection with the proposed merger, or aided and abetted the
other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The
complaints allege that the proposed merger between the Company and
SPN involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process and
unreasonable deal protection devices.  The Hetherington Complaint
claims that defendants agreed to the transaction to benefit SPN
and that neither the Company nor its board of directors, have
adequately explained the reason for the proposed merger.  The
Walsh Complaint, the Wallack Complaint, and the Seniuk Complaint
claim that defendants acted for their personal interests rather
than the interests of the Company's stockholders. The City of
Monroe Complaint claims that defendants engaged in self-dealing
and failed to seek maximum value for stockholders. The Wallack
Complaint further claims that the Registration Statement omits
material information about the sales process, Credit Suisse's
financial valuation of Complete, and fees received by Credit
Suisse for prior financial services rendered to Complete.  All
five complaints seek injunctive relief including to enjoin the
merger, rescissory damages in the event the merger is completed,
and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition
to other relief.  The Wallack Complaint also seeks supplemental
disclosures regarding the proposed merger.  The Company and its
board of directors believe that the plaintiffs' allegations lack
merit and intends to contest them vigorously.


CONMED HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc., has entered into an agreement
to settle a class action lawsuit related to its merger
transaction with Ayelet Investments LLC, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On July 11, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Ayelet Investments LLC, a parent limited liability
company, and Ayelet Merger Subsidiary, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Ayelet.  Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of
James H. Desnick, M.D.  The aggregate merger consideration is
approximately $57.2 million.

On July 14, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, State of Maryland,
captioned Noble Equity Fund, LP v. Conmed Healthcare Management,
Inc., et. al., Case No.:  02-C-11-162695 on behalf of a putative
class of Company stockholders and naming as defendants the
Company, all the members of the Company's Board of Directors,
Ayelet Investments LLC and Ayelet Merger Subsidiary, Inc.  The
plaintiffs generally allege that, in connection with the approval
of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, the members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Company
stockholders by, among other things, (i) failing to take steps to
maximize the value of the Company to its stockholders because the
merger consideration of $3.85 per share allegedly does not reflect
the true value of Company stock, and (ii) creating supposedly
preclusive deal protection devices in the Agreement and Plan of
Merger.  The plaintiffs further allege that Ayelet Investments LLC
and Ayelet Merger Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted the members
of the Board of Directors in the alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a
declaration that the members of the Board of Directors have
breached their fiduciary duties and that the stockholder vote
should be enjoined, an injunction barring consummation of the
merger or rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
merger, and damages and attorneys' fees.  On August 5, 2011, the
plaintiffs served document requests on all defendants.  On
August 9, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, adding additional allegations that, among other things,
(i) the sales process purportedly favored James Desnick over other
bidders; (ii) the members of the Board of Directors were allegedly
acting to advance their own interests at the expense of Company
stockholders; and (iii) the members of the Board of Directors
purportedly failed to comply with their disclosure obligations in
the preliminary proxy statement filed on July 21, 2011.

On September 6, 2011, the Company and the other parties to the
lawsuit reached a settlement, which provides for the dismissal
with prejudice of the lawsuit and a release of the defendants from
all present and future claims asserted in the lawsuit in exchange
for, among other things, providing additional disclosures
contained in the Company's proxy statement. In addition, as part
of the settlement, the Company has agreed to pay an amount not to
exceed $250,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for their fees and
expenses, subject to court approval. The proposed settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including, without limitation,
court approval of the proposed settlement. There is no assurance
that these conditions will be satisfied. The defendants have
denied that they have committed any violation of law or duty or
engaged in any wrongful acts, and have entered into the settlement
in principle solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Judge Certifies MBS Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
A California federal judge on Nov. 21 certified a class action
lawsuit in the case against Countrywide that accuses the home
mortgage giant of deceptive practices in the sale of billions of
dollars in mortgage-backed securities (MBS).

The judge also appointed the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as lead counsel in the case.
As such, the firm will give notice to members of the class about
the litigation.

"This is a major step in holding Countrywide accountable for
misrepresenting the mortgages it was securitizing," said
plaintiffs' lead counsel Steven Toll, of Cohen Milstein.  "We are
now able to proceed with factual discovery regarding the quality
of mortgages that were packaged and sold to investors."

U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, of the Central District
of California, signed an order certifying class consisting of all
persons or entities that purchased MBS from eight groups of
securities sold by Countrywide entities before January 14, 2010.

The order came after Countrywide stipulated to a proposed class in
conformity with the judge's previous rulings in the case.  The
agreement by Countrywide and the plaintiffs cut short protracted
legal argument over whether the issues to be addressed in this
litigation could be resolved on a class-wide basis rather than
investor-by-investor.

The class action lawsuit filed in 2010 by several state retirement
funds charges that Countrywide used materially false or misleading
documents to sell billions of dollars of MBS that were downgraded
to junk bond status by 2008.

The class representatives include the Iowa Public Employees'
Retirement System, the Oregon Public Employees' Retirement System,
the Orange County Employees' Retirement System and the General
Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist
Church.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by Steven J. Toll, Julie
Goldsmith Reiser, Joshua Devore, Christopher Lometti, Joel
Laitman, and Daniel Rehns of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
of Washington, D.C.

For a copy of the order, visit
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/news.php?NewsID=477

The case is Maine State Retirement System et al., v. Countrywide
Financial Corp. et al., case number 10-CV-00302, in the U.S.
District Court of the Central District of California.


ENGLOBAL CORP: In Settlement Discussions With "Phillips" Parties
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENGlobal Corporation is currently in settlement discussions to
resolve the class action lawsuit commenced by Michael Phillips,
according to the Company's November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

On July 7, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, entitled "Michael Phillips, on behalf of Himself and
Others Similarly Situated, v. ENGlobal Corporation."  The lawsuit
was filed on behalf of approximately 200 welding inspectors
seeking damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.  These types of workers were
historically paid a day rate, a practice that is prevalent through
out the industry and, in some instances, is client-driven.  Many
of ENGlobal's competitors have also been sued in similar actions.
ENGlobal has recently modified its pay practices to pay these
workers by the hour.  ENGlobal is currently in settlement
discussions, and believes that it has adequate legal reserves for
the case.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Wage Claim Class Suits Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., continues to defend itself from
two class action lawsuits filed in California and Washington
alleging wage claims, according to the Company's November 8, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named
plaintiff.  The suit alleges that, at the time of the PA
Transaction, the Company and other named defendants willfully
failed to pay former California employees of Privileged Access and
its affiliates who became employees of the Company all of the
wages they earned during their employment with PA, including
accrued vacation time.  The suit also alleges that the Company
improperly "stripped" those employees of their seniority.  The
suit asserts claims for alleged violation of the California Labor
Code; alleged violation of the California Business & Professions
Code and for alleged unfair business practices; alleged breach of
contract; alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing; and for alleged unjust enrichment.  The original
complaint sought, among other relief, compensatory and statutory
damages; restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
attorney's fees, expenses and costs; penalties; and exemplary and
punitive damages.

The complaint did not specify a dollar amount sought.  The Court
granted in part without leave to amend and in part with leave to
amend the Company's motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's
original complaint and various amended complaints.  Discovery is
proceeding on the remaining claims in the third amended complaint.
On February 15, 2011, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  On June 22, 2011, the Court determined the
content of the class notice.  The Company will vigorously defend
the lawsuit.

On December 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in Washington state court filed by a single named
plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiff in the
California class action.  The complaint asserts on behalf of a
putative class of Washington employees of PA who became employees
of the Company substantially similar allegations as are alleged in
the California class action.  The Company moved to dismiss the
complaint.  On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed: (1) the first
cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor
Code for failure to pay accrued vacation time; (2) the second
cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor
Code for unpaid wages on termination; (3) the third cause of
action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for
payment of wages less than entitled; and (4) the fourth cause of
action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.  The court did not dismiss the fifth cause of
action for breach of contract, the sixth cause of action for
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; or the seventh
cause of action for unjust enrichment.  On May 22, 2009, the
Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the causes of
action not previously dismissed, which was denied.  With leave of
court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the material
allegations of which the Company denied in an answer filed on
September 11, 2009.  On July 30, 2010, the named plaintiff died as
a result of an unrelated accident.  Plaintiff's counsel may
attempt to substitute a new named plaintiff.  The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Membership Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc.,
arising from membership terms in the Company's Thousand Trails
network of campgrounds remains pending in a California 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 July 29, 2011, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by a two named plaintiffs,
who are husband and wife.  Among other allegations, the suit
alleges that the plaintiffs purchased a membership in the
Company's Thousand Trails network of campgrounds and paid annual
dues; that they were unable to make a reservation to utilize one
of the campgrounds because, they were told, their membership did
not permit them to utilize that particular campground; that the
Company failed to comply with the written disclosure requirements
of various states' membership camping statutes; that the Company
misrepresented that it provides a money back guaranty; and that
the Company misrepresented that the campgrounds or portions of the
campgrounds would be limited to use by members.

Allegedly on behalf of "between 100,000 and 200,000" putative
class members, the suit asserts claims for alleged violation of:
(1) the California Civil Code Sections 1812.300, et seq.; (2) the
Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 32-2198, et seq.; (3) Chapter
222 of the Texas Property Code; (4) Florida Code Sections 509.001,
et seq.; (5) Chapter 119B of the Nevada Administrative Code; (6)
Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., (7) Business
& Professions Code Sections 17500; (8) Fraud - Intentional
Misrepresentation and False Promise; (9) Fraud - Omission; (10)
Negligent Misrespresentation; and (11) Unjust Enrichment.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the membership
agreements and refund of the member dues of plaintiffs and all
others who purchased a membership from or paid membership dues to
the Company since July 21, 2007; general and special compensatory
damages; reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of suit;
punitive and exemplary damages; a permanent injunction against the
complained of conduct; and pre-judgment interest.

On August 19, 2011, the Company filed an answer generally denying
the allegations of the complaint, and asserting affirmative
defenses.  On August 23, 2011, the Company removed the case from
the California state court to the federal district court in San
Jose.  The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


FELTEX CARPETS: Directors Can't Shift Class Action to Auckland
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Herald reports that the directors of failed carpet
maker Feltex Carpets and brokerages involved in the initial public
float have lost their bid to shift a class suit to Auckland.

In an October 7 written judgment, Judge Judith Potter turned down
an attempt to shift the class action by some 1,800 former Feltex
shareholders to Auckland, saying Justice Christine French had
closely managed the proceedings in the Christchurch registry to
date, and the precedent-setting case needed consistency through
the pre-trial stages.

The decision was published on Justice Ministry's Web site this
week.

"In a proceeding which is unique and complex, as this one is, the
efficiencies that can be provided by management through the
interlocutory stages to trial and preferably including trial, by
an assigned judge, offer greater advantages," the judgment said.

"Such cost savings that might be achieved by transfer, are more
than outweighed by the convenience and efficiency of continuing
the close management and control of the proceeding by Justice
French in the Christchurch registry."

Former Feltex chairman Tim Saunders, chief executive Peter Thomas
and directors Sam Magill, John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter
Hunter, and Joan Withers are subject to a class action alleging
the company's 2004 prospectus contained misleading information, or
left out information that would impact on investment decisions.

Feltex collapsed in 2006, owing creditors between $30 million and
$40 million, and destroying some $254 million in shareholder
value.

Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners, which offered
Feltex for sale, Credit Suisse Private Equity and joint lead float
managers, First New Zealand Capital and Forsyth Barr are also
subject to the suit.

Counsel for the defendants claimed the commercial list in Auckland
would be more appropriate due to the likely number of applications
and possible appeals to "prompt the orderly resolution of complex
litigation of a commercial nature," the judgment said.

A trial in Auckland would be more convenient for most of the
defense counsel, and the plaintiff, former Feltex shareholder Eric
Houghton, had been dragging out the proceedings by breaching
timetable orders, defense counsel said.

Because the trial has only recently been given the go-ahead after
Houghton secured a commercial litigation fund to pay for the
action, it had previously been too early to apply for a shift of
location, they said.

Judge Potter said that stance was "illogical" given the defense
has always opposed the action proceeding in the three years and
four months since it was first filed in Christchurch.


GENTA INC: Continues to Defend "Collins" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genta Incorporated continues to defend a class action lawsuit
pending in New Jersey, according to the Company's November 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In September 2008, several stockholders, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the Company, the Board of Directors, and certain of its
executive officers in Superior Court of New Jersey, captioned
Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08.  The complaint alleged
that in issuing convertible notes in June 2008, the Board of
Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties,
and the Company aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty.
On March 20, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the class action complaint and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  On April 30, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division.
On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
judgment based on a claim of new evidence, which was denied on
June 12, 2009.  The plaintiffs also asked the Appellate Division
for a temporary remand to permit the Superior Court judge to
resolve the issues of the new evidence plaintiffs sought to raise
and the Appellate Division granted the motion for temporary
remand.  Following the briefing and a hearing, the Superior Court
denied the motion for relief from judgment on August 28, 2009.
Thus, this matter proceeded in the Appellate Division.
Plaintiffs' brief before the Appellate Division was filed on
October 28, 2009, and the Company's responsive brief was filed on
January 27, 2010.  The plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on
March 15, 2010.

On August 3, 2011, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of
the Superior Court in part and reversed the decision of the
Superior Court in part.  The Appellate Division held that the
Superior Court properly dismissed the complaint, but should have
permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  The
Appellate Division remanded the case to the Superior Court.  On
August 15, 2011, the defendants moved for reconsideration by the
Appellate Division, but their motion was denied on August 26,
2011.  The Company, Board of Directors and Officers deny these
allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion to dismiss a consolidated putative
securities fraud class action captioned Horowitz v. Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc., has yet to be scheduled, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 24, 2011.

The consolidated putative securities fraud class action, organized
under the caption Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable
William K. Sessions, III. The underlying complaints in the
consolidated action allege violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its
revenues and its forward guidance. The complaints include counts
for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officer defendants. The plaintiffs seek to represent
all purchasers of the Company's securities between July 28, 2010,
and September 28, 2010, or September 29, 2010. The complaints seek
class certification, compensatory damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief
as the court should deem just and proper. Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
4(a) (3), plaintiffs had until November 29, 2010, to move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. On
December 20, 2010, the court appointed Jerzy Warchol, Robert M.
Nichols, Jennifer M. Nichols, Marc Schmerler and Mike Shanley lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-lead
counsel and the Law Office of Brian Hehir and Woodward & Kelley,
PLLC as liaison counsel. On December 29, 2010, and January 3,
2011, two of the plaintiffs in the underlying actions in the
consolidated proceedings, Russell Blank and Dan M. Horowitz,
voluntarily dismissed their cases without prejudice. Pursuant to a
stipulated motion granted by the court on November 29, 2010, the
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 23,
2011, and defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on April 25,
2011. The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's
motion to dismiss on July 12, 2011, and the Company filed a reply
in support of its motion to dismiss on August 26, 2011. A hearing
on the motion to dismiss has not yet been scheduled.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Action Over Tax-Refund Anticipation Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims H&R Block targets the working poor and
minorities for tax-refund anticipation loans that, combined with
Block's "exorbitant" and illegal fees, charge annual interest
rates of more than 100%.

Named plaintiffs Anthony Johnson and Phyllis Robinson say H&R
Block "aggressively" markets its loans at "exorbitant triple-digit
interest rates to working poor and minorities" with "finance
charges, that when properly calculated in accordance with the
Truth in Lending Act, often exceed 100% APR."

Mr. Robinson and Ms. Johnson say H&R Block did not provide them
"any disclosures regarding the APR or finance charges" in
preparing their refund anticipation loans.

"Although a significant profit source to defendant and other for
profit tax preparers, and a fundamental part of their business
models, these aggressively marketed bank products provide little
to no value to consumers at predatory interest rates and fees,
often in conjunction with exorbitant tax preparation fees for
straightforward tax filings," the complaint states.  "Tax filers
can usually get their federal tax refund in 8 to 15 days by direct
deposit, without getting a loan or paying any extra fees to
companies like defendant.  The IRS usually issues refunds by check
within 21 to 28 days.

"The Department of Treasury has determined that RAL [refund
anticipation loan] usage is highly concentrated in poor and
minority communities.  Across the U.S., just 20% of all
communities account for nearly 70% of all RALs.  Defendant and
other tax preparers target these high-interest-rate loans to
minorities and the working poor, particularly those who receive
the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).  The median adjusted gross
income among RAL consumers is $19,768.  In 2008, although only 17%
of tax filers received the EITC, EITC claimants comprised 64% of
RAL consumers.  Viewed another way, 33 % of EITC claimants
purchased a RAL, compared to only 3 % of non-EITC claimants."

H&R Block spokeswoman Stephanie Simonson told Courthouse News she
could not "comment on any specifics of this case" but said Block
believes it "acted in accordance with all applicable laws and
regulations governing our products."

But the class claims that H&R Block's "predatory bank products are
a critical part of its business model.  Defendant reportedly files
1 in every 5 EITCs filed in the U.S."

The predatory loans are coordinated through Block subsidiary H&R
Block Bank (HRBB) and HSBC Trust Co., according to the complaint.
It claims that HSBC was the lender for Block's refund anticipation
loans for every tax season from 1996 through 2010.

"During fiscal year 2006, defendant signed an agreement with HSBC
allowing it to purchase a 49.999999% interest in all RALs that it
facilitates," the complaint states.  "Defendant's HSBC RAL
participation revenue was $146.2 million, 139.8 million and $190.2
million for fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008 respectively.

"In December of 2010, HSBC terminated its agreement to provide
defendant's clients with HSBC RALs due to significant federal
regulatory restrictions.  As a result, defendant was not able to
offer HSBC RALs during the 2011 tax season. Defendant recognized
an immediate decrease in its revenue, receiving only $17 million
in HSBC RAL participation proceeds.  In an effort to offset the
loss of HSBC RAL participation revenue, defendant raised the fees
on its HRBB Federal RACs [refund anticipation checks] and
aggressively marketed these predatory products to the working poor
and minority clients.  Defendant's efforts were successful, with
its HRBB RAC fee revenues increasing over 107% to more than $181.6
million in 2011 compared to only $87.5 million in 2010.
Therefore, defendant has a strong economic interest in steering
its customers to these predatory products."

The class claims Block loads the predatory loans with finance
charges, including administrative and check-processing fees, but
"provides no disclosure of the triple-digit interest rate or
finance charge for these transactions."

It claims that these practices violate California's refund
anticipation loan laws, the Truth In Lending Act and California
consumer protection laws.

Citing Block's own Web site and 10-K filings, the class claims
that $2.9 billion of the company's $3.7 billion in revenue for
fiscal year 2011 came from tax services.

"According to H&R Block's Web site, it prepares 1 in every 7 U.S.
tax returns.  For the 2011 fiscal year H&R Block prepared 21.4
million tax returns in the U.S., representing 16.4% of the total
number of estimated returns received by the Internal Revenue
Service ('IRS').  As of April 20, 2011, H&R Block operated 6,493
company-owned stores and 4,575 franchise offices.  H&R Block's
workforce includes approximately 7,900 regular full-time
employees, with its numbers growing to over 107,000 when you
include tax season employees," according to the complaint.

The class seeks disgorgement, compensatory and statutory damages.
Its lead counsel is M. Isaac Miller with Milstein Adelman of Santa
Monica, who filed a similar class action against JTH Tax dba
Liberty Tax Services.  The law firm did not immediately respond to
a request for comment.

Named as defendants in the Block case are H&R Block and its
affiliates and subsidiaries H&R Block Services, HRB Tax Group, H&R
Block Enterprises and H&R Block Eastern Enterprises.

A copy of the Complaint in Johnson, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-09577 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/21/HRBlock.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          M. Isaac Miller, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
                  imiller@milsteinadelman.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177

               - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          Darrin L. Williams, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES PULLIAM & BOWMAN, PLCC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: hbates@carneywilliams.com
                  dwilliams@carneywilliams.com


HEADWATERS INC: Appeal in "Adtech" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Headwaters Incorporated's appeal from a $16 million judgment in
a lawsuit involving former stockholders of Adtech, Inc., remains
pending

In 1998, Headwaters entered into a technology purchase agreement
with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc. The transaction
transferred certain patent and royalty rights to Headwaters
related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by Davidson. In
2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint from the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee filed
by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among other things,
fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion, patent
infringement and interference with contract arising out of the
1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between Davidson
and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other. All
claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial proceedings
except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust. The District
Court certified a class comprised of substantially all purported
stockholders of Adtech, Inc. The plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of $43.0 million
plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages. In June 2009, a
jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of $8.7 million
for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion of the class
members. In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict after a trial
for the remaining 46 members of the class in the amount of $7.3
million. In April 2011, the trial court entered an order for a
constructive trust in the amount of approximately $16.0 million
(the same amount as the sum of the previous jury verdicts), denied
all other outstanding motions, and entered judgment against
Headwaters in the total approximate amount of $16.0 million, in
accordance with the verdicts and order on constructive trust. The
$16.0 million is fully accrued as of September 30, 2011. The court
denied all post-judgment motions by the parties. Headwaters filed
a supersedeas bond and a notice of appeal from the judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Plaintiffs
have also filed notice of an appeal. Appellate briefing has begun,
but is not complete, and the Court of Appeals has not set a date
for oral argument. Because the resolution of the litigation is
uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion
as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters' liability.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 18,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.


HEADWATERS INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Suit vs. Eldorado
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the claim of negligence against a
subsidiary of Headwaters Incorporated.

Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York.
Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope
and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began
to rot and grow mold.  In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and
began repairing the twenty-one apartment buildings.  Also in 2008,
Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of
the State of New York against the prime contractor and its
performance bond surety, the designer, and the Company's
subsidiary, Eldorado Stone, LLC, which supplied architectural
stone that was installed by others during construction.  The prime
contractor then sued over a dozen subcontractors who in turn sued
others.  Archstone claims as damages approximately $36.0 million
in repair costs, $15.0 million in lost lease payments, $7.0
million paid to tenants who sued Archstone, and $7.0 million for
class action defense fees, plus prejudgment interest and
attorney's fees.  Eldorado Stone answered denying liability and
tendered the matter to its insurers who are paying for the defense
of the case.  The court has dismissed all claims against Eldorado
Stone, except the claim of negligence, and discovery is underway.

Because the resolution of the action is uncertain, legal counsel
and management cannot express an opinion concerning the likely
outcome of this matter, the liability of Eldorado Stone, if any,
or the insurers' obligation to indemnify Eldorado Stone against
loss, if any.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 18, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Imperial
Holdings, Inc., on Nov. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf 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.

Imperial provides premium financing for individual life insurance
policies and purchases life insurance policies in the life
settlement and secondary markets for resale to investors.  The
Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the IPO misrepresented or failed to
disclose 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.

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 U.S. Magistrate Judge 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."  Following 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.

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 Imperial common stock pursuant to
the Company's February 7, 2011 IPO, you have until January 17,
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
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Textile Group, Inc., is still defending itself
against a consolidated lawsuit in South Carolina, 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.

Three substantially identical lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South Carolina
related to the merger of the Company and a company formerly known
as International Textile Group, Inc. ("Former ITG") in late 2006
(the "Merger"). The first lawsuit was filed in 2008 and the second
and third lawsuits were filed in 2009, all by the same attorney.
These three lawsuits were consolidated in 2010. The actions name
as defendants, among others, certain individuals who were officers
and directors of Former ITG or the Company at the time of the
Merger. The plaintiffs have raised purported derivative and direct
(class action) claims and contend that certain of the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger.
The plaintiffs have also made certain related claims against
certain of the defendants' former advisors. While the Company is a
nominal defendant for purposes of the derivative action claims,
the Company is not aware of any claims for affirmative relief
being made against it. However, the Company has certain
obligations to provide indemnification to its officers and
directors (and certain former officers and directors) against
certain claims and believes the lawsuits are being defended
vigorously. Certain fees and costs related to this litigation are
to be paid or reimbursed in part under the Company's insurance
programs. Because of the uncertainties associated with the
litigation, management cannot estimate the impact of the ultimate
resolution of the litigation and it is the Company's policy to
expense legal fees related to this litigation, net of estimated
insurance recoveries, as incurred. It is the opinion of the
Company's management that any failure by the Company's insurance
providers to provide any required insurance coverage could have a
material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


INUVO INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Tarczynski" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Initial discovery has begun in the class action lawsuit commenced
by Beth Tarczynski against Inuvo, Inc., in Florida, the Company
disclosed in its November 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On June 10, 2011, a putative class action complaint, Beth
Tarczynski v. Inuvo, Inc. d/b/a Blog Tool Kit, Home Biz Ventures,
LLC, and John Doe Defendants; Case No. 11-5111-CI-7, in the
Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, was filed
alleging violations of the Florida statute prohibiting misleading
advertisements, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, fraud in the inducement, conspiracy to commit
fraud, restitution/unjust enrichment, and breach of contract.  The
plaintiffs are seeking certification of a statewide class and
unspecified damages.  Initial discovery has begun and Inuvo says
it is vigorously defending the action.


INVESTORS BANCORP: Enters Into MOU to Settle Shareholder Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2011, Investors Bancorp, Inc., entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding related to a purported class action
lawsuit filed by Joseph Underwood, a shareholder represented by
the law firm of Brower Piven, a Professional Corporation, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings against
Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc., Brooklyn MHC, Brooklyn Federal
Savings and their respective directors, and the Company, Investors
MHC, and Investors Bank, and a lawsuit filed on September 16,
2011, by Russ Bastin, a shareholder represented by the law firm of
Brodsky & Smith, LLC, who filed a similar and substantially
identical shareholder action in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of Kings, against the same defendants, according
to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 18, 2011.

Previously, on October 18, 2011, the parties to the Shareholder
Actions filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Consolidating
Related Shareholder Actions and Appointing Interim Co-Lead Counsel
for the Plaintiffs with the court.  The parties' stipulation
provides for, among other things, the consolidation of the Bastin
Matter, the Lawsuit, and any other shareholder action filed in or
transferred to the court that involves similar questions of law or
fact.  The Proposed Order is awaiting approval by the court.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties
contemplate entering into a stipulation of settlement that will
settle and release all claims that were asserted and/or could have
been asserted by the parties in connection with the Shareholder
Actions.  These actions are expected to be taken by the
defendants:

   * Investors Bancorp, without admitting any liability or
     wrongdoing, will pay Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc.
     shareholders of record (other than BFS Bancorp, MHC) as of
     the effective date of the mergers contemplated by the Merger
     Agreement, an additional $0.07 per share, upon consummation
     thereof, in consideration for settlement of all claims in the
     Shareholder Actions and the releases, provided, however, that
     such shareholders do not opt out of the settlement;

   * Section 10.02(b)(iii) of the Merger Agreement will be
     modified to provide that the Investors Bancorp Fee, as
     defined in the Merger Agreement, will be reduced to $300,000,
     subject to the condition that the Stipulation of Settlement,
     to be prepared by the parties, is approved by the appropriate
     court.  If the Stipulation of Settlement is not approved by
     the court, the Investors Bancorp Fee shall be equal to
     $460,000, plus out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed the sum
     of $50,000 less any loan inventory expenses paid by Brooklyn
     Federal Savings Bank pursuant to Section 5.03 of the Merger
     Agreement; and

   * The plaintiffs are to be provided with a copy of the proxy
     statement before issuance for their review, and the
     defendants must consider in good faith any changes thereto
     proposed by plaintiffs up until a reasonable time before the
     definitive proxy is filed.

The Stipulation of Settlement will include terms proposing the
certification of a non-opt out class with respect to all claims
for injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief.  Under the
terms of the Amendment, in the event that the Stipulation of
Settlement is rejected or denied by the appropriate court, or is
otherwise terminated in accordance with its terms, the Amendment
will become null and void.


MICHAELS STORES: Still Faces Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Stores Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the
Company's November 18, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 29, 2011.

On September 15, 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed
on September 13, 2011, in the California Superior Court in and for
the County of Orange by four former store managers as a purported
class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former
and current store managers employed by Michaels stores in
California.  The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on
October 17, 2011, which removal is being contested by plaintiffs.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company stores improperly classified
its store managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay
all wages, overtime, waiting time penalties and failed to provide
accurate wage statements.  The lawsuit also alleges that the
foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including
California's unfair competition law.  The plaintiffs have pled
less than five million dollars in damages, penalties, costs of
suit and attorneys' fees, exclusive of interest.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.


MICHAELS STORES: Suits Over Alleged Credit Card Violation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stores Inc. continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits filed against the Company for unlawfully collecting
personally identifiable information as part of a credit card
transaction, according to the Company's November 18, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2011.

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated California consumers.  The
Carson lawsuit alleges that Michaels unlawfully requested and
recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip code)
as part of a credit card transaction.  The plaintiff sought
statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.  The
Company contested certification of this claim as a class action
and filed a motion to dismiss the claim.  On March 9, 2009, the
Court dismissed the case with prejudice.  The plaintiff appealed
this decision to the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth
District, San Diego.  On July 22, 2010, the Court of Appeal upheld
the dismissal of the case.  The plaintiff appealed this decision
to the Supreme Court of California.  On September 29, 2010, the
California Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for
review; however, it stayed any further proceedings in the case
until another similar zip code case pending before the court,
Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, was decided.  On February 10, 2011, the
California Supreme Court ruled, in the Williams-Sonoma case, that
zip codes are personally identifiable information and therefore
the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, as amended prohibits
businesses from requesting or requiring zip codes in connection
with a credit card transaction.  On or about April 6, 2011, the
Supreme Court transferred the Carson case back to the Court of
Appeal with directions to the Court to reconsider its decision in
light of Pineda decision.  Upon reconsideration the Court of
Appeal remanded the case back to the San Diego Superior Court.
The Company is reviewing the matter in light of this recent
decision and, at this time, it is unable to estimate a range of
loss, if any, in this case.

Additionally, since the California Supreme Court decision on
February 10, 2011, three additional purported class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the Song Act have been filed
against the Company: Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and
Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San Diego
Superior Court and Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Central Division.  Unopposed motions to coordinate these actions
have been filed and an order recommending the coordination has
been entered.  Also, relying in part on the California Supreme
Court decision, an additional purported class action lawsuit was
filed on May 20, 2011 against the Company: Melissa Tyler v.
Michaels Stores, Inc. in the United States District Court-District
of Massachusetts, alleging violation of a similar Massachusetts
statute regarding the collection of personally identifiable
information in connection with a credit card transaction.  A
hearing was held on October 20, 2011 on the Company's Motion to
Dismiss the claims and the decision is pending.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend each of these cases and is unable, at
this time, to estimate a range of loss, if any.


MICHAELS STORES: Court Approves Settlement of "Rattray" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court approved the settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit filed by a consumer against Michael
Stores Inc., according to the Company's November 18, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2011.

On April 9, 2010, Ross Rattray, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the San
Diego Superior Court, on behalf of himself and all similarly-
situated California consumers.  The Rattray lawsuit alleges causes
of action for unlawful and unfair business practices and false
advertising under the California Business and Professions Code,
and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for
misrepresentation that Michaels gift cards are not redeemable for
cash and for failure to disclose that the plaintiff could redeem
the unused cash balance on a gift card when the value fell below
$10.00.  On March 15, 2011, the matter was mediated and a
tentative settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiff.
The settlement was approved by the Court and was finalized on
October 21, 2011, for an immaterial amount.


MICHAELS STORES: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Illinois Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stores Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint filed in
Illinois, according to the Company's November 18, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2011.

On May 18, 2011, Brandi F. Ramundo, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated U.S.
consumers.  The Ramundo lawsuit alleges that Michaels failed to
take commercially reasonable steps to protect consumer financial
data, and was in breach of contract and various laws, including
the Federal Stored Communications Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, costs, credit card
fraud monitoring services, interest and attorneys' fees.
Subsequently three additional purported class action lawsuits
significantly mirroring the claims in the Ramundo complaint were
filed against the Company: Mary Allen v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
Kimberly Siprut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., and Jeremy Williams v.
Michaels Stores, Inc., all in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  On June 8, 2011, an order was
entered consolidating all four matters, which also provided for
future consolidation of all related actions subsequently filed or
transferred.  On July 8, 2011, a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint styled In Re Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litigation was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois and on August 8, 2011, the Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss the In Re Michaels Stores Consolidated
Complaint.  A hearing on this motion was held on October 27, 2011,
and the decision is pending.

On August 25, 2011, subsequent to the filing of the Consolidated
Complaint and the Company's Motion to Dismiss, a fifth class
action, Sherry v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On
September 29, 2011, the Sherry case was reassigned and
consolidated into the Consolidated Complaint.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and intend to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.  The Company is unable to estimate a range of
loss, if any, in the case.


MORGAN STANLEY: Towanda School Dist. Gets Share From Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Loewenstein, writing for The Daily Review, reports that the
Towanda Area School District has received a $193,970 payment as
part of a settlement of a class-action lawsuit, the business
manager of the school district said at the Towanda School Board's
most recent meeting.

The lawsuit is related to the sale of municipal derivatives by
Morgan Stanley and other companies, according to written
information provided by the school district about the settlement.
Morgan Stanley is the financial institution with which the school
district has a swap agreement, said Doreen Secor, business manager
of the Towanda Area School District.

The Towanda School District was not one of the parties that
brought the lawsuit, she said.  However, this summer, the school
district received a share of the settlement of the lawsuit, she
said.

"The settlement includes all state, local and municipal government
entities, independent government agencies and private entities
that purchased municipal derivatives any time from Jan. 1, 1992 to
the present," according to the written information.  "The
settlement affects only the claims against Morgan Stanley.  The
case is continuing against the other non-settling defendants."

The school district has placed its share of the settlement in the
same account which contains all of the earnings the school
district has made off the swap agreement, Ms. Secor said.

The account contains the initial $160,000 payment that the school
district received when it entered into the swap, along with the
payments that Morgan Stanley has made to the school district as
part of the swap agreement, Ms. Secor said.

Under the swap agreement, each month either Morgan Stanley pays
the school district a sum of money or the school district pays
Morgan Stanley a sum.  In recent months, Morgan Stanley has been
paying the school district around $1,400 monthly, said the school
district's financial advisor, Les Bear of W.R. Baird & Co.

In only a few instances has the school district had to make a
payment to Morgan Stanley, Ms. Secor said.

The swap agreement is "working very well" for the school district,
Mr. Bear said.

The school district's earnings from the swap agreement, along with
the school district's share of the settlement, have brought the
total amount in the school district's swap account to $425,489,
Ms. Secor said.

Ms. Secor said she placed the school district's share of the
settlement into the swap account because the settlement is related
to the swap.


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the first half of 2008, Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, was
named as a defendant in 11 (subsequently reduced to nine)
purported class action lawsuits and six (subsequently reduced to
two) derivative lawsuits.  In each of these class action lawsuits,
the plaintiffs claim to represent a class of investors in the
Company's shares who allegedly were injured by misstatements in
press releases and SEC filings between May 3, 2004, and January
28, 2008.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves
and the shareholders of the class they purport to represent.  The
class action lawsuits have been consolidated into a single legal
proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland.  By court order, a single consolidated
amended complaint was filed in the class actions on December 5,
2008, and the cases will proceed as one consolidated case.
Similarly, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the derivative cases on December 12, 2008, and these cases will
likewise proceed as a single case.  In the derivative lawsuits,
the plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the Company was
injured because its directors and certain named officers did not
fulfill duties regarding the accuracy of its financial
disclosures.  A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit brought by a
shareholder of a corporation, not on the shareholder's own behalf,
but on behalf of the corporation and against the parties allegedly
causing harm to the corporation.  Any proceeds of a successful
derivative action are awarded to the corporation, except to the
extent they are used to pay fees to the plaintiffs' counsel and
other costs.  The derivative cases and the class action cases have
all been consolidated before the same court.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the class action and the
motion is before the court for decision.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because these
specific actions are still in a preliminary stage, the Company
says it cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these matters at
this time.

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

Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC's primary business is its
investments in tax-exempt and taxable bonds secured predominantly
by affordable multifamily housing properties.


PANERA: Sets Aside $5 Million to Settle Two Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Volkmann, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports
that Panera has set aside $5 million to pay a settlement in two
class-action suits filed in California centered on overtime pay
and breaks.

Last week, Panera entered into a memorandum of agreement regarding
the proposed settlement of a class-action suit filed in the
California Superior Court, Contra Costa County, against Panera by
Nick Sotoudeh and Gabriella Brizuela, the St. Louis-based bakery-
cafe chain (Nasdaq: PNRA) said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The plaintiffs' complaints, filed in 2009
and 2011, respectively, alleged, among other things, violations of
the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, according to
the regulatory filing.

Panera, led by CEO Bill Moreton, has denied any wrongdoing.

The California Superior Court must still sign off on the
settlement but Panera said in the filing that it has reserved $5
million for the payment of claims.

Panera, better known locally as St. Louis Bread Co., reported a
profit of $28.8 million in the third quarter, up 27% from $22.8
million a year earlier, as the restaurant chain continued to
perform better than other eateries.  Total revenue for the quarter
ended Sept. 27 rose 22% to $453.1 million, compared with $372
million in the prior-year third quarter.


PARMALAT: Farmers Mull Class Action Over Milk Price Cut
-------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Sundstrom, writing for Sunshine Coast Daily, reports that
Sunshine Coast dairy farmers are facing another milk price cut.

Carters Ridge farmer Grant Ledger said he had received notice he
would have to accept another three to four cents less per litre of
milk from his purchaser Parmalat for the next three years if he
agreed to a new contract.

The move will force Mr. Ledger to officially retire and rely on
his super fund to keep him going.

He would have to work for free if the farm was to have any chance
of survival.

"Then my son will be able to continue getting an income from the
farm," Mr. Ledger said.

He called on other dairy farmers to join a class action and refuse
to accept the latest price offer.

"All farmers should not accept the contracts.  They should make a
stance," Mr. Ledger said.

"The way we're going the dairy industry will be wrecked in
Queensland."

He had no doubt who was to blame behind the latest price cuts.

"The price we're getting is a direct result of Coles' supermarket
price war," he said.

Ever since Coles introduced its $1 a litre for the price of milk,
farmers have argued they are being short-changed.

"With the monopoly of Coles and Woolworths, farming is going
backwards," Mr. Ledger said

The number of dairy farmers in the Mary Valley has rapidly
declined.

"The biggest endangered species on the Mary River is not turtles
or lung fish, it's the farmers," Mr. Ledger said.

"There is only a handful left and the land in the Mary Valley is
first class agricultural land."

Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation president Brian Tessmann
said the Parmalat price cut followed a similar move by National
Foods months ago.

"Parmalat has always been the highest payers, but they are cutting
back," Mr. Tessmann said.

"They can't hold the prices up."

He expected more farmers to leave the industry.

"Lots of farmers are really struggling to stay."

Parmalat could not be reached for comment.


SINO CLEAN: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sino Clean Energy Inc. continues to defend a shareholder class
action lawsuit in Nevada, according to the Company's November 18,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On May 6, 2011, a shareholder class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its present and former officers
and directors for alleged violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The plaintiff claims that the Company's SEC filings
during the period between April 6, 2009, and May 5, 2011, contain
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
revenues and operations.  The action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California and
is titled, Plaintiff Gary Redwen v.  Sino Clean Energy, Inc.,
Baowen Ren, Wen Fu, Albert Ching-Hwa Pu, Hon Wan Chan, Wenjie
Zhang, Zhixin Jing, and Peng Zhou, Case No. CV11-03936.


STATE OF MONTANA: Ag-Land Tax Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emilie Boyles, writing for Billings Economy Examiner, reports that
producers who had hoped to combine efforts to challenge steep tax
increases in 2010 were notified that they will not be allowed to
have the cases heard as a class action and instead will have to
send each case individually through the court system.

In the spring of 2010, farmers faced a deadline to pay the second
half of 2009 property taxes which in many cases as much as doubled
over a five year period.  At that time, many ag-land owners paid
under protest their Class 3 taxes class.  Meanwhile, a class
action lawsuit was filed by the Lucas Ranch, Montana Farm Bureau
Federation and Montana Taxpayers Association against the Montana
Department of Revenue (DOR) regarding improperly phased valuation
changes to ag-land taxes.  The court has now decided that the
phase-in tax issues faced by agricultural producers as a result of
agriculture land reappraisal must be considered on a case-by-case
basis, and refused to certify a class of all agriculture
producers.

The Montana Farm Bureau says the decision does not determine the
substantive issues in the case.  Jake Cummins, MFBF Executive Vice
President said that while they were disappointed by the decision,
they are appealing it and still contend the incorrect phase-in
applies to all property owners who protested the incorrect
portion.

Echoing Cummins, Montax President Nancy Schlepp said that
landowners who feel their property tax was phased-in incorrectly
should continue to protest that portion of their taxes.  She
explained "Despite the fact that some counties have released
protested taxes after the initial court decision on class
certification, as long as property tax payers continue to protest,
they are still eligible for a refund, depending on the appeal and
the final decision on the merits of Lucas v. DOR.  Upon a
favorable decision on Lucas v. DOR, counties will be obligated to
refund protested taxes, even if they have been released,
considering that the taxpayer has validly protested as outlined in
15-1-402, MCA ."


STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA: Property Owners File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Property owners in the path of the planned Southern Wake
Expressway have filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the
N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and N.C. Turnpike
Authority (NCTA) violated their Constitutional property rights.
The lawsuit was filed in Superior Court by Raleigh-based Shanahan
Law Group, PLLC and Winston Salem-based Hendrick, Bryant, Nerhood
& Otis, LLP.

The lawsuit alleges that:

Actions by the NCDOT and NCTA constitute an unlawful taking by
inverse condemnation of the plaintiffs' property; inverse
condemnation is a term used in the law to describe a situation in
which the government takes private property but fails to pay the
compensation required by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

The NCDOT's and NCTA's application of their Hardship Program
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution through its unequal treatment of property
owners.  Under their application of the program, physically or
financially distressed owners are considered for acquisition while
healthy and financially stable owners are not -- even though they
may be equally adversely impacted by the Southern Wake Expressway.

According to the lawsuit, this violates the Equal Protection
clause because it involves a fundamental right (the Constitutional
right to own and control private property), treats persons
differently than others similarly situated without any rational
basis, and is unevenly applied.

The takings by the NCDOT and NCTA constitute a violation of the
North Carolina Constitution's "Law of the Land" clause.

According to the complaint, there are over 125 potential class
members who own over 250 parcels of land in the path of the
Southern Wake Expressway.

"Private property rights are one of the cornerstones of our free
society, and the N.C. Department of Transportation has clearly
violated these citizens' Constitutional private property rights,"
says former federal prosecutor Kieran J. Shanahan, principal of
Shanahan Law Group.  "The NCDOT has effectively held these
property owners -- who are taxpayers, I might add -- hostage for
the past fifteen years.  These families have been deprived of
their Constitutional right to use, enjoy and receive the value of
their private property.  Unfortunately, without Court intervention
there is no apparent end in sight to this ongoing violation of
their private property rights."

The lawsuit requests:

A declaration of taking and a date of the taking

That the NCDOT and NCTA be compelled to purchase the plaintiffs'
and other property owners' property.

That the plaintiffs be compensated for attorney fees, appraisal,
engineering and other fees.

That the plaintiffs and other property owners recover interest on
all amounts and be reimbursed for taxes paid on the property from
the date of the taking.

That the matter be divided into separate trials on the issues of
(1) NCDOT's and NCTA's liability to the plaintiffs and other
property owners; and (2) each plaintiff's and other property
owner's individual damages.

"The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees
that citizens' private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation," adds Mr. Shanahan.  "The citizens who
live in the path of the proposed Southern Wake Expressway have
been denied the just compensation that they are promised under our
Constitution.  This lawsuit asks the Court to release this private
property that is being held hostage by the N.C. Department of
Transportation and provide these taxpayers with the just
compensation they deserve."

According to the lawsuit:

The NCDOT began placing the plaintiffs' property into protected
corridors in 1996.

When property is placed in a protected corridor, the property
owners' ability to improve, sell or develop their property is
dramatically reduced or altogether eliminated -- even though the
owners are required to continue paying taxes on their property.

Plaintiffs and other property owners in the protected corridor are
prohibited from making improvements to or building upon their
property during a certain period of time because those actions
would increase the acquisition costs to NCDOT.

It is "the expressed intent of NCDOT to depress future property
values and development in the Southern Wake Expressway".

While the NCDOT has purchased other property in the path of the
expressway, it has made no effort to acquire the plaintiffs'
property.

NCDOT rents homes that it has purchased in the path of the
Southern Wake Expressway, but has not maintained those properties
to the standards of other property owners in the area; this has
depressed plaintiffs' property values and has contributed to a
decline in the quality of the neighborhood.

An NCDOT-produced document entitled "Protected Corridor: What You
Really Need to Know" states: "How long can a property be in the
'protected corridor': For as long as it takes North Carolina to
get enough money to build the road."

NCDOT and NCTA are obligated to purchase all of the properties in
the Southern Wake Expressway from both named plaintiffs and
unnamed class members.

NCDOT's unreasonable delay in acquiring the plaintiffs' property
and its status as a landlord of those homes it has acquired have
caused blight and created a cloud on title in the Southern Wake
Expressway.

NCDOT and NCTA have not provided plaintiffs and other property
owners with any date when they will begin acquiring property.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit filed in
Washington, 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 December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of the Company's current
and former officers.  The court appointed a lead plaintiff on
March 9, 2010.  On June 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint.  The Complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sterling's stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to
October 15, 2009.  The Complaint alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
failing to disclose the extent of Sterling's delinquent commercial
real estate, construction and land development loans, properly
record losses for impaired loans, and properly reserve for loan
losses, thereby causing Sterling's stock price to be artificially
inflated during the purported class period.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  Sterling
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.  On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to
dismiss the Complaint.  On March 2, 2011, after complete briefing,
the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  The court has
not yet issued an order on the motion.  Failure by Sterling to
obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the
complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered
probable or reasonably estimable in amount.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss a class action arising from alleged breach of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
Company's November 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On January 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling Financial Corporation and
Sterling Savings Bank (collectively, "Sterling"), as well as
certain of Sterling's current and former officers and directors.
The two complaints were merged in a Consolidated Amended Complaint
(the "Complaint") filed on July 16, 2010 in the same court.  The
Complaint does not name all of the individuals named in the prior
complaints, but it is expected that additional defendants will be
added.  The Complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under Sections 404 and 405 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), with
respect to the Sterling Savings Bank Employee Savings and
Investment Plan (the "401(k) Plan") and the FirstBank Northwest
Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") (collectively, the
"Plans").  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their duties by investing assets of the Plans in
Sterling's securities when it was imprudent to do so, and by
investing those assets in Sterling securities when defendants knew
or should have known that the price of those securities was
inflated due to misrepresentations and omissions about Sterling's
business practices.  The business practices at issue include
alleged over-reliance on risky construction loans; alleged
inadequate loan reserves; alleged spiking increases in
nonperforming assets, nonperforming loans, classified assets, and
90+-day delinquent loans; alleged inadequate accounting for rising
loan payment shortfalls; alleged unsafe and unsound banking
practices; and a capital base that was allegedly inadequate to
withstand the significant deterioration in the real estate
markets.  The putative class periods are October 22, 2007 to the
present for the 401(k) Plan class, and October 22, 2007 to
November 14, 2008 for the ESOP class.  The Complaint seeks damages
of an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs.  Sterling
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss
occurred on March 22, 2011, with the court indicating that it
would take the motion under submission.  The court has not yet
issued an order on the motion.  Failure by Sterling to obtain a
favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the Complaint
could have a material adverse effect on Sterling's business,
results of operations, and financial condition.  Currently, a loss
resulting from these claims is not considered probable or
reasonably estimable in amount.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Shareholder Class Suit Still Pending in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A derivative class action lawsuit against Sterling Financial
Corporation's current and former officers and directors remains
pending in a Washington 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 February 10, 2010, a shareholder derivative action was filed in
the Superior Court for Spokane County, Washington, purportedly on
behalf of and for the benefit of Sterling, against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors.  On August 2,
2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Complaint")
alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.  The
Complaint alleges that the individual defendants failed to prevent
Sterling from issuing improper financial statements, maintain a
sufficient allowance for loan and lease losses, and establish
effective credit risk management and oversight mechanisms
regarding Sterling's commercial real estate, construction and land
development loans, losses and reserves recorded for impaired
loans, and accounting for goodwill and deferred tax assets.  The
Complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of
profits, equitable and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
accountants' and experts' fees, costs, and expenses.  Because the
Complaint is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary
damages from Sterling.  However, Sterling may be required
throughout the pendency of the action to advance the legal fees
and costs incurred by the defendant officers and directors.  On
September 13, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint.  The
hearing on Sterling's motion to dismiss was held on January 14,
2011.  On February 25, 2011, the court issued an order denying
Sterling's motion to dismiss in its entirety.  On April 12, 2011,
Sterling filed a request for discretionary review with the
Washington Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 1, 2011.
Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered
probable or reasonably estimable in amount, and, due to the nature
of the claim, any such loss would be payable, in part, to
Sterling.


STURM FOODS: Faces Class Action in New Mexico Over "K-Cups"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Sturm Foods and Treehouse Foods sell "K-Cups," individual coffee
servings for use with Keurig machines, without telling consumers
that it's instant, not ground, coffee.

A copy of the Complaint in Bracewell v. Sturm Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01024 (D. N.M.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/21/Coffee.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John V. Wertheim, Esq.
          Jerry Todd Wertheim, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Clifford, Esq.
          JONES, SNEAD, WERTHEIM & WENTWORTH, P.A.
          P.O. Box 2228
          Santa Fe, NM 87504-2228
          Telephone: (505) 982-0011


SUNPOWER CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss an amended complaint in the consolidated securities
lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's November
10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2011.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008, through
November 16, 2009.  The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010.
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010.
The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009, regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and
2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.
The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010.  The court dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on
March 1, 2011.  An amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2011.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
May 23, 2011.  The motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
heard by the court on August 11, 2011, and the court took it under
submission.

The Company says it is currently unable to determine if the
resolution of these matters will have an adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, liquidity or results of operations.


SUTTER MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Medical Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Sutter Medical Foundation
desktop computer with unencrypted confidential medical information
about 3.3 million people was stolen on Oct. 15, according to a
federal class action filed in California.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: All Claims in "Wilamowsky" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
All claims in a class action lawsuit filed by an alleged
shareholder of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., was dismissed
by a New York court in September, according to the Company's
November 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On September 29, 2010, an individual claiming to be a shareholder
of Take-Two filed a Complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Court") against
the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and three former
directors.  Wilamowsky alleged that he sold short shares of Take-
Two stock between March 2004 and July 2006, and as a result of
alleged misstatements regarding stock options backdating, the
Company's stock price remained at artificially high levels during
that period.  Wilamowsky claims he was therefore forced to cover
his short sales with purchases of Take-Two stock at prices that
were higher than the true value of those shares.  The Complaint
alleges against all defendants violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.  In addition, the Complaint alleges violations Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer.  Wilamowsky's claims arise from the same
allegations of stock options backdating that were alleged in In re
Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, a class action that
was previously settled and dismissed on October 19, 2010, and from
which settlement Wilamowsky, as a short seller, was excluded.

On November 17, 2010, the Company and the individual defendants
sought leave to file motions to dismiss all of Wilamowsky's
claims, in accordance with the presiding judge's individual rules.
A pre-motion hearing to address defendants' request was held on
December 14, 2010, at which the requested leave was granted, and
on January 14, 2011 defendants filed their motions.  The matter
was fully briefed as of January 28, 2011.  On September 30, 2011,
the SDNY Court granted the Company's and the individual
defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing all of Plaintiff's
claims with prejudice.


TD AMERITRADE: Still Awaits Order on Pleas to Dismiss "Ross" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is still awaiting a court
decision on defendants' motions to dismiss the class action
lawsuit Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al.

Clients of the Company's primary introducing broker-dealer, TD
Ameritrade, Inc., continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund
(now known as "Yield Plus Fund -- In Liquidation"), which is being
liquidated.  The Company estimates that TD Ameritrade, Inc.
clients' current positions held in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund
amount to approximately 79% of the fund.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund.  The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund.  On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary
damages and equitable relief.  On January 19, 2010, the defendants
submitted motions to dismiss the complaint.  The motions are
pending.

The Company estimates that its clients' current aggregate
shortfall, based on the original par value of their holdings in
the Yield Plus Fund, less the value of fund distributions to date
and the value of payments under the Company's SEC settlement, is
approximately $37 million. This amount does not take into account
any assets remaining in the fund that may become available for
future distributions.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome or the timing
of the ultimate resolution of the Ross lawsuit, or the potential
loss, if any, that may result from the unresolved matter.
However, management believes the outcome of pending proceedings is
not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 18, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.


TD AMERITRADE: Court Okays Settlement With Holober & Zigler
-----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade, Inc., obtained final court approval of a settlement
of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in California,
according to TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation's November 18,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

A purported class action, captioned Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.,
was filed on May 31, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that
there was a breach in TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s systems, which allowed
access to e-mail addresses and other personal information of
account holders, and that as a result account holders received
unsolicited e-mail from spammers promoting certain stocks and have
been subjected to an increased risk of identity theft. The
complaint requested unspecified damages and injunctive and other
equitable relief. A second lawsuit, captioned Zigler v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc., was filed on September 26, 2007, in the same
jurisdiction on behalf of a purported nationwide class of account
holders. The factual allegations of the complaint and the relief
sought were substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit.
The cases were consolidated under the caption In re TD Ameritrade
Accountholders Litigation and a consolidated complaint was filed.
The Company hired an independent consultant to investigate whether
identity theft occurred as a result of the breach. The consultant
conducted four investigations from August 2007 to June 2008 and
reported that it found no evidence of identity theft. On
September 12, 2011, TD Ameritrade, Inc., received final Court
approval of a class settlement agreement between TD Ameritrade,
Inc. and plaintiffs Richard Holober and Brad Zigler. Under the
settlement, the Company will pay no less than $2.5 million in
settlement benefits. Total compensation to be paid to all eligible
members of the settlement class will not exceed $6.5 million,
inclusive of any award of attorneys' fees and costs. In addition,
the settlement agreement provides that the Company will retain an
independent information technology security consultant to assess
whether the Company has met certain information technology
security standards.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Still Faces Class Suit in Mississippi
-------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed by Mississippi residents allegedly injured by
Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's November 18, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

In April 2006, TVA was added as a defendant to a class action
lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi residents
allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina.  The plaintiffs sued seven
large oil companies and an oil company trade association, three
large chemical companies and a chemical trade association, and 31
large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal,
alleging that the defendants' GHG emissions contributed to global
warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane
Katrina's increased destructive force.  Action by the United
States Supreme Court on January 10, 2011, ended this case in a
manner favorable to TVA.

On May 27, 2011, under a Mississippi state statute that permits
the re-filing of lawsuits that were dismissed on procedural
grounds, the plaintiffs filed another lawsuit against the same and
additional defendants, again alleging that the defendants'
greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming and were a
proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina' s increased
destructive force.  A number of defendants, including TVA, have
filed motions to dismiss the complaint.


THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Insurance Carrier Reimburses Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thermadyne Holdings Corporation's insurance carrier reimbursed 85%
of the $399,000 fees and expenses awarded to plaintiffs' counsel
in connection with its settlement of acquisition-related class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's November 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On December 3, 2010 ("Acquisition Date"), pursuant to an Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated as of October 5, 2010 (the "Merger
Agreement"), Razor Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a newly formed
Delaware corporation, merged with and into Thermadyne, with
Thermadyne surviving as a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Razor
Holdco Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Acquisition").  (Razor
Holdco Inc. was renamed Thermadyne Technologies Holdings, Inc.
("Technologies").)  Technologies' sole asset is its 100% ownership
of the stock of Thermadyne.  Affiliates of Irving Place Capital
("IPC"), a private equity firm based in New York, along with its
co-investors, hold approximately 99% of the outstanding equity of
Technologies, and certain members of Thermadyne management hold
the remaining equity capital.

In October 2010, two identical purported class action lawsuits
were filed in connection with the Acquisition against the Company,
the Company's directors, and Irving Place Capital.  On November
25, 2010, the Company, the Company's directors and Irving Place
Capital entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of these actions.  On June 30,
2011, the Circuit Court issued an order approving the settlement
and resolving and releasing all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought.  The Circuit Court further awarded
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount
of $399,000, which the Company paid in July 2011 and 85% of which
was reimbursed to the Company by its insurance carrier in October
2011.


TIMBERCORP: Investors' Lawyers Appeal Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
The New Lawyer reports that lawyers behind a Timbercorp class
action have begun the fight against a court decision that denies
compensation payments to investors in the failed agribusiness
investment company.

Macpherson+Kelley Lawyers has launched a class action in the
Victorian Court of Appeal on behalf of Timbercorp investors.

M+K managing director Victoria, James Sturgess said the decision
in the Timbercorp case handed down in September by the Hon. James
Judd was "very disappointing" for the thousands of Timbercorp
investors.

"The decision denied damages to investors in the Timbercorp
schemes and disallowed investors relief from having to pay out
loans arranged through Timbercorp to fund their investments,"
Mr. Sturgess said.

"The grounds of appeal fundamentally rest on Timbercorp's failure
to disclose to investors information about such key risks as the
company's possible running out of cash needed to keep the projects
alive for their intended long-term duration.

"The grounds of appeal essentially invite the Appeal Court to
overturn Justice Judd's interpretation of key sections of the
Corporations Act dealing with disclosure obligations placed on
responsible entities of managed investment schemes and conclude
that those obligations were not properly discharged by Timbercorp
Securities Ltd.," he said.

M+K has consulted with the more than 2,000 former Timbercorp
investors who are members of the class action and there is strong
support for the appeal.

"Many of our clients now face considerable ongoing loan
obligations for worthless forestry and horticulture investments.
In aggregate Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd. says it is owed
approximately AUD448 million under loans made to those investors
in the projects who are members of the class action," Mr. Sturgess
said.

"The appeal is not only important for these investors but this is
an important area of law that potentially has implications for the
hundreds of thousands of investors involved in Australia's
multi-billion dollar managed investment sector."

M+K is separately involved in a series of 16 class actions for
investors in all Great Southern managed investment schemes offered
during 2005 to 2008, with the trial expected to begin next August.
As part of these actions, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank is facing
claims that its loans are void due to misleading or deceptive
conduct on the part of Great Southern in marketing the investment
and loan package.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. AHM
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 4, 2009, Triad Guaranty Inc. filed a complaint
against American Home Mortgage ("AHM") in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking rescission
of multiple master mortgage guaranty insurance policies ("master
policies") and declaratory relief.  The complaint seeks relief
from AHM as well as all owners of loans insured under the master
policies by way of a defendant class action.  Triad alleged that
AHM failed to follow the delegated insurance underwriting
guidelines approved by Triad, that this failure breached the
master policies as well as the implied covenants of good faith and
fair dealing, and that these breaches were so substantial and
fundamental that the intent of the master policies could not be
fulfilled and Triad should be excused from its obligations under
the master policies.  Three groups of current owners and/or
servicers of AHM-originated loans filed motions to intervene in
the lawsuit, which were granted by the Court on May 10 and October
29, 2010.

On March 4, 2011, Triad amended its complaint to add a count
alleging fraud in the inducement.  On March 25, 2011, each of the
interveners filed a motion to dismiss.  Triad filed its answer and
answering brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss on May 27,
2011, and the interveners filed their reply briefs on July 13,
2011.  The total amount of risk originated under the AHM master
policies, accounting for any applicable stop-loss limits
associated with Modified Pool contracts and less risk originated
on policies that have been subsequently rescinded, was $1.4
billion, of which $0.7 billion remained in force at September 30,
2011.

Triad continues to accept premiums and process claims under the
master policies, with the earned premiums and settled losses
reflected in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.  However,
as a result of the litigation, Triad ceased remitting claim
payments to companies servicing loans originated by AHM and the
liability for losses settled but not paid is included in "Accrued
expenses and other liabilities" on the Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  Triad has not recognized any benefit in its financial
statements pending the outcome of the litigation.

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


TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Ruling on "Phillips" Suit Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
On February 6, 2009, James L. Phillips served a complaint against
Triad Guaranty Inc., Mark K. Tonnesen and Kenneth W. Jones in the
United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
between October 26, 2006, and April 1, 2008, and the complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws by the Company and
two of its present or former officers.  The court appointed lead
counsel for the plaintiff and an amended complaint was filed on
June 22, 2009.  TGI filed its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on August 21, 2009, and the plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 20, 2009.  TGI's
reply was filed on November 19, 2009, and oral arguments on the
motion occurred on August 30, 2010.  The court has not yet issued
its opinion.  Triad says it intends to vigorously defend this
matter.

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


VISA INC: Trial in Multidistrict Litigation Set for Sept. 12
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial for the second consolidated amended class action complaint
filed against Visa Inc. in New York has been set for September 12,
2012, according to the Company's November 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

Beginning in May 2005, approximately 55 complaints, all but 10 of
which were styled as class actions, have been filed in U.S.
federal district courts on behalf of merchants against Visa
U.S.A., Inc. and/or MasterCard International Incorporated, and in
some cases, certain Visa member financial institutions.  Visa
International Service Association was also named as a defendant in
more than 30 of these complaints.  The cases allege, among other
things, that Visa's and MasterCard's purported setting of
interchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" rules, and
alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees violate federal
antitrust laws.  On October 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these
cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings (MDL 1720).  On
April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint.  Taken together, the claims
in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the 10
complaints brought on behalf of individual merchants are generally
brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  In addition,
some of these complaints contain certain state unfair competition
law claims.  These interchange-related cases seek money damages
(alleged in the consolidated class action complaint to range in
the tens of billions of dollars), subject to trebling, as well as
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

As part of the retrospective responsibility plan, Visa U.S.A. and
Visa International entered into a judgment sharing agreement with
certain member financial institutions of Visa U.S.A. on July 1,
2007.

On January 8, 2008, the district court adopted the recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge and granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the class plaintiffs' claims for damages incurred prior to
January 1, 2004.

On January 29, 2009, class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint.  Among other things, this
complaint: (i) added new claims for damages and injunctive relief
against Visa and the bank defendants regarding interchange
reimbursement fees for Visa PIN-debit cards; (ii) added new claims
for damages and injunctive relief against Visa and the bank
defendants since the time of Visa's IPO regarding interchange
reimbursement fees for Visa's credit, offline debit, and PIN-debit
cards; (iii) eliminated claims for damages relating to the so-
called "no-surcharge" rule and "anti-steering" rules; (iv)
eliminated claims for damages based on the alleged tie of network
processing services and payment guarantee services to the payment
card system services; and (v) added Visa Inc. as a defendant.

In addition, class plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental Class
Action Complaint against Visa Inc. and several financial
institutions challenging Visa's reorganization and IPO under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.  In
the Supplemental Complaint, class plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, including
an order that the IPO be unwound.

On May 8, 2008, class plaintiffs served on defendants a motion
seeking to certify a class of merchants.  Visa, jointly with other
defendants, moved to dismiss the Supplemental Complaint and the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on March 31,
2009.

On February 7, 2011, Visa entered into an omnibus agreement that
confirmed and memorialized the signatories' intentions with
respect to the loss sharing agreement, the judgment sharing
agreement and other agreements relating to certain interchange
litigation.  Under the omnibus agreement, the monetary portion of
any settlement of the interchange litigation covered by the
omnibus agreement would be divided into a MasterCard portion at
33.3333% and a Visa portion at 66.6667%.  In addition, the
monetary portion of any judgment assigned to Visa-related claims
in accordance with the omnibus agreement would be treated as a
Visa portion. Visa would have no liability for the monetary
portion of any judgment assigned to MasterCard-related claims in
accordance with the omnibus agreement, and if a judgment is not
assigned to Visa-related claims or MasterCard-related claims in
accordance with the Omnibus agreement, then any monetary liability
would be divided into a MasterCard portion at 33.3333% and a Visa
portion at 66.6667%.  The Visa portion of a settlement or judgment
covered by the omnibus agreement would be allocated in accordance
with specified provisions of the Company's retrospective
responsibility plan.  The litigation provision on the consolidated
statements of operations is not impacted by the execution of the
omnibus agreement.

The parties filed motions for summary judgment on a number of
issues on February 11, 2011.  Visa, jointly with other defendants,
moved for summary judgment against the claims in the Supplemental
Complaint and the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint.  Visa and other defendants also moved for summary
judgment against the claims in the individual plaintiffs'
complaints.  The class plaintiffs sought summary judgment on all
of their intra-network damages claims under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, including by arguing that Visa's post-IPO conduct
constitutes a continuing conspiracy.  Finally, the individual
plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on their claims that
(i) agreements by banks to enforce certain Visa rules are per se
unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and (ii) Visa's
imposition of those rules post-IPO constitutes a continuing
conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The parties have exchanged expert reports and taken expert
discovery.  The court asked the parties to identify any objections
to a trial date of September 12, 2012, and no party has objected
to that date.

The parties' efforts to reach a mediated resolution of the
litigation continue, though substantial hurdles exist.  In
particular, plaintiffs' confidential settlement demands to Visa
have included unacceptable changes to Visa's business practices
and unacceptable financial terms.  Under generally accepted
accounting principles, the Company believes some loss is
reasonably possible, but not probable and reasonably estimable.
Many material uncertainties exist, including, among other things,
the mixed progress in settlement negotiations and numerous motions
pending before the court.  The current uncommitted balance of the
covered litigation escrow account -- $2.7 billion -- is consistent
with the Company's estimate of its share of a lower end of a
negotiated settlement for the entire matter.  The Company will
continue to consider and reevaluate this estimate in light of the
substantial uncertainties and mediation obstacles that persist,
including the unacceptable changes to the Company's business
practices demanded by plaintiffs.  The Company is unable to
estimate a potential loss or range of loss, if any, at trial if a
negotiated resolution of the matter cannot be reached.


VISA INC: Appeal From New Mexico Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of an indirect purchaser class action
lawsuit filed against Visa U.S.A., Inc. in New Mexico is still
pending, according to Visa Inc.'s November 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

Beginning in October 1996, several antitrust class action lawsuits
were brought by U.S. merchants against Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard.
The suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, In re Visa Check/MasterMoney
Antitrust Litigation.  Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged
that Visa U.S.A.'s "Honor All Cards" rule, which required
merchants that accepted Visa cards to accept for payment every
validly presented Visa card, and a similar MasterCard rule,
constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act.  On June 4, 2003, the parties signed a
settlement agreement that was approved by the court on Dec. 19,
2003.  Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Visa agreed to modify
its "Honor All Cards" rule such that a merchant may accept only
Visa check cards, only Visa credit cards, or both.  Visa also
agreed to pay approximately $2.0 billion to the merchant class
over 10 years in equal annual installments of $200 million per
year, among other things.

On August 31, 2009, Visa entered into an agreement to prepay its
remaining $800 million in settlement payments for $682 million.
On October 2, 2009, the court entered a final order approving the
prepayment agreement, and Visa made the prepayment on October 5,
2009.  Pursuant to its terms, the prepayment agreement became
final after no appeals to the approval order were filed within the
30-day appeal period.

Complaints were also filed in 19 different states and the District
of Columbia alleging state antitrust, consumer protection and
common law claims against Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard (and, in
California, Visa International) on behalf of consumers.  The
claims in these class actions included allegations mirroring those
made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and asserting that merchants,
faced with excessive merchant discount fees, passed on some
portion of those fees to consumers in the form of higher prices on
goods and services sold.  Plaintiffs seek money damages and
injunctive relief.  Visa U.S.A. has been successful in the
majority of these cases, as courts in 17 jurisdictions have
granted Visa U.S.A.'s motions to dismiss for failure to state a
claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaints.
In New Mexico, the court granted Visa U.S.A.'s motion to dismiss
at a hearing on May 14, 2010, and entered an order and judgment
dismissing the case on June 9, 2010.  The plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal from that order and judgment on June 14, 2010.  Briefing
is complete in the appeal, but no decision has been issued.


VISA INC: Class Action Suit in Canada Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Visa Canada Corporation continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed in Canada, according to Visa Inc.'s
November 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

On March 28, 2011, Mary Watson filed a class action lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of merchants
and others in Canada that accept payment by Visa and MasterCard
(Watson).  The suit, filed against Visa Canada, MasterCard, and
ten financial institutions, alleges conduct contrary to Section 45
of the Competition Act and also asserts claims of civil
conspiracy, interference with economic interests, and unjust
enrichment, among others.  Plaintiff alleges that Visa and
MasterCard each conspired with their member financial institutions
to set supra-competitive default interchange rates and merchant
discount fees, and that Visa and MasterCard's respective "no-
surcharge" and "honour all cards" rules had the anticompetitive
effect of increasing merchant discount fees.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.  On May 16,
2011, a merchant class action that effectively mirrors the Watson
case was initiated in Ontario (Bancroft-Snell).  As in Watson, the
Bancroft-Snell complaint alleges conduct in contravention of
Section 45 of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, interference
with economic interests, and unjust enrichment, among other
claims, and seeks similar relief.


VISA INC: Motion to Dismiss "Data Pass" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a class action complaint filed against Visa
Inc. in Connecticut is still pending, according to the Company's
November 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

On August 27, 2010, a consumer filed a class action complaint
against Webloyalty.com, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and Visa Inc. in
federal district court in Connecticut.  The plaintiff claims,
among other things, that consumers who made online purchases at
Amazon.com were deceived into also incurring charges for services
from Webloyalty.com through the alleged unauthorized passing of
cardholder account information during the sales transaction ("data
pass"), in violation of federal and state consumer protection
statutes and common law.  Visa allegedly aided and abetted the
conduct of the other defendants.  Plaintiff seeks damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed Amazon.com as a defendant without prejudice on
October 29, 2010.  Webloyalty.com and Visa each filed motions to
dismiss the case on November 1, 2010.

On November 19, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding GameStop Corporation as a defendant, asserting additional
claims against Visa under federal and state consumer protection
statutes and state common law, and seeking certification of a
class of persons and entities whose credit card or debit card data
was improperly accessed by Webloyalty.com since October 1, 2008.
Webloyalty.com asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to consolidate with this case, for pretrial
proceedings, a case pending in federal district court in
California in which Webloyalty.com and Movietickets.com (but not
Visa) are named as defendants.  On February 8, 2011, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied Webloyalty.com's
application to consolidate the case.

On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa each
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.


VISA INC: Final Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Nov. 28
----------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing on the proposed settlement of an amended class
action complaint filed against Visa Inc. in California is set for
November 28, 2011, according to the Company's November 18, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

On April 28, 2011, Francisco Marenco filed a request in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to amend his
class action complaint to name Visa Inc. as the defendant.  The
court granted the request and Marenco filed the amended complaint
on May 6, 2011.  The lawsuit alleges that Visa recorded telephone
calls to call center representatives without providing a
disclosure that the calls may be recorded, in alleged violation of
state law in California and several other states.  On May 31,
2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement in an amount
that is not material to Visa's consolidated financial statements.
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
July 20, 2011, and set a final approval hearing for November 28,
2011, after the class notice process is complete.  This matter
relates to and resolves the previously reported contractual
indemnity claim tendered to Visa by a processing client in October
2010.


VISA INC: Faces Class Suits Over ATM Access Fee Rules
-----------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. is facing class action lawsuits challenging its ATM
access fee rules, according to the Company's November 18, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

On October 12, 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-
bank ATM operators filed a class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa
Inc., Visa International Service Association, Visa USA, and Plus
System, Inc.) and MasterCard International Incorporated in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The complaint
challenges Visa's rule (and a similar MasterCard rule) that if an
ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access fee for a Visa
or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than the access
fee charged for transactions on other networks.  The plaintiffs
claim that the rule prevents non-bank ATM operators from
attracting customers through lower prices, allegedly in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The complaint requests
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and damages "in an amount not
presently known, but which is tens of millions of dollars, prior
to trebling."

In October 2011, three consumer class actions were filed against
Visa and MasterCard in the same federal court challenging the same
ATM access fee rules.  One case, Genese, adds three financial
institutions as defendants.  All three cases purport to represent
classes of consumers in claims brought under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  Stoumbos adds claims under antitrust and/or consumer
protection statutes in certain states and the District of
Columbia, and Bartron adds claims on behalf of sub-classes of
consumers under such state laws.  The consumer suits seek
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and treble damages; Bartron
and Stoumbos also seek restitution where available under state
law.


ZYNEX INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $2.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zynex, Inc., entered into an agreement to settle a consolidated
securities lawsuit for a payment of $2.5 million to the class in
exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against
all defendants, according to the Company's November 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A lawsuit was filed against the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer on
April 6, 2009, in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et
al.).  On April 9 and 10, 2009, two other lawsuits were filed in
the same court against the same defendants.  These lawsuits
alleged substantially the same matters and have been consolidated.
On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-REB-KLM).  The
consolidated lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement by
the Company that it would restate its unaudited interim financial
statements for the first three quarters of 2008.  The lawsuit
purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 21, 2008, and March 31, 2009.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of
material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding
the financial results and operating conditions for the first three
quarters of 2008 and other misleading statements.  The plaintiffs
ask for a determination of class action status, unspecified
damages and costs of the legal action.

On May 17, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The
plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
and on July 5, 2010, the Company filed a Reply in Support of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  On March 30, 2011, the United
States District Court of Colorado entered an Order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss.  On November 8, 2011, the parties
entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit for a payment of
$2.5 million to the plaintiff class in exchange for the dismissal
with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in the
litigation.  The settlement is expected to be fully funded by
insurance and is subject to final approval of the court.

The Company says it cannot predict with certainty the outcome of
the litigation, and if the settlement is not finally approved by
the Court, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
to the claims in the compliant.


                           *********

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  * * *