CAR_Public/111129.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 29, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 236

                             Headlines

ALMOST FAMILY: Motion to Dismiss Kentucky Class Suit Fully Briefed
ALPHA NATURAL: Court Partially Lifts PSLRA Discovery Stay
ALPHA NATURAL: Parties Agree to Stay Del. Suit Until March 2012
APPLE REIT: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint to Add Unit as Defendant
ARBITRON INC: Plaintiff Must Turn Over Names of Informants

ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Faces 2 More Suits Over Aluminum Sidings
BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Suit by Florida Homeowners
BEAZER HOMES: Court Approves Settlement in RESPA-Violation Suit
BROOKLYN FEDERAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears

CHINA EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
CHINA GREEN: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suit
CHINA VALVES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York
CIT GROUP: Fact Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Action
COMMUNITY LOANS: Faces Class Action Over Predatory Lending

DYNEX CAPITAL: Awaits Approval of Pension Fund Suit Settlement
EBAY MOTORS: Sellers Get Checks From Class Action Settlement
EBIX INC: To Defend Consolidated Amended Complaint in Georgia
HANSEN NATURAL: Trial in "Chavez" Class Suit Set for July 9
HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit

HANSEN NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Sub Judice
HCA HOLDINGS: Defends Shareholder Class Action Over IPO
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Appeal in Batesville Casket Litigation Pending
HSBC USA: Continues to Defend Madoff-Related Suits
HSBC USA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit

IMH FINANCIAL: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Suit Set for Feb.
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
INERGY LP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suits Settlement
JAMAICA PUBLIC SERVICE: Class Action Over License Faces Delay
JBI INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Securities Law Violations

KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Discovery Process in Consolidated Suit to Start
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Final Suit Settlement Hearing on Feb. 23
MOTOROLA INC: Employees' ERISA Class Certification Bid Fails
MOTRICITY INC: Washington Court Consolidates Securities Suits

PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Removes IPO-Related Suit to Calif. Dist. Ct.
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Removes More IPO-Related Suit to Dist. Ct.
PANERA BREAD: Unit Signs MOU to Settle Labor Law Violation Suits
QC HOLDINGS: Expects Finalization of Suit Settlement by Year End
QC HOLDINGS: Still Defends Class Action Suit in North Carolina

SOTHEBY'S INC: Still Defends Suit Over Artwork Resale Royalties
STATE OF INDIANA: Stage Collapse Suit Gets Class Action Status
TRAILER BRIDGE: Obtains Final Dismissal Order in Puerto Rico Suit
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Dismissal in ADT Dealer Suit
TYSON FOODS: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in "Weissman" Suit

TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend "Thompson" Suit in Oklahoma
TYSON FOODS: Georgia Court Approves Settlement in FLSA MDL
UGI CORP: W. Virginia Court Dismisses "Swiger" Claims vs. Units
ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: "Ricker" Plaintiff Must Amend Suit by Dec. 5





                          *********

ALMOST FAMILY: Motion to Dismiss Kentucky Class Suit Fully Briefed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost Family Inc.'s request to dismiss a consolidated class
action complaint in Kentucky has been fully briefed, according to
the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

Four putative class action lawsuits pending against Almost Family
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky were consolidated into a single class action lawsuit
entitled In Re Almost Family Securities Litigation.  The
consolidated complaint was filed on March 4, 2011.  The complaint
refers to The Wall Street Journal article and the subsequent
governmental investigations and alleges that the Company, its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer violated
federal securities laws.  The complaint seeks damages and awards
of attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company and its officers have
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and the motion has been
fully briefed.

The Company says that given the current status of these matters,
the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential
liability, if any, arising from these matters.


ALPHA NATURAL: Court Partially Lifts PSLRA Discovery Stay
---------------------------------------------------------
The discovery stay imposed by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 in a consolidated class action complaint filed
against Alpha Natural Resources Inc.'s subsidiary has been
partially lifted, according to the Company's November 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On June 1, 2011, pursuant to the terms of an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated as of January 28, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), the
Company completed its acquisition (the "Acquisition") of Massey
Energy Company, a Delaware corporation ("Massey"). Massey,
together with its affiliates, was a major U.S. coal producer
operating mines and associated processing and loading facilities
in Central Appalachia.

On April 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010, two consolidated purported
class actions that have been subsequently consolidated into one
case were brought against Massey, now the Company's subsidiary
Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc., in connection with alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on behalf of a class of
former Massey stockholders, that Massey and certain former Massey
directors and officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by
intentionally misleading the market about the safety of Massey's
operations and that Massey's former officers violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons
alleged to have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act.  The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that this
action is a proper class action; certification as class
representatives; an award of compensatory damages in an amount to
be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees.

On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift
the statutory discovery stay imposed by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). On March 3, 2011, the
United States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the
completion of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts
that allegedly gave rise to the action.  The United States
subsequently informed the court that it and the lead plaintiffs
had reached an agreement whereby, if the court decides to lift the
PSLRA discovery stay, the United States and the lead plaintiffs
request that the court limit discovery in certain respects.

On April 25, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
operative complaint.  On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The defendants'
motion to dismiss is currently pending.

On September 28, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
partially lift the PSLRA discovery stay, granted the United
States' motion to intervene and imposed the conditions on
discovery requested by the United States and plaintiffs.  Massey
intends to comply fully with its discovery obligations in
accordance with the court's order.


ALPHA NATURAL: Parties Agree to Stay Del. Suit Until March 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties of a purported class action lawsuit filed against Alpha
Natural Resources Inc. in Delaware have entered into a stipulation
staying proceedings until March 2012, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011.

On June 1, 2011, pursuant to the terms of an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated as of January 28, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), the
Company completed its acquisition (the "Acquisition") of Massey
Energy Company, a Delaware corporation ("Massey"). Massey,
together with its affiliates, was a major U.S. coal producer
operating mines and associated processing and loading facilities
in Central Appalachia.

A number of purported former Massey stockholders have brought
lawsuits derivatively, purportedly on behalf of Massey, which is
now the Company's subsidiary, Alpha Appalachia, in West Virginia
and Delaware state courts, in connection with the April 5, 2010
explosion at UBB and related claims. Certain of these former
stockholders have also initiated contempt proceedings in West
Virginia state court in connection with alleged violations of the
settlement of a previous derivative lawsuit. In addition, these
and other purported former Massey stockholders have asserted class
action claims allegedly arising out of the acquisition of Massey
by Alpha in Delaware and West Virginia state courts and Virginia
federal court.

                     Delaware Chancery Court

In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation, a
number of purported former Massey stockholders allege, purportedly
on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey directors and
officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and
oversee Massey's employees, allegedly resulting in fines against
Massey and the explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets
by paying allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former
Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as
part of his retirement package.  The Delaware Plaintiffs also
allege, on behalf of a purported class of former Massey
stockholders, that certain former Massey directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Acquisition.  The Delaware
Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to secure the best price possible, by failing to secure
any downside protection for the acquisition consideration, and by
purportedly eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by
agreeing to a "no shop" provision and a termination fee.  In
addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to
the Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced
on the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims.  Finally, the
Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully
disclose all material information necessary for Massey
stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc., the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary created for
purposes of effecting the Acquisition, which, at the effective
time of the Acquisition, was merged with and into Massey, as
defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that the Company and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the former Massey directors' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to orchestrate the
Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating the former Massey
directors' potential liability on the derivative claims.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Acquisition.  The court denied their motion
for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011.

Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey,
certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and
Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Acquisition. Silverman v. Phillips, et al.,
filed on February 7, 2011, and Goe v. Massey Energy Company, et
al., filed on February 14, 2011, assert allegations that are
nearly identical to those made by the Delaware Plaintiffs in In re
Massey.  Silverman and Goe were consolidated for all purposes with
In re Massey on February 9, 2011 and February 24, 2011,
respectively.

On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Merger Sub moved to dismiss the
purported class action claim against them for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.  On June 10 and 13, 2011,
certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to
dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining
direct claims.

On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stays the matter until March 1, 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court.  The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day.

                   West Virginia State Court

In a case filed on April 15, 2010 in West Virginia state court, a
number of purported former Massey stockholders (the "West Virginia
Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain
former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's employees,
allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at
UBB. The West Virginia Plaintiffs seek an award against each
defendant and in favor of Massey for the amount of damages
sustained by Massey as a result of defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and an award to the West Virginia Plaintiffs of the
costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On May 2, 2011, the West Virginia Plaintiffs moved for leave to
amend their complaint to add Alpha and Merger Sub as additional
defendants and to add claims allegedly arising out of the then-
proposed Acquisition. In their proposed amended complaint, the
West Virginia Plaintiffs allege that certain former Massey
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the
highest price reasonably available for Massey and by failing to
disclose material information to Massey's then-stockholders in
connection with the stockholder vote on the Acquisition. The West
Virginia Plaintiffs also allege that Massey, Merger Sub and the
Company aided and abetted the former Massey directors' breaches of
fiduciary duty. The West Virginia Plaintiffs further allege that
certain former Massey directors wasted corporate assets by failing
to maintain sufficient internal controls over Massey's safety and
environmental reporting; failing to properly consider the
interests of Massey and its stockholders, including the value of
the derivative claims asserted by the West Virginia Plaintiffs in
the Acquisition; failing to conduct proper supervision; paying
undeserved incentive compensation to certain Massey executive
directors, particularly former Massey Chairman and CEO Don L.
Blankenship during Massey's alleged years of noncompliance with
safety regulations and more recently as part of Blankenship's
retirement package; incurring millions of dollars in fines due to
safety and environmental violations; and incurring potentially
hundreds of millions of dollars of legal liability and/or legal
costs to defend defendants' allegedly unlawful actions. Finally,
the West Virginia Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint alleges
that certain former Massey directors were unjustly enriched by
their compensation as directors.

On May 25, 2011, the West Virginia Plaintiffs filed a petition
with the West Virginia Supreme Court for a preliminary injunction
against the consummation of the Acquisition, which was denied on
May 31, 2011.

On June 24, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the West
Virginia Plaintiffs' original complaint on the grounds that
plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right
to pursue those claims, or, alternatively, to stay this case in
favor of In re Massey.  Defendants also filed an opposition to the
West Virginia Plaintiffs' motion to amend.  On August 19, 2011,
the West Virginia Plaintiffs filed a combined memorandum in
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss or stay and in further
support of their motion to amend.  On August 22, 2011, defendants
filed a memorandum in further support of their motion to dismiss
or stay and in further opposition to plaintiffs' motion to amend.
On August 23, 2011, the court held a hearing on defendants' motion
to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion to amend.  Without deciding the
motions, the court requested the parties to submit competing
proposed orders containing findings of fact and conclusions of law
and proposed scheduling orders for the court's consideration,
which the parties did on September 9, 2011.  The motions remain
pending.

        U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, purported former Massey stockholder Benjamin Mostaed
alleges in a suit filed on February 2, 2011, and amended
thereafter, purportedly on behalf of a class of former Massey
stockholders, that Massey, Alpha and certain former Massey
directors violated Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 thereunder by filing a false and misleading preliminary
proxy statement in connection with the then-proposed Acquisition;
that Massey and certain former Massey directors violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons
alleged to have committed violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act; that certain former Massey directors violated their
fiduciary duties by causing Massey to enter into the Merger
Agreement with Alpha pursuant to an unfair process that resulted
in an unfair offer with preclusive deal protection devices that
allegedly inhibited superior proposals; and that Massey and Alpha
aided and abetted the former Massey directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  Mostaed sought an injunction preventing the
consummation of the Acquisition; rescission of the Merger
Agreement; and an award of the costs and disbursements of the
action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 4, 2011, William D. Perkins, another purported former
Massey stockholder, filed a suit in the Eastern District of
Virginia similar to Mostaed's.  On February 17, 2011, Mostaed
requested that the court consolidate the two pending actions,
along with any subsequently filed actions challenging the proposed
transaction.  Defendants did not oppose the motion.  On June 3,
2011, the court granted the motion.

On February 18, 2011, purported Massey shareholder Henry Mandel
filed, on behalf of a proposed class of Massey shareholders, a
complaint for breach of fiduciary duty similar to the complaints
filed by Mostaed and Perkins.  On June 9, 2011, the parties
submitted an agreed order dismissing Mr. Mandel's action without
prejudice, which the court entered on June 13, 2011.

On June 24, 2011, Mostaed informed the court that, aside from a
motion for an award of attorneys' fees, he did not intend to
prosecute the action further and would voluntarily dismiss his
claims.

On July 13, 2011, Mostaed and Perkins moved for an award of
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards,
contending that voluntary remedial measures implemented by
defendants and sought by Mostaed (i.e., additional disclosure) had
mooted Mostaed's claims.  On July 26, 2011, defendants filed their
opposition and on August 4, 2011, Mostaed and Perkins filed their
reply brief.  The court subsequently denied plaintiffs' request
for oral argument.  The motion remains pending.


APPLE REIT: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint to Add Unit as Defendant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint in a putative
shareholder class action against Apple REIT Six, Inc., by removing
the Company and replacing it with one of its subsidiaries as
defendant, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On June 20, 2011, two shareholders of the Apple REIT Companies
filed a putative class action captioned Kronberg et al. v. David
Lerner Associates Inc., et al, Case No. 2:11-cv-03558, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against David Lerner Associates, Inc. and certain of its officers,
and the Apple REIT Companies and Glade M. Knight. The complaint
was amended on October 10, 2011. The amended complaint did not
name the Company, however did include one of its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Apple Fund Management, LLC, in addition to Apple
REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc., and Apple REIT Ten, Inc.
and their directors. The amended complaint also names David Lerner
Associates, Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group,
Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., and
Apple Ten Advisors, Inc. The amended complaint adds claims on
behalf of subclasses of residents of New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut and Florida, in addition to the putative nationwide
class, and no longer includes purchasers of Apple REIT Six, Inc.
and Apple REIT Seven, Inc. The amended complaint asserts new
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and for violation of the
securities laws of the states of New Jersey, Connecticut and
Florida, and seeks certification of the subclasses, monetary
damages including pre- and post-judgment interest, equitable
relief and fees and costs. In addition to the allegations
contained in the original complaint, the amended complaint alleges
that David Lerner Associates, Inc., and the directors breached a
fiduciary duty to the shareholders by failing to disclose material
information about the prior Apple REIT Companies' sources of
distributions and share valuation, that they aided and abetted one
another's breaches, and that the Apple REIT entities and directors
are jointly and severally liable for the acts of David Lerner
Associates, Inc. The amended complaint also asserts that
plaintiffs are entitled to recover under certain state securities
laws. The Company believes that the claims against Apple Fund
Management, LLC and the other Apple entities are without merit,
and intends to defend against them vigorously. At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or an estimate of damages or provide a reasonable estimate of the
possible loss or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any.


ARBITRON INC: Plaintiff Must Turn Over Names of Informants
----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
the plaintiff in a putative securities class action against radio
ratings company Arbitron Inc. must turn over the names of 11
confidential informants, a federal judge in Manhattan has ruled.
Southern District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that the names of
the informants were not protected by the attorney-work product
doctrine.


ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Faces 2 More Suits Over Aluminum Sidings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Materials LLC and a subsidiary are facing two more
class action lawsuits relating to their aluminum siding products,
according to the Company's November 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 1, 2011.

On September 20, 2010, Associated Materials, LLC, and its
subsidiary, Gentek Building Products, Inc., were named as
defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, captioned Donald Eliason, et
al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc., et al.  The complaint was
filed by a number of individual plaintiffs on behalf of themselves
and a putative nationwide class of owners of steel and aluminum
siding products manufactured by Associated Materials and Gentek or
their predecessors.  The plaintiffs assert a breach of express and
implied warranty, along with related causes of action, claiming
that an unspecified defect in the siding causes paint to peel off
the metal and that Associated Materials and Gentek have failed
adequately to honor their warranty obligations to repair, replace
or refinish the defective siding.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual and punitive damages, restitution of monies paid to the
defendants and an injunction against the claimed unlawful
practices, together with attorneys' fees, costs and interest.  The
Company's motion to dismiss was recently denied and the parties
will now begin discovery.  The Company says it will vigorously
defend this action, on the merits and by opposing class
certification.

A second putative class action has now been filed by the same
plaintiff attorneys related to warranty proof of purchase
requirements for steel and aluminum siding.  The Company notes
that it cannot comment on this matter as it was just recently
filed.  The Company is also aware of a third putative class action
being filed in Missouri by different attorneys also related to
steel and aluminum warranties and warranty processing procedures.
The Company has not yet received formal service of this matter.
The Company says it cannot currently estimate the amount of
liability that may be associated with these matters and if a
liability is probable and accordingly, has not recorded a
liability for these lawsuits.  The Company does not believe that
it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the
possible range of loss related to these matters.


BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Suit by Florida Homeowners
------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit
commenced by homeowners in Florida, which case was transferred to
Louisiana, according to the Company's November 15, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended September 30, 2011.

On June 3, 2009, Beazer Homes Corp. was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Lee
County, State of Florida, filed by Bryson and Kimberly Royal, the
owners of one of the Company's homes in its Magnolia Lakes'
community in Ft. Myers, Florida.  The complaint names the Company
and certain distributors and suppliers of drywall and was filed on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated owners
of homes in Magnolia Lakes or alternatively in the State of
Florida.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company built their homes
with defective drywall, manufactured in China, that contains
sulfur compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that
are allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals.
Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal and
equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees.  This
case has been transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana
pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  In addition, the Company has been named
in other multi-plaintiff complaints filed in the multidistrict
litigation.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in these actions are
governed by home warranties or are without merit.  Accordingly,
the Company intends to vigorously defend against this litigation.
Furthermore, the Company has offered to repair all Beazer homes
affected by defective Chinese drywall pursuant to repair protocol
that has been adopted by the multidistrict litigation court,
including those homes involved in litigation.  To date, nearly all
affected Beazer homeowners have accepted the Company's offer to
repair.  The Company also continues to pursue recovery against
responsible subcontractors, drywall suppliers and drywall
manufacturers for its repair costs.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- is a
homebuilder headquartered in Atlanta.  The Company's ongoing
operations are geographically diversified in 16 states across the
country, and its high performance homes, called eSMART, are
designed to appeal to homebuyers at various price points across
various demographic segments.


BEAZER HOMES: Court Approves Settlement in RESPA-Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina entered a final judgment and order approving a settlement
of the class action lawsuit alleging Beazer Homes USA, Inc.,
violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act, according to
the Company's November 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended September
30, 2011.

A putative class action was filed on April 8, 2008, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
Salisbury Division, against Beazer Homes, U.S.A., Inc., Beazer
Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation (BMC).  The Complaint
alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices
Act (RESPA) and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1 by (1)
improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned mortgage and
settlement services as part of a down payment assistance program,
and (2) illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement
services sold by Beazer Homes Corp.  On September 2, 2011, the
court entered a final judgment and order approving a class
settlement in which the Company and all other defendants did not
admit any liability.  The settling class consists of all persons
who purchased a home from Beazer in North Carolina, closed on the
home purchase between August 1, 2002, and August 30, 2011, and
received settler-funded down payment assistance as part of that
transaction.

Under terms of the settlement, the Company says it has made a
payment that is not material to the Company's financial position
or results of operations and which will be partially funded by
insurance proceeds.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- is a
homebuilder headquartered in Atlanta.  The Company's ongoing
operations are geographically diversified in 16 states across the
country, and its high performance homes, called eSMART, are
designed to appeal to homebuyers at various price points across
various demographic segments.


BROOKLYN FEDERAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle class action lawsuits arising from its
proposed merger with Investors Bancorp, Inc., according to the
Company's November 16, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 15, 2011, Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") executed an amendment (the "Amendment") to the
agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and
between (i) Investors Bank, Investors Bancorp, Inc. ("Investors
Bancorp"), and Investors Bancorp, MHC ("Investors MHC"), and (ii)
Brooklyn Federal Savings Bank ("Brooklyn Federal Savings"), the
Company and BFS Bancorp, MHC ("Brooklyn MHC").  The Merger
Agreement, originally executed on August 16, 2011, provides for,
among other things, the merger of the Company into Investors
Bancorp, or a newly-formed subsidiary thereof (the "Mid-Tier
Merger").

On August 24, 2011, Joseph Underwood, a shareholder represented by
the law firm of Brower Piven, a Professional Corporation, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Kings, against Brooklyn Bancorp, Brooklyn
MHC, Brooklyn Federal Savings and their respective directors, and
Investors Bancorp, Investors MHC, and Investors Bank (the
"Lawsuit").  The Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
Brooklyn Bancorp's directors breached their fiduciary duties and
obligations to the shareholders of Brooklyn Bancorp, other than
Brooklyn MHC (the "Public Shareholders") and that Investors
participated, aided and abetted in such alleged breaches, by
failing to obtain the highest available value for Brooklyn Bancorp
and to take steps to maximize its value when facilitating its
acquisition by entering into the Merger Agreement.  The Lawsuit
seeks, among other things, an injunction against Brooklyn Bancorp,
Brooklyn MHC and the other defendants from consummating the
Mergers, rescissory and compensatory damages and attorney's fees.
The parties to the Lawsuit began settlement discussions shortly
after receiving notice of the existence of the Lawsuit.

On September 16, 2011, Russ Bastin, a shareholder represented by
the law firm of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 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 named in the Lawsuit (individually, the "Bastin
Matter," and collectively with the Lawsuit, the "Shareholder
Actions").

On September 20, 2011, plaintiffs to the Lawsuit served defendants
with a settlement demand letter requesting, among other things,
that additional consideration be paid to the Public Shareholders.
On September 30, 2011, the parties reached an oral agreement in
principle to settle the Shareholder Actions, which was
memorialized in a memorandum of understanding subsequently
executed by the parties (the "Memorandum of Understanding").

On October 18, 2011, the parties to the Bastin Matter and the
Lawsuit filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Consolidating
Related Shareholder Actions and Appointing Interim Co-Lead Counsel
for the Plaintiffs with the court (the "Proposed Order").  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 (the
"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.  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.  Non-New
York resident members of the class may opt out solely to preserve
any right to pursue potential claims for monetary damages, but
will otherwise be bound by terms of the settlement.  Investors
Bancorp may terminate the settlement if class members holding an
agreed-to percentage or number of Brooklyn Bancorp shares opt out
of the settlement, as set forth in a supplemental agreement to be
executed by the parties.


CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of China Automotive Systems, Inc. are reminded of the
securities class action lawsuit filed against China Automotive and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased China Automotive securities during the period from
March 25, 2010 through and including March 17, 2011.

The Complaint charges that China Automotive and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following: (1) the Company improperly accounted for
its convertible notes issued on February 15, 2008; (2) that, as a
result, the Company's financial results were incorrectly stated
during the Class Period; (3) that the Company's financial results
were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal
and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above,
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shares of China Automotive dropped from a close of $10.23 per
share on March 16, 2011 to a closing price of $8.81 per share on
March 17, 2011 on news it expected to restate its financials.  On
March 17, 2011, the Company's audit committee of the board of
directors stated it would delay its annual financial statement and
would need to restate all previously issued financial statements
for the fiscal year 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010 and
that these financial statements should no longer be relied upon.
On March 18, 2011 the company announced that it received a letter
from the NASDAQ stating that the company is no longer in
compliance with NASDAQ Marketplace rules.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action.  If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact:

        Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
        Eitan Kimelman
        Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
        Telephone: 212-697-6484
        E-mail: eitan@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  December 26, 2011 is the
deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff appointment.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of both
class and individual litigation claims on behalf of its clients.
In addition to representing institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate work, litigation and
securities arbitration.


CHINA EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
China Education Alliance, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in California,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

The Company is presently involved in two putative class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The first action, Apicella v. China
Education Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS)(JCx), was
filed on December 2, 2010; the second action, Clemens v. China
Education Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09987 (JFW)(AGRx), was
filed on December 28, 2010.  On March 2, 2011, both actions were
consolidated in In re China Education Alliance, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS) (JCx)(C.D. Cal.).  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and the
other defendants are liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 for allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions in the Company's public
filings during 2008 and 2009.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint
also asserts claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the individual defendants.  Additionally, the
Company has reason to believe that another derivative lawsuit may
be commenced against the individuals named as defendants in the
securities class action lawsuit, although the timing of such
potential lawsuit is uncertain.  If the Company was to be
subsequently involved in more litigation proceedings, and/or it
was unable to settle this lawsuit or any other similar lawsuits on
terms favorable to it and/or if adverse judgments were to be
levied against it, the Company's profitability could be severely
impacted.  Also, this class action suit against the Company could
result in substantial costs, potential liabilities and the
diversion of management's attention and resources and result in a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.


CHINA GREEN: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
China Green Agriculture, Inc., and other defendants seek dismissal
of a securities class action lawsuit pending in Nevada, according
to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
November 12, 2009 and September 1, 2010.  On April 27, 2011, the
court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.
On June 13, 2011, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
adds several additional defendants and expands the class period to
include purchasers who purchased the Company's common stock
between May 12, 2009 and January 4, 2011. The amended complaint
alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making material
misstatements and omissions in the Company's financial statements,
securities offering documents, and related disclosures during the
class period.  The plaintiffs claim that such allegedly misleading
statements inflated the price of the Company's common stock and
seek monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial. By
stipulation of the parties, defendants' response to the amended
complaint is due October 7, 2011. Lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on June 13, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on September 19, 2011. No hearing has been set
for defendants' motions.


CHINA VALVES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 4, 2011, a plaintiff filed a purported class action
naming China Valves Technology Inc., its Chairman and certain
present and former senior executives as defendants, asserting
claims for certain violations of the securities laws and seeking
unspecified damages.  The complaint, which was styled Donald
Foster, et al. v. China Valves Technology, Inc., et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Several substantially identical complaints were subsequently filed
in the same court.  On June 29, 2011, the Court consolidated the
three cases and appointed Bristol Investment Fund, LTD ("Bristol")
as lead plaintiff.  In the consolidation order the Court renamed
the case In re China Valves Technology Securities Litigation.  On
August 29, 2011, Bristol filed a consolidated class action
complaint, which named additional defendants including an
individual shareholder of the Company and the Company's auditor.

The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of
a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock at allegedly artificially high prices
during the period between December 1, 2009, and January 13, 2011,
and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases.  The
allegations in the consolidated complaint relate to the Company's
acquisitions of Able Delight Investment, Ltd. and Shanghai Pudong
Hanwei Valve Co., Ltd., and include allegations regarding the
Company's financial statements and press releases.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company's statements about
the nature and quality of the Company's acquisition of Able
Delight were materially false and misleading and that the
Company's statements failed to describe the role in the
transaction of an alleged related party.  In addition, the
complaint alleges that the Company's statements about the Hanwei
Valves acquisition were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose the alleged involvement of certain related
parties and allegedly misdescribed the transaction as a purchase
of assets rather than as a purchase of an entity.

The Company says it intends to contest the allegations and to
defend itself vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 21,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.


CIT GROUP: Fact Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class
action lawsuit filed by shareholders of CIT Group, Inc.,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In July and August 2008, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "New York District Court") on behalf of
CIT's pre-reorganization stockholders against CIT, its former CEO
and its former CFO. In August 2008, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the New York District Court by a holder of
CIT-PrZ equity units against CIT, its former CEO, former CFO,
former Controller and certain members of its current and former
Board of Directors. In May 2009, the Court consolidated these
three shareholder actions into a single action and appointed
Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the
proposed class, which consists of all acquirers of CIT common
stock and PrZ preferred stock from December 12, 2006 through
March 5, 2008, who allegedly were damaged, including acquirers of
CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant to the October 17, 2007 offering
of such preferred stock.

In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("1934 Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act").
Specifically, it is alleged that the Company, its former CEO,
former CFO, former Controller, and a former Vice Chairman violated
Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by making false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding CIT's subprime home lending and
student lending businesses. The allegations relating to the
Company's home lending business are based on the assertion that
the Company failed to fully disclose the risks in the Company's
portfolio of subprime mortgage loans. The allegations relating to
the Company's student lending business are based upon the
assertion that the Company failed to account in its financial
statements or, in the case of the preferred stockholders, its
registration statement and prospectus, for private loans to
students of a helicopter pilot training school, which it is
alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been
written off. The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the Company, its
former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and those current and
former Directors of the Company who signed the registration
statement in connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ preferred
offering violated the 1933 Act by making false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's student lending business.

Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, CIT
Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated
securities action as a result of its discharge in bankruptcy. On
June 10, 2010, the Court denied the remaining defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The action
continues as to the remaining defendants and CIT's obligation to
defend and indemnify such defendants continues. Fact discovery is
ongoing and expected to proceed through the first half of 2012.
Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and
interest. A non-binding mediation process was commenced in August
2011.


COMMUNITY LOANS: Faces Class Action Over Predatory Lending
----------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Crenshaw, writing for Macon.com, reports that a Fort Benning
infantryman has filed a federal lawsuit against an Atlanta-based
title pawn lender for allegedly violating laws that protect
military members from predatory lending practices.

Staff Sgt. Jason Cox filed the suit, which seeks class-action
status, on Veterans Day against Community Loans of America Inc.,
its wholly owned subsidiary, Alabama Title Loans, and 900
corporate entities operating in 22 states, according to a release
from Barnes Law Group, which is representing Mr. Cox.  His
attorneys include former Gov. Roy Barnes, who fought for
legislation against payday lenders when he was in office.

According to the release, the company violated a 2007 federal law
that prohibits lenders from charging service members an annual
percentage rate of more than 36% and requiring service members to
put up a car title as loan security.

The suit alleges Mr. Cox was charged 100% APR on a 30-day loan,
and after he rolled it over several times and was unable to make
the payments, his vehicle was repossessed.

According to a story about the lawsuit in the Atlanta-Journal
Constitution, Robert Reich, Community Loans of America president
and chief executive, said he had not read the suit and declined to
comment.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Awaits Approval of Pension Fund Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc., and other parties of a class action lawsuit
filed by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund are
awaiting court approval of their settlement, according to the
Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary,
and the former President/Chief Executive Officer and current Chief
Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer of Dynex Capital, Inc.,
are defendants in a class action brought by the Teamsters Local
445 Freight Division Pension Fund  in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The original
complaint, which was filed on February 7, 2005, alleged violations
of the federal securities laws and was purportedly filed on behalf
of purchasers between February 2000 and May 2004 of MERIT Series
12-1 and MERIT Series 13 securitization financing, which are
collateralized by manufactured housing loans. After a series of
rulings and an eventual dismissal by the District Court, the
Teamsters filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2008,
essentially restating the same allegations as the original
complaint and adding the Company's former President/Chief
Executive Officer and current Chief Operating Officer/Chief
Financial Officer as defendants. The Teamsters seek unspecified
damages and allege, among other things, fraud and
misrepresentation in connection with the issuance of and
subsequent reporting related to the Bonds. On March 7, 2011, the
District Court granted the Teamsters' motion to certify the class
for this action.

In September 2011, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding, reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all
claims asserted in this matter. The memorandum of understanding
sets forth terms of a proposed settlement whereby the Company
would pay $7,500,000 into an escrow account following the
negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement and
preliminary approval by the Court. The disbursement of the
escrowed payment will be subject to negotiation and execution of a
definitive settlement agreement, notice to the class, and final
approval by the Court, in addition to any other conditions
contained in the definitive settlement agreement. The Company
continues to deny that it violated any federal securities laws and
has agreed in principle to this settlement solely to eliminate the
expense, burden, and uncertainty of the litigation.


EBAY MOTORS: Sellers Get Checks From Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that sellers
on eBay Motors began receiving checks this month that were their
portion of a $30 million settlement in a class action lawsuit.
Two sellers had filed a class action lawsuit against eBay in 2009
alleging that eBay charged excessive fees for listing items in the
"Parts and Accessories" category.  eBay settled for $30 million in
November, but denied it had overcharged sellers.

The court approved the settlement in December, and sellers began
receiving checks this month.

The class consists of eBay sellers who paid Final Value Fees for
selling items in the vehicle-related Parts and Accessories
categories on eBay Motors between April 21, 2005, and August 26,
2009.  eBay Store listings were not included in the settlement.

The plaintiffs' lawyers were entitled to legal fees up to 25% of
the settlement amount, and Class Representative sought $15,000 as
incentive compensation.

It was expected that after payment of all fees and expenses, each
class member was entitled to reimbursement of approximately 6.67%
of all Final Value Fees paid for Parts and Accessories listed on
eBay Motors during the class period, excluding listings on eBay
Stores.  Sellers discussing the settlement on an eBay discussion
board reported receiving checks ranging from as low as one dollar
to as much as $102 -- a number of sellers were uncertain why they
had received the checks.


EBIX INC: To Defend Consolidated Amended Complaint in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended complaint was to be filed in a class action
lawsuit against Ebix, Inc., in Georgia, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Between July 14, 2011 and July 21, 2011, securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.  The complaints assert claims
against (i) the Company and the Company's CEO and CFO for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
(ii) the Company's CEO and CFO as alleged controlling persons.
The complaints generally allege false statements in earnings
reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements
allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices. Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
The New York action has been transferred to Georgia and has been
consolidated with the Georgia action, now styled In re: Ebix, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-02400-RSW (N.D.
Ga.).  A consolidated amended complaint will be filed by Lead
Plaintiff on or about November 28, 2011. In September 2011, a
related derivative complaint was filed against the Company and
each of its Directors in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia, styled Nauman v. Raina, et al., Civil Action File No.
2011-cv-205276. The derivative action has been stayed pending
resolution of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint in the federal action. The Company believes
that the complaints are legally insufficient and the Company
intends to seek dismissal.  As of September 30, 2011 no liability
in the Company's financial statements has been recognized with
respect to these class action complaints, as  presently a loss is
not probable nor able to be reasonably estimated.


HANSEN NATURAL: Trial in "Chavez" Class Suit Set for July 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
The trial date of a class action lawsuit filed by Christopher
Chavez in California against Hansen Natural Corporation is set for
July 9, 2012, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair
business practices, false advertising, violation of California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky(R) beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled
wholly in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Defendants removed this Superior
Court action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act and
filed motions for dismissal or transfer.  On June 11, 2007, the
District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss Chavez's
complaint with prejudice.  On June 23, 2009, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed a memorandum opinion
reversing the decision of the District Court and remanded the case
to the District Court for further proceedings.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion
for a decision on a preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification.  On June 18, 2010, the District
Court entered an order certifying the class, ruled that there was
no preemption by federal law, and denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The class that the District Court certified initially
consists of all persons who purchased any beverage bearing the
Blue Sky mark or brand in the United States at any time between
May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006.  On September 9, 2010, the
District Court approved the form of the class notice and its
distribution plan; and set an opt-out date of December 10, 2010.
On November 11, 2010, the Company filed two dispositive motions: a
motion to decertify the class and a motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff also filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
On September 27, 2011, the District Court denied the Company's
motion to decertify the class and denied each of the Company's and
plaintiff's motions for summary judgment.  The trial date has been
set for July 9, 2012.   The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to all the allegations and plans a vigorous defense. The
Company believes that any possible litigation losses, if awarded,
would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.


HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against Hansen Natural Corporation
and its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as
defendants.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy(R) products in
Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with
respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated
with the consumption of the energy drink products.  The
plaintiff's claims against the defendants are for negligence,
unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in
violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act
(Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario).  The
plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class
in the amount of C$20 million, together with punitive damages of
C$5 million, plus legal costs and interest.  The plaintiff's
certification motion materials have not yet been filed.  In
accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company
will not file an answer to the complaint until after the
determination of the certification motion.  The Company believes
that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit and plans a
vigorous defense.

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


HANSEN NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Sub Judice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corporation and other defendants' request to
dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint remains sub
judice.

On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities
class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et
al. was also filed in the District Court.

On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the
Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff. On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws. The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007.  It named as
defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and
Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the
Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements
relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements
with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and its sales of "Allied" energy drink
lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis
of material non-public information.  Plaintiff also alleged that
the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of 2007
did not include certain promotional expenses.  The Consolidated
Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended  and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On July 12, 2010, following a
hearing, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to
amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify
which statements Plaintiff claimed were false or misleading,
failed adequately to allege that certain statements were
actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to
demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter.

On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws.  While
similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the
allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
and makes certain new allegations, including that the Company
engaged in "channel stuffing" during the Class Period that
rendered false or misleading the Company's reported sales results
and certain other statements made by the defendants.  In addition,
it no longer names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.  The Amended
Class Action Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on November 8, 2010.   At a hearing on defendants'
motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint held on
May 12, 2011, the District Court issued a tentative ruling that
would grant the motion to dismiss as to certain of Plaintiff's
claims, but would deny the motion to dismiss with regard to the
majority of Plaintiff's claims.  The District Court has not,
however, issued a final ruling.  The District Court held an
additional hearing on the motion to dismiss on May 25, 2011, and
has received supplemental submissions from the parties.
Defendants' motion to dismiss remains sub judice.

The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages. As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible
litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be
estimated.

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


HCA HOLDINGS: Defends Shareholder Class Action Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
HCA Holdings, Inc., is defending itself against a shareholder
class action lawsuit over its initial public offering, according
to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The
case seeks to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the March 9, 2011 initial public offering. The lawsuit asserts a
claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the
Company, certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserts a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleges deficiencies in the
Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement relating to:
(1) accounting for its 2006 recapitalization and 2010
reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain effective
internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's revenue growth rate. The
complaint has recently been filed and no further proceedings have
been scheduled at this time.


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Appeal in Batesville Casket Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005 the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., and a number of
individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., and its
former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary (now wholly-
owned by Hillenbrand, Inc.), and three national funeral home
businesses.

The district court has dismissed the claims and denied class
certification, but in October 2010, the plaintiffs appealed these
decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  If the plaintiffs were to succeed in reversing the
district court's dismissal of the claims, but not the denial of
class certification, then the plaintiffs would be able to pursue
individual damages claims: the alleged overcharges on the
plaintiffs' individual casket purchases, which would be trebled as
a matter of law, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

If the plaintiffs were to (1) succeed in reversing the district
court's dismissal of the claims, (2) succeed in reversing the
district court order denying class certification and certify a
class, and (3) prevail at trial, then the damages awarded to the
plaintiffs, which would be trebled as a matter of law, could have
a significant material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.  The plaintiffs
filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages ranging
from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.5 billion
before trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers they
seek to represent.

Hill-Rom and Hillenbrand, Inc. have entered into a judgment
sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential
liabilities associated with this litigation between the Company
and Hillenbrand, Inc.  The Company believes that it has committed
no wrongdoing as alleged by the plaintiffs and that the Company
has meritorious defenses to class certification and to plaintiffs'
underlying allegations and damage theories.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 16,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.


HSBC USA: Continues to Defend Madoff-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. continues to defend lawsuits relating to the alleged
Ponzi scheme ran by Bernard L. Madoff, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff was arrested for running a
Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the liquidation of
his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("Madoff
Securities"), a SEC-registered broker-dealer and investment
adviser.  Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided custodial,
administration and similar services to a number of funds
incorporated outside the United States whose assets were invested
with Madoff Securities.  Plaintiffs (including funds, funds
investors and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced
Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a
multitude of jurisdictions.  Various HSBC companies have been
named as defendants in lawsuits in the United States, Ireland,
Luxembourg and other jurisdictions.  The lawsuits (which include
U.S. class actions) allege that the HSBC defendants knew or should
have known of Madoff's fraud and breached various duties to the
funds and fund investors.

The Company says these actions are at an early stage.  There are
many factors that may affect the range of possible outcomes, and
the resulting financial impact, of the various Madoff-related
proceedings including, but not limited to, the circumstances of
the fraud, the multiple jurisdictions in which proceeding have
been brought and the number of different plaintiffs and defendants
in such proceedings.  For these reasons, among others, the Company
says it is unable to reasonably estimate the aggregate liability
or ranges of liability that might arise as a result of these
claims but it could be significant.  In any event, the Company
considers that it has good defenses to these claims and will
continue to defend them vigorously.


HSBC USA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a putative class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A. et al.  (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the
Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and
HSBC North America on behalf of a putative nationwide class and
New York sub-class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft
fees due to the posting of debit card transactions to deposit
accounts in high-to-low order. Levin asserts claims for breach of
contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York
deceptive acts and practices statute. The plaintiffs dismissed the
Federal court action after the case was transferred to the multi-
district litigation pending in Miami, Florida, and re-filed the
case in New York state court on March 1, 2011. The action,
captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
650562/11), alleges a variety of common law claims and violations
on behalf of a New York class, including breach of contract and
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion,
unjust enrichment and a violation of the New York deceptive acts
and practices statute. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on May 2, 2011, and oral argument is currently scheduled
for November 18, 2011. The Company says that at this time it is
unable to reasonably estimate the liability, if any, that might
arise as a result of this action and will defend the claims
vigorously.


IMH FINANCIAL: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Suit Set for Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on IMH Financial Corporation's motion to dismiss a
consolidated lawsuit is scheduled for February 13, 2012, according
to the Company's November 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

IMH Financial Corporation, or the Company, a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, was formed
from the conversion of IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC, or the Fund, a
Delaware limited liability company, on June 18, 2010.  The
conversion was effected following a consent solicitation process
pursuant to which approval was obtained from a majority of the
members of the Fund to effect a series of transactions referred to
as the Conversion Transactions, which involved (i) the conversion
of the Fund from a Delaware limited liability company into a
Delaware corporation named IMH Financial Corporation, and (ii) the
acquisition by the Company of all of the outstanding shares of the
manager of the Fund, Investors Mortgage Holdings Inc., or the
Manager, as well as all of the outstanding membership interests of
a related entity, IMH Holdings, LLC, or Holdings, on June 18,
2010.

Various disputes have arisen relating to the consent
solicitation/prospectus used in connection with seeking member
approval of the Conversion Transactions.  Three proposed class
action lawsuits were subsequently filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (on May 26, 2010, June 15, 2010, and June 17, 2010)
against the Company and certain affiliated individuals and
entities.  The May 26 and June 15, 2010 lawsuits contain similar
allegations, claiming, in general, that fiduciary duties owed to
Fund members and to the Fund were breached because, among other
things, the Conversion Transactions were unfair to Fund members,
constituted self-dealing and because the information provided
about the Conversion Transactions and related disclosures were
false and misleading.  The June 17, 2010 lawsuit focuses on
whether the Conversion Transactions constitute a "roll up"
transaction under the Fund's operating agreement, and seeks
damages for breach of the operating agreement.  The Company and
its affiliated co-defendants dispute these claims and intend to
continue vigorously defending themselves in these actions.

An action also was filed on June 14, 2010, in the Delaware Court
of Chancery against the Company and certain affiliated individuals
and entities by Fund members Ronald Tucek and Cliff Ratliff and
LGM Capital Partners, LLC (also known as The Committee to Protect
IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC).  This lawsuit claims that certain
fiduciary duties owed to Fund members and to the Fund were
breached because, among other things, the Conversion Transactions
were unfair to Fund members, constituted self-dealing and because
information provided about the Conversion Transactions and related
disclosures were false and misleading.  Plaintiffs have sought
monetary damages and equitable relief.  As previously reported,
the Court denied Plaintiffs' request to enjoin the Conversion
Transactions, have an independent advisor appointed on behalf of
Fund members, remove the Manager or obtain access to contact
information for Fund members and certain broker-dealers.  The
Company and its affiliated co-defendants dispute the claims made
in this lawsuit and intend to continue vigorously defending
themselves in this action.

The parties in the four actions have agreed to consolidate the
four actions for all purposes.  The Delaware Court of Chancery
ordered that a consolidated complaint be filed, to be followed by
consolidated discovery, and designated the plaintiffs' counsel
from the May 26, 2010 and June 17, 2010 lawsuits as co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  The consolidated class action complaint was
filed on December 17, 2010.  After Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss that complaint, the Chancery Court ordered Plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint.  On July 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a
new verified complaint entitled "Amended and Supplemental
Consolidated Class Action Complaint" ("ACC").  On August 29, 2011,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in Part the ACC.   Plaintiffs
filed their brief in opposition on September 28, 2011, and
Defendants filed their reply brief on November 2, 2011.  Oral
argument on the Company's motion to dismiss is scheduled to take
place on February 13, 2012.

The Company says the consolidated action is in its early stages
and it is not possible to estimate at this time the range of
exposure, if any, the consolidated action presents.  However, the
Company and its affiliated co-defendants dispute the claims in
this lawsuit and intend to continue vigorously defending
themselves in that litigation.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Nov. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of investors who purchased
Imperial Holdings, Inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's Registration and Prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's February 7, 2011 initial public offering.

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

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased the shares of Imperial Holdings, Inc. you may
contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss
your rights and interests.

        Joseph E. White, III
        Greg Stone
        Saxena White P.A.
        2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
        Boca Raton, FL 33431
        Telephone: (561) 394-3399
        Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com
        E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                gstone@saxenawhite.com

If you purchased shares of Imperial Holdings, Inc. and suffered a
loss, either purchased pursuant to the IPO or on the open marker,
and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a
motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than
January 17, 2012.  You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss
your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your
interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain
counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time
to be a class member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton and Boston,
specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class
actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.  Currently
serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions
nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars
on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation
pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States.


INERGY LP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suits Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inergy, L.P., is awaiting court approval of a proposed settlement
of two merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's November 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2011.

On August 7, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with its Managing General Partner, Inergy Holdings L.P.,
Inergy Holdings GP, LLC, the general partner of Inergy Holdings
("Holdings GP"), NRGP Limited Partner, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Holdings GP ("New NRGP LP"), and NRGP MS, LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Holdings GP ("MergerCo").  Through a
number of steps, Inergy Holdings merged into MergerCo and the
outstanding common units in Inergy Holdings were cancelled.  In
connection with the Merger, the Company's incentive distribution
rights, all of which were held by Inergy Holdings, were cancelled.
The Company also acquired all of Inergy Holdings' ownership
interests in IPCH Acquisition Corp. ("IPCH"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Inergy Holdings, and in the Company's Non-managing
General Partner.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, two unitholder
class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware challenging the proposed merger (Joel A. Gerber
v. Inergy GP, LLC et al., No. 5864 and G-2 Trading LLC v. Inergy
GP, LLC et al., No. 5816) (collectively, the "Inergy Unitholder
Lawsuits").  The parties to the Inergy Unitholder Lawsuits have
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby in
consideration for the settlement and dismissal of the claims, the
individual Class B unitholders will forego and relinquish a total
of 135,539 Class B units to be received as distributions following
the date on which the settlement and dismissal becomes final and
no longer appealable.  The parties are waiting on court approval
of the proposed settlement.


JAMAICA PUBLIC SERVICE: Class Action Over License Faces Delay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Gayle, writing for Jamaica Gleaner, reports that one of
the lawyers representing the complainants in the law suit against
the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) has complained about the
long delay to have the matter heard.

The matter was called up for case management in the Supreme Court
before Justice Sarah Thompson James.

But the judge has put off the case until June 26, 27 and 28 next
year.

Attorney, Hugh Wildman complained that the case was one of urgency
and the available dates were too far away.

Mr. Wildman said the case was a very important one and an earlier
date should be given because it is a matter of urgency.

The suit was filed by a group of disgruntled JPS customers who are
challenging the legality of the license held by the JPS.

Mr. Wildman is arguing that the Electric Lighting Act governs the
license under which the JPS operates and under that Act there is
no provision for any one company or entity to have a license
covering the entire island of Jamaica.


JBI INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 14, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission's
Division of Enforcement issued a "Wells Notice" to JBI Inc.
indicating that the staff intended to recommend that the SEC file
a civil lawsuit alleging that the Company violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws.  Based on
communications with the SEC's Enforcement staff, the Company
believes that the proposed lawsuit relates to the Company's
restated financial statements for the third quarter of 2009, which
were included in its Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009, and its
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which
were included in its 2009 Form 10-K filed on
March 31, 2010.  The restatement concerned the Company's valuation
of media credits, accounting for certain acquisitions, and equity
issuances.  The Company believes that the staff may also recommend
naming one or more current and former officers of the Company as
defendants in the proposed lawsuit.

Subsequent to receipt of the "Wells Notice", there have been a
number of announcements in respect of individual class action
lawsuits against the Company that are pending and that have been
lodged.  The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the
dispute with the SEC or any separate class action litigation which
may result, including whether a lawsuit will be filed or the terms
of any settlement that may be reached.  The Company has been given
an opportunity to respond to the Wells Notice, and will decide how
to proceed based on consultation with its litigation counsel.  The
Company asserts that it does not anticipate that the notice will
negatively impact its business operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 21,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc., disclosed in its November 21, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that on November 15,
2011, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., filed a class action lawsuit,
alleging the Company had violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements and omitting
material facts with regard to disclosure of related party
transactions and the effectiveness of internal controls in past
public filings.  The Company believes there is no basis to the
lawsuit filed by The Rosen Law Firm and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Discovery Process in Consolidated Suit to Start
----------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. will be starting the discovery process in a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed against it in Nevada,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr., filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
will be reported as one consolidated matter in the future. On
November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was
filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson
and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and
denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. The
defendants will be answering the allegations remaining in the
amended complaint and starting the discovery process. This
consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management has
determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter
or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Final Suit Settlement Hearing on Feb. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider final court approval of Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation's settlement of a consolidated
stockholder class action lawsuit and two derivative lawsuits
pending in Arizona will be on February 23, 2012, according to the
Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 3, 10 and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action
lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-
01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
stockholders who purchased securities of the Company during the
period between October 30, 2003 and approximately September 24,
2008. The Court consolidated these actions into a single
proceeding and on May 18, 2009 an amended complaint was filed
alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements
in 2008. On December 2, 2009, the Court granted the Company's and
other defendants' dismissal motions and dismissed the consolidated
amended complaint without prejudice. On January 18, 2010 the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and on or about
August 9, 2010, the Court denied the Company's and other
defendants' related dismissal motions. On December 17, 2010, the
lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the
defendants filed an opposition to the motion on March 8, 2011.

On June 6, 2011, the Company, certain of its current officers who
are named in the complaint, and the Company's outside auditors
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs'
representatives to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle
the pending action. On September 21, 2011, the parties filed with
the Court a motion for preliminary approval of a Settlement
Stipulation (the "Class Action Stipulation") setting forth the
terms of the settlement. The Court granted the motion for
preliminary approval on November 2, 2011, ordered that notice be
given to class participants and set a hearing for final approval
for February 23, 2012. Under the terms of the Class Action
Stipulation, the Company's portion of the settlement will be paid
entirely by insurance. The Company's outside auditors will
contribute to the settlement. The Company itself is not required
to make any payments to fund the settlement, and the Class Action
Stipulation contains no admission of liability by the Company or
the named individuals in the action, the allegations of which are
expressly denied therein. The Class Action Stipulation remains
subject to notice to the class participants and final approval by
the Court. In the event the settlement is not finally approved by
the Court, the Company will continue to vigorously defend the
claims in the class action lawsuits. There can be no assurance
that the Court will approve the settlement, or that the Company
will otherwise ultimately be successful in settling the lawsuits
or in defending the lawsuits, and an adverse resolution of the
lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position and results of operations in the period in
which the lawsuits are resolved.


MOTOROLA INC: Employees' ERISA Class Certification Bid Fails
------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela L. Signorello, Meredith E. Werner, Terrence R. McInnis,
Cathy A. Simon at Troutman Sanders report that on November 15,
2011, the U.S. District Court for the North District of Illinois
issued an opinion denying class certification to certain employees
of Motorola, Inc. in the ERISA lawsuit captioned Joe M. Groussman,
et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al., No. 10 C 911 (N.D. Ill.). This
advisory outlines the plaintiffs' allegations and details the
Court's findings.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the company offered
Motorola stock as an investment option in its 401(k) plan after it
became imprudent to do so because of production and sale problems
that caused the company's stock price to drop.  The plaintiffs
sought to certify a class consisting of all persons who were
participants in, or beneficiaries of, the plan at any time between
July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008, and whose accounts included
investments in Motorola stock.

In the opinion, Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan separately addressed
each element of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) --
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation
-- and determined that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the
commonality, typicality, and adequate representation requirements.

Relying heavily on the recent Supreme Court decision Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011), and undertaking the
required "rigorous analysis," Judge Der-Yeghiayan held that the
commonality requirement was not met because the plaintiffs had not
shown that members of the proposed class had suffered the same
injury or that key common issues of fact or law were capable of
resolution in a class action.  The Court rejected plaintiffs'
assertion that, to satisfy the commonality requirement, a
plaintiff need only show a common nucleus of operative facts among
the claims of the proposed class members.

According to the Court, "Plaintiffs' argument that the commonality
requirement is met simply because all proposed class members were
participants in the Plan and had invested in Motorola stock is the
type of loose factual connections among class members that does
not suffice under Dukes."  The Court further observed: "Defendants
have shown that depending on the individualized investment
strategies of proposed class members, each class member will have
suffered damages in a different manner.  The Defendants have in
fact shown that some individuals that fall within the scope of the
proposed class could actually have gained funds based on the
investments in Motorola stock."  Accordingly, the assessment of
damages for each proposed class member would require an
individualized analysis.

With respect to the typicality requirement, the Court was swayed
by defendants' argument that each proposed class member would want
to argue that it became imprudent to invest in Motorola stock on a
certain date, and that chosen date would vary depending on the
class member's unique trading pattern and investment strategy.
According to the Court, "[i]t is not enough for the typicality
requirement that Plaintiffs will present the same legal theories
as the proposed class members."

The Court also determined that plaintiffs failed to identify the
specific alleged misrepresentations and misleading statements that
class members and plaintiffs relied upon, and they failed to show
that they and the proposed class members were deceived in a
uniform fashion.  Indeed, according to the Court, "Defendants have
shown that among just Plaintiffs, there is a difference as to what
each Plaintiff understood at any given time, and that plaintiffs
did not rely upon the same information or statements in making
their investment decisions."

A similar analysis governed the Court's holding with respect to
the adequate representation requirement.  In particular, the Court
reasoned that no one plaintiff could fairly and adequately
represent the class because each plaintiff and proposed class
member would want to tailor the liability and damages arguments in
order to maximize the recovery.


MOTRICITY INC: Washington Court Consolidates Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two securities class action lawsuits commenced against Motricity,
Inc., in Washington were consolidated, according to the Company's
November 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of Motricity between June 18, 2010, and August 9,
2011, or in the Company's initial public offering.  The defendants
in the case are Motricity, certain of its current and former
directors and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith,
Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C.
Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian
V. Turner; and the underwriters in the IPO, including J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co
Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities
LLC.  The complaint alleges violations under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by all defendants and
under Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by Motricity and those of its former and current officers
who are named as defendants.  The complaint seeks, inter alia,
damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission.

A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by
Mark Couch in the same court, also related to alleged violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.

On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Removes IPO-Related Suit to Calif. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Young, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., Hugh C.
Martin, Susan K. Barnes, Brian B. Dow, Brook Byers, William W.
Ericson, Michael Hunkapiller, Randall S. Livingston, Susan Siegel,
David B. Singer, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co.,
Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and Piper Jaffray & Co., Case
No. CIV 509210 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., October 21,
2011) is brought against PacBio, its executives and directors who
signed the Registration Statement used to conduct the Company's
$230 million initial public stock offering on October 27, 2010,
and the underwriters to the IPO.

In violation of the Securities Act of 1933, the Defendants were
negligent by issuing false and misleading statements to the
investing public relating to the IPO and the Registration
Statement the Company filed with the SEC in support of the IPO,
Mr. Young alleges.  He contends that the Defendants were negligent
in failing to disclose at the time of the IPO certain material
facts concerning PacBio's business operations and their reasonable
expectations of the eventual commercial viability of the Company's
RS system, which is used to map DNA sequences.

Mr. Young is a shareholder of PacBio.

PacBio, a Delaware corporation, is a biotechnology company founded
by two Cornell students, Hugh C. Martin and Stephen Turner, in
2004 to develop, manufacture and commercialize a new, unique gene
sequencing system they, along with a third Cornell student,
discovered.  The individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.  J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and
Piper Jaffray were underwriters of the IPO.  The also served as
financial advisors to the Company, and assisted in the preparation
and dissemination of PacBio's false and misleading Registration
Statement, the lawsuit says.

The Company removed the lawsuit on November 23, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San Mateo, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the action is a civil action of which the District Court has
original jurisdiction under the Securities Act for it purports to
assert federal claims arising under that Act.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:11-cv-05668 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, Tenth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: mblasy@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          P.O. Box 192
          156 South Main Street
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-3818
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nina Locker, Esq.
          Catherine E. Moreno, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Crosson, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          Professional Corporation
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com
                  cmoreno@wsgr.com
                  bcrosson@wsgr.com


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Removes More IPO-Related Suit to Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sandnas, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.,
Hugh C. Martin, Susan K. Barnes, Brian B. Dow, Brook Byers,
William W. Ericson, Michael Hunkapiller, Randall S. Livingston,
Susan Siegel, David B. Singer, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan
Stanley & Co., Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and Piper
Jaffray & Co., Case No. CIV 509259 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo
Cty., October 24, 2011) is brought against PacBio, its executives
and directors who signed the Registration Statement used to
conduct the Company's $230 million initial public stock offering
on October 27, 2010, and the underwriters to the IPO.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were negligent in
failing to disclose at the time of the IPO material facts
concerning PacBio's business operations and their reasonable
expectations of the eventual commercial viability of the Company's
RS system used for DNA sequencing.  Mr. Sandnas contends that the
Defendants were aware that the Registration Statement materially
overstated the status of the RS systems' development at the time
of the IPO and that the Registration Statement omitted material
facts concerning the RS system's relatively low raw-read rate
accuracy, low throughput, low yields and that these would be
significant to would-be commercial purchasers.

Mr. Sandnas is a shareholder of PacBio.

PacBio, a Delaware corporation, is a biotechnology company founded
by two Cornell students, Hugh C. Martin and Stephen Turner, in
2004 to develop, manufacture and commercialize a new, unique gene
sequencing system they, along with a third Cornell student,
discovered.  The individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.  J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and
Piper Jaffray were underwriters of the IPO.  The also served as
financial advisors to the Company, and assisted in the preparation
and dissemination of PacBio's false and misleading Registration
Statement, the lawsuit says.

The Company removed the lawsuit on November 23, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San Mateo, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the action is a civil action of which the District Court has
original jurisdiction under the Securities Act for it purports to
assert federal claims arising under that Act.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:11-cv-05669 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, Tenth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: mblasy@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          P.O. Box 192
          156 South Main Street
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-3818
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nina Locker, Esq.
          Catherine E. Moreno, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Crosson, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          Professional Corporation
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com
                  cmoreno@wsgr.com
                  bcrosson@wsgr.com


PANERA BREAD: Unit Signs MOU to Settle Labor Law Violation Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Panera Bread Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle class action lawsuits alleging violations
of the California Labor Code, according to the Company's
November 21, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On November 17, 2011, Panera, LLC, ("Panera") a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Panera Bread Company (the "Company"), entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement regarding the proposed settlement of the
class action lawsuits against Panera by plaintiffs Nick Sotoudeh
and Gabriella Brizuela (filed in the California Superior Court,
Contra Costa County) and plaintiff David Carter (filed in the
California Superior Court, San Bernardino County), which lawsuits
were disclosed by the Company in its most recent periodic filing
on Form 10-Q.  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.

The Company has denied liability and wrongdoing of any kind with
respect to any claims of the plaintiffs and makes no admission of
any wrongdoing in connection with the proposed settlement.

While the proposed settlement is conditioned upon final approval
by the California Superior Court, the Company has now reserved $5
million for the payment of claims under the proposed settlement.
The Company says this reserve was not included in its October 25,
2011 fourth quarter guidance.


QC HOLDINGS: Expects Finalization of Suit Settlement by Year End
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings Inc. expects the settlement of a class action lawsuit
in Missouri to be finalized by the end of 2011, according to the
Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 13, 2006, one of the Company's Missouri customers sued
the Company in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri in
a purported class action. The lawsuit alleges violations of the
Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans under $500 and the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The lawsuit seeks monetary
damages and a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement
with the plaintiff is not enforceable on a variety of theories.
The Company moved to compel arbitration of this matter. In
December 2007, the court refused to enforce the class action
waiver provision in the Company's customer arbitration agreement,
ordered the case to arbitration and dismissed the lawsuit filed in
Circuit Court. In September 2009, the plaintiff filed her action
in arbitration. In August 2011, the Company and plaintiff reached
a tentative agreement to settle this purported class action
arbitration for approximately $1.9 million. In second quarter
2011, the Company recorded a $2.0 million liability in accrued
expenses and other liabilities in connection with this tentative
settlement and anticipated additional legal expenses to effect the
settlement. The settlement terms are subject to approval by the
arbitration panel. The Company expects the settlement to be
finalized by the end of 2011.


QC HOLDINGS: Still Defends Class Action Suit in North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings Inc. is still defending itself from a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.

On February 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries,
including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr.
Don Early, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North
Carolina in a putative class action lawsuit filed by James B.
Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of a
Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided
certain services in connection with the bank's origination of
payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the
Company's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005. The
lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various North Carolina
laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North
Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act,
the state unfair trade practices statute and the state usury
statute, in connection with payday loans made by the bank to the
two plaintiffs through the Company's retail locations in North
Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made the payday
loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes,
and that if the Company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or
makers" of the payday loans, its services to the bank that made
the loans violated various North Carolina statutes. Plaintiffs are
seeking certification as a class, unspecified monetary damages,
and treble damages and attorney fees under specified North
Carolina statutes. Plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this
matter and have specifically stated in the complaint that
plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks to
enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as
the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North
Carolina and federal law. In July 2011, the parties completed a
weeklong hearing on the Company's motion to enforce its class
action waiver provision and its arbitration provision. The Company
expects to receive a decision from the trial court by the end of
2011. A ruling is expected by the end of 2011.


SOTHEBY'S INC: Still Defends Suit Over Artwork Resale Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's, Inc., is still defending itself against a class action
lawsuit alleging that the Company violated the California Resale
Royalties Act, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S.
artists (and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's
in the State of California or at auction by California sellers and
for which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, punitive
damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Resale
Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. It is
currently not possible to make a estimate of the amount or range
of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of this
matter. Sotheby's believes that there are meritorious defenses to
the claims asserted by plaintiffs, and they will be vigorously
defended.


STATE OF INDIANA: Stage Collapse Suit Gets Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Sikich, writing for Indystar.com, reports that a federal
judge on Nov. 23 granted limited class-action status for
plaintiffs challenging the Indiana law that caps the state's
liability for damages in the State Fair stage rigging collapse.

But in her ruling, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker cast
doubt on the ultimate success of that lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed Sept. 26 by the estates of three of the
seven people who died in the Aug. 13 tragedy as well as three
others who were injured.  The class-action status, however, could
apply to as many as 70 plaintiffs.

Indiana's $5 million liability cap, according to the suit,
violates the 14th Amendment's and the Indiana Constitution's due
process and equal protection clauses.  Judge Barker, though, ruled
the class-action status only applies to the U.S. Constitutional
challenge, and that it does not apply to a challenge under the
Indiana Constitution.

Judge Barker also denied a request by the plaintiffs to grant an
injunction preventing the state from paying out the $5 million
while the issue is being litigated.

Perhaps more importantly, though, she questioned the lawsuit's
ultimate success, writing she does not "believe Plaintiffs have
demonstrated a likelihood of success . . . . . on the merits given
well-established case law on damage caps for tort claims against
government entities.  Straight forward statutory research provides
support for the proposition that states can and do justifiably
limit their liability when sued in tort by private individuals."

Attorney General Greg Zoeller, in a prepared statement, said
Judge Barker's ruling allows the state to continue negotiations
for settlements with more than 100 claimants.

"We have worked diligently with approximately 30 law firms,"
Mr. Zoeller said in a prepared statement, "representing claimants,
with claimants themselves, with a mediator and with victim-
compensation expert Kenneth Feinberg to develop a protocol for
treating victims fairly and equitably and we hope to conclude the
settlement process soon."

Judge Barker also denied a request for emergency discovery -- an
action that would have sped up the discovery process.


TRAILER BRIDGE: Obtains Final Dismissal Order in Puerto Rico Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2008, Trailer Bridge, Inc., received a subpoena from
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (the
"DOJ") seeking documents and information relating to a criminal
grand jury investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by
Puerto Rico ocean carriers.  Company representatives have met with
United States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the
Company's full and complete cooperation with the DOJ
investigation.  The Company has made document submissions to the
DOJ in response to the subpoena.  Neither the Company nor any of
its employees has been charged with any wrongdoing in this
investigation and the Company will continue to cooperate with
government officials.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one
case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, filed at
least 40 purported class actions against domestic ocean carriers,
including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner Services
and the Company.  The actions alleged that the defendants inflated
prices and engaged in other allegedly anti-competitive conduct in
violation of federal and local antitrust laws and seek treble
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  The actions,
which were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, and the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the
District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the last operative
consolidated complaint with the court.  On April 30, 2010, in a
non-final order, the Court granted the Company's motion to be
dismissed with prejudice as to the claims of the named plaintiffs.
This order became final and non-appealable in the third quarter of
2011. The dismissal cannot be appealed.

Horizon Lines, Crowley Liner Services, Sea Star Lines, LLC,
Saltchuck Resources, an affiliate of Sea Star Lines, LLC, and
their related companies entered into settlement agreements with
certain named direct purchaser plaintiffs on behalf of a class of
claimants in the MDL 1960 proceeding, while denying any liability
for the underlying claims.  Certain claimants have elected to
forgo participation in that settlement and, instead, are likely to
pursue claims against the settling defendants.  It is not clear
whether an individual opt-out plaintiff would attempt to bring an
action against the Company in such a proceeding or even whether
they could do so in light of the Company's dismissal with
prejudice from the underlying MDL.  Moreover, it is not clear
what, if any, impact these settlements will have on further
prosecution of the MDL 1960 or other claims on the Company, or on
the trade, in general.

Although legal fees have been substantially reduced in 2011,
significant legal fees and costs could still be incurred in
connection with the DOJ investigation, the class actions, and
other related matters.  During the three month periods ended
September 30, 2011, and 2010, costs were approximately $31,800 and
$116,500, respectively.  During the nine month periods ended
September 30, 2011, and 2010, costs were approximately $66,500 and
$641,900, respectively.

On October 15, 2009, the Company commenced legal action against
its insurer for a judicial declaration that the insurer owes and
has breached its duty to defend the Company in an antitrust
lawsuit captioned: "In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust
Litigation", U.S.D.C., Puerto Rico, Case No. 3:08-md-01960-DRD
(MDL 1960), and for judgment requiring the insurer to defend and
to reimburse the Company's defense expenses.  The case was held in
the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, and was
captioned: "Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Illinois National Insurance
Company".  On July 23, 2010 the Court denied the Company's motion
and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.  The
Company appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals on August 19, 2010, but was unsuccessful.  The Company
will not appeal further.

The Company says it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the DOJ investigation, the civil class actions, or other
related matters.  However, should this result in an unfavorable
outcome for the Company or continued legal expense, it could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position and
future operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 21,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Dismissal in ADT Dealer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a verdict dismissing a
number of plaintiffs' key claims relating to ADT Worldwide and
Fire Protection Services segment's dealer practices, according to
Tyco International Ltd.'s November 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2011.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that ADT had charged to its authorized dealers upon
purchasing customer accounts.  The investigation related to
accounting practices employed by the Company's former management,
which were discontinued in 2003.  Although the Company settled
with the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and related
parties have filed lawsuits against the Company in the United
States and in other countries, including a class action lawsuit
filed in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, alleging
breach of contract and other claims related to ADT's decision to
terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002 and 2003.  In
February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict in ADT's favor
dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key claims.  Upon appeal,
the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in ADT's favor
in October 2011.  While it is not possible at this time to predict
the final outcome of the Colorado lawsuit or other lawsuits
stemming from dealer terminations, the Company does not believe
these claims will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


TYSON FOODS: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in "Weissman" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion for
summary judgment in a lawsuit against its unit in Jefferson,
Wisconsin, according to the Company's November 21, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended October 1, 2011.

The Company has pending one wage and hour action involving the
Company's Tyson Prepared Foods plant located in Jefferson,
Wisconsin (Weissman, et al. v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc.,
Jefferson County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court, October 20, 2010).
The plaintiffs allege that employees should be paid for the time
it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as
changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing and the
associated time it takes to walk to and from their workstations
post-donning and pre-doffing of protective and sanitary clothing.
Six named plaintiffs seek to act as state law class
representatives on behalf of all current and former employees who
were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  On May 16, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify a state law class of all hourly employees who
have worked at the Jefferson plant from October 20, 2008, to the
present.  The Company has filed motions for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the claims, or, in the alternative, to limit
the claims made for non-compensable clothes changing activities.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein
company and a food production company with recognized brand names
in the food industry.  The Company produces, distributes and
markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied
products.


TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend "Thompson" Suit in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 23, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit styled R.
Lynn Thompson, et al., vs. Tyson Foods, Inc., was filed in the
District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma, by three property
owners on behalf of all owners of lakefront property on Grand Lake
O' the Cherokees.  Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc.
also are defendants.  The plaintiffs allege the defendants'
operations diminished the water quality in the lake thereby
interfering with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their
properties.  The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  While the District Court certified a
class, on October 4, 2005, the Court of Civil Appeals of the State
of Oklahoma reversed, holding the plaintiffs' claims were not
suitable for disposition as a class action.  This decision was
upheld by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the case was remanded to
the District Court with instructions that the matter proceed only
on behalf of the three named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, restitution and compensatory and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount in excess of $10,000.

The Company and the other defendants have denied liability and
asserted various defenses.  The defendants have requested a trial
date, but the court has not yet scheduled the matter for trial.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 21,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended October 1, 2011.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein
company and a food production company with recognized brand names
in the food industry.  The Company produces, distributes and
markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied
products.


TYSON FOODS: Georgia Court Approves Settlement in FLSA MDL
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Georgia approved
Tyson Foods, Inc.'s agreement to settle the consolidated lawsuit
captioned In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act
Litigation, according to the Company's November 21, 2011, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended October 1, 2011.

Several private lawsuits are pending against the Company alleging
that it failed to compensate poultry plant employees for all hours
worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of the
Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  These lawsuits include
DeAsencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (DeAsencio), filed on August 22,
2000, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  This matter involves similar allegations that
employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre-
and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of
protective and sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking
to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas.  They
seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict
and final judgment entered in the Company's favor on
June 22, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  On September 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit reversed the jury verdict and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings.  The Company
sought rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Court of Appeals
on October 5, 2007.  The United States Supreme Court denied the
Company's petition for a writ of certiorari on June 9, 2008.  The
new trial date has not been set.

The other private lawsuits are Sheila Ackles, et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. (N. Dist. Alabama, October 23, 2006); McCluster, et
al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M. Dist. Georgia, December 11, 2006);
Dobbins, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama,
December 21, 2006); Buchanan, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et
al. and Potter, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D.
Alabama, December 22, 2006); Jones, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
et al., Walton, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. and Williams,
et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (S.D. Mississippi,
February 9, 2007); Balch, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D.
Oklahoma, March 1, 2007); Adams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D.
Arkansas, March 2, 2007); Atkins, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(M.D. Georgia, March 5, 2007); Laney, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
and Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia,
May 23, 2007) (the Williams Case).  Similar to DeAsencio, each of
these matters involves allegations that employees should be paid
for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities
such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing,
obtaining clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work
areas and break areas.  The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits
seek or have sought to act as class representatives on behalf of
all current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for
time worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees.  On April 6, 2007,
the Company filed a motion for transfer of the actions for
coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, which was granted on August 17, 2007.
These cases and five other cases subsequently filed involving the
same allegations (i.e., Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(W.D. Tennessee,
January 30, 2008); Maldonado, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D.
Tennessee, January 31, 2008); White, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(E.D. Texas, February 1, 2008); Meyer, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(W.D. Missouri, February 2, 2008); and Leak, et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. (W.D. North Carolina, February 6, 2008)), were
transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of
Georgia, In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act
Litigation (MDL Proceedings).

On September 2, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement
and filed a joint motion with the court seeking its approval of
the settlement.  The court approved the settlement on
September 15, 2011, and Tyson will pay at least $12.25 million but
no more than $17.5 million in back pay and damages to eligible
class members.  The settlement agreement provides a process for
identifying and certifying eligible class members, which includes
a 75-day notice period for certain class members to become
eligible for payment under the settlement.  In addition, the
settlement agreement provides that plaintiffs' attorneys must file
an application for fees with the court but that no more than $14.5
million in attorneys' fees and costs will be paid.  Plaintiffs'
attorneys filed their fee application on October 11, 2011.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein
company and a food production company with recognized brand names
in the food industry.  The Company produces, distributes and
markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied
products.


UGI CORP: W. Virginia Court Dismisses "Swiger" Claims vs. Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, entered a
final order dismissing all claims commenced by Samuel and Brenda
Swiger against UGI Corporation's subsidiaries, according to the
Company's November 21, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2011.

In 1996, a fire occurred at the residence of Samuel and Brenda
Swiger (the "Swigers") when propane that leaked from an
underground line ignited.  In July 1998, the Swigers filed a class
action lawsuit, captioned Swiger, et al. v. UGI/AmeriGas, Inc. et
al., against AmeriGas Propane, L.P. (named incorrectly as
"UGI/AmeriGas, Inc."), in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County,
West Virginia, in which they sought to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees,
for themselves and on behalf of persons in West Virginia for whom
the defendants had installed propane gas lines, resulting from the
defendants' alleged failure to install underground propane lines
at depths required by applicable safety standards.  On December
14, 2010, AmeriGas OLP and its affiliates entered into a
settlement agreement with the class.

On August 12, 2011, the Circuit Court of Monongalia County entered
a final order, dismissing all claims against AmeriGas.

In 2005, the Swigers also filed what purports to be a class action
in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia, against
UGI, an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and
the General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance
adjusters.  In the Harrison County lawsuit, the Swigers are
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the
putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia
Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional
misconduct, and civil conspiracy.  The Swigers have also requested
that the Court rule that insurance coverage exists under the
policies issued by the defendant insurance companies for damages
sustained by the members of the class in the Monongalia County
lawsuit.  The Circuit Court of Harrison County has not certified
the class in the Harrison County lawsuit at this time and, in
October 2008, stayed that lawsuit pending resolution of the class
action lawsuit in Monongalia County.  The Company believes it has
good defenses to the claims in this action.


ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: "Ricker" Plaintiff Must Amend Suit by Dec. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiff Bruce E. Ricker must file an amended complaint in
his securities class action lawsuit against Zoo Entertainment,
Inc., by December 5, 2011, according to the Company's Nov. 21,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On July 22, 2011, Bruce E. Ricker, individually and on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of the Company from May 17,
2010, through April 15, 2011, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  The complaint alleges that the Company, Mark
Seremet, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and David Fremed,
the Company's Chief Financial Officer, knowingly or recklessly
violated the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making false material statements or
failing to disclose material information in order to make
statements not misleading in connection with certain financial
statements of the Company.  Specifically, the complaint relies
upon the Company's April 15, 2011 restatement of its unaudited
consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March
31, 2010, the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, and the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, as the basis for
its allegations that the Company's financial statements filed for
those periods contained materially false statements.  Mr. Ricker
was appointed as the lead plaintiff on October 19, 2011.  The
plaintiff must file an amended complaint by December 5, 2011.  The
defendants and their counsel are in the process of reviewing and
assessing the current complaint's allegations.  As a result, the
Company says it cannot reasonably estimate any potential loss or
exposure at this time.

The Company also disclosed that it received a subpoena from the
SEC requesting certain information in connection with the
restatement of the Company's financial statements.  The Company
says it continues to fully cooperate with the SEC.


                           *********

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  * * *