CAR_Public/111130.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 30, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 237

                             Headlines

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From Settlement Order Still Pending
ALLIS CHALMERS: Two Merger-Related Suits Remain Pending in Texas
ALTERNATE ENERGY: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Idaho
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Appeals From Suit Settlement Orders Pending
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Appeals From "Tolin" Suit Settlement Pending

AMERICAN DENTAL: Settles "Special Situations" Opt-Out Action
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Still Faces Suit in Massachusetts
APPLE REIT SEVEN: No Longer a Defendant in "Kronberg" Suit
ARCH COAL: Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending in West Virginia
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Response to Amended Complaint Due Dec. 30

BURGER KING: Still Faces Class Action Suit in California
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeal From "No Standing" Order Remains Pending
CAREER EDUCATION: "Amador" Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 5
CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Illinois
CAREER EDUCATION: "Kelly" Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 19

CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Court Ruling in "Lilley" Appeal
CAREER EDUCATION: Status Hearing Set for Dec. 13 in TCPA Suits
CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Surrett" Suit in Oregon
CAREER EDUCATION: "Vasquez" Suit Class Cert. Hearing on Jan. 31
CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Faces Securities Law Violations Class Suit

CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Calif.
CITY OF TAMPA, FL: Housing Authority Faces Class Action
DISH DBS: 9th Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Channel Bundling Suit
ECLIPSE: Warehouse Workers Sue Over Wage Violations
ENER1 INC: Defends Three Securities Class Suits in New York

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Gerber" Suit
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Duncan Merger-Related Suit Dismissed in Oct.
FIRST NIAGARA: NewAlliance Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Expects Ruling on Dismissal Appeal in 2012
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, NJ: Seeks New Medical Monitoring Trial

INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: To Appeal Denial of Motion to Arbitrate
INVESTORS BANCORP: Enters Into Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suit
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Parker Waichman Alonso Files Class Action
KADANT INC: Inks Deal to Settle Class Suit Over Defective Products
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Delaware Suit Deal Became Final in October

LIFE PARTNERS: Faces "Steuben" Class Suit in California
LIFE PARTNERS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Transfer "Willingham" Suit
LIFE PARTNERS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
LIFE PARTNERS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit
LIFE PARTNERS: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of "Arnold" Suit

LIFE PARTNERS: Trial in "McDermott" Class Suit Set for 2013
LOEHMANN'S HOLDINGS: Strikes Settlement of Wage-And-Hour Action
MEDIVATION INC: Lead Plaintiff Files Second Amended Complaint
MGIC INVESTMENT: Class Suit in Pennsylvania Still Pending
MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion for Relief From Suit Dismissal Pending

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued Over Property Title Transfer Taxes
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Complaint
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Still Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
NVIDIA CORP: Faces More Suits Over Weak Die/Packaging Material
NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consolidated Suit

OLYMPUS: ADR Holders File Class Action in Pennsylvania Court
OLYMPUS CORP: Investors in Japan Mull Class Actions
ORIENT PAPER: Stockholder Class Suit in California Pending
OZZIE JUROCK: B.C. Supreme Court Approves Class Action
S1 CORP: Reaches Agreement in Principle in Consolidated Suit

SANDISK CORP: 9th Cir. Denies Indirect Purchasers' Rehearing Bid
SANDISK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Plea to File Brief in "Ritz" Suit
SANDISK CORP: Still Defends Antitrust Suit Over SD Cards
SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Class Suits in Massachusetts
SEALED AIR: Cryovac Suits Remain Stayed by Grace Bankruptcy

SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit's Petition to Appeal Due December 5
SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend "Lovston" Suit in Arkansas
SKECHERS USA: "Grabowski" Suit Remains Stayed in California
SKECHERS USA: "Morga" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California
SKECHERS USA: "Stalker" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California

SKECHERS USA: Supreme Court Denies Petition in "Tomlinson" Suit
SOUTHERN COPPER: AMC to Appeal Decision in Minera Merger Suit
SOUTHERN COPPER: AMC Withdraws Proposed Merger Transaction
STAMPS.COM INC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
STATE AUTO FINANCIAL: Class Suit in Ohio Still Pending

SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Class Action in Sacramento Over Data Breach
UNITED STATES: Keepseagle Class Action Settlement Meetings Set
UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
WEBMD HEALTH CORP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.

* Food Labeling Consumer Class Actions on the Rise in California
* India's New Companies Bill to Introduce Class Actions





                          *********

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From Settlement Order Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of Akamai Technologies, Inc.'s
agreement to settle a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
remain pending, 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 2, 2001, and November 7, 2001, purported class action
lawsuits seeking monetary damages were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as
well as against the underwriters of its October 28, 1999 initial
public offering of common stock.  The complaints were filed
allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock during different time periods, all beginning on October 28,
1999, and ending on various dates.  The complaints are similar and
allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based
on the allegation that the underwriters received undisclosed
compensation in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.  On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended
complaint was filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations
contained in the previously filed separate actions.  The
consolidated amended complaint defines the alleged class period as
October 28, 1999, through December 6, 2000.

A Special Litigation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors
authorized management to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding
that was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants
and their insurers.  The parties negotiated a settlement that was
subject to approval by the District Court.  On February 15, 2005,
the Court issued an Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the
settlement, provided that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a
modification narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the
original settlement agreement.  On June 25, 2007, the District
Court signed an order terminating the settlement.

On August 25, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for final
approval of a new proposed settlement (among plaintiffs, the
underwriter defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers for
the issuer defendants), plan of distribution of the settlement
fund, and certification of the settlement classes.  On October 5,
2009, the District Court issued an opinion and order granting the
lead plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement,
approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and
certification of the settlement classes.  An order and final
judgment was entered on November 4, 2009.  Notices of appeal of
the District Court's October 5, 2009 opinion and order have been
filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
by certain objecting plaintiffs.

If the District Court's order is upheld on appeal, the Company
says it would have no material liability in connection with this
litigation, and the litigation would be resolved.  The Company has
recorded no liability for this matter as of September 30, 2011.

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


ALLIS CHALMERS: Two Merger-Related Suits Remain Pending in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two inactive merger-related lawsuits remain pending in Texas,
according to Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.'s November 22, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On February 23, 2011, Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc., a Delaware
corporation, completed its merger (the "Merger") with and into
Wellco Sub Company ("Wellco"), a Delaware corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of Seawell Limited ("Seawell"), with Wellco
continuing as the surviving entity under the name Allis-Chalmers
Energy Inc.  The Merger was effected pursuant to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of August 10, 2010, by and among Allis-
Chalmers, Seawell and Wellco, as amended.  Following the Merger,
Seawell began operating under the name Archer Limited ("Archer" or
"Parent").

Shortly following the announcement of the Merger Agreement with
Seawell (now Archer) in August 2010, multiple stockholder class-
action lawsuits were filed in Delaware and in Texas against
various combinations of the Company, members of its board of
directors and the Archer parties to the Merger Agreement.  These
lawsuits had challenged the Merger and generally alleged that the
Company's directors had breached their fiduciary duties owed to
its public stockholders by approving the Merger and failing to
take steps to maximize the Company's value to its public
stockholders.  In February 2011, the Delaware court denied
plaintiffs' request for an injunction and the Merger closed on
February 23, 2011.  After the Merger, the consolidated Delaware
lawsuit was dismissed as moot and several of the Texas lawsuits
have also been dismissed.  Two Texas lawsuits remain on file, but
both are entirely inactive and the Company believes both will be
dismissed in due course.


ALTERNATE ENERGY: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a securities
class action lawsuit pending in Idaho, according to the Company's
November 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

An action initiated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho, alleging, among other things, that the Company, and certain
of its officers and directors, violated federal securities laws
by, among other things, issuing materially false and misleading
statements, artificially inflating the Company's stock price, and
subsequently liquidating the stock through secret sales (the "SEC"
action).

On January 11, 2011, shortly after the SEC commenced its
litigation against the Company, a class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court of the District of Idaho by Lance
Teague on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the Company
between September 20, 2006, through December 14, 2010, against the
Company and certain officers.  The allegations of the lawsuit
mirror the SEC allegations.  On March 7, 2011, plaintiff moved to
appoint John O'Brien as Lead Plaintiff.  The complaint alleges
claims against the Company and certain senior officers and
directors for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 there
under and claims against certain of its senior officers and
directors for violations of Section 20A and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages for all damages sustained
as a result of the defendants' alleged actions, including
reasonable costs and expenses, rescission, and other relief the
Court deems just and proper.  The Company believes the lawsuit is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.  No amounts
have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements for
this matter as the Company believes it is too early in the
proceedings to determine an outcome.  The parties are currently in
the discovery phase and management is unable to evaluate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome.

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


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Appeals From Suit Settlement Orders Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from court orders approving the settlement of a
consolidated amended class action complaint against Ambac
Financial Group Inc. are pending, 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.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. and certain of its present or former
officers or directors have been named in lawsuits that allege
violations of the federal securities laws and/or state law.
Various putative class action suits alleging violations of the
federal securities laws have been filed against Ambac and certain
of its present or former directors and officers.  These suits
include four class actions filed in January and February of 2008
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York that were consolidated on May 9, 2008 under the caption
In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case
No. 08 CV 411.  On July 25, 2008, another suit, Painting Industry
Insurance and Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et
al., case No. 08 CV 6602, was filed in the United States District
for the Southern District of New York.  On or about August 22,
2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action.

The consolidated amended complaint includes the allegations
presented by the original four class actions, the allegations
presented by the Painting Industry action, and additional
allegations.  The consolidated amended complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's common stock from
October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of
Ambac's "DISCS", issued in February of 2007, and on behalf of
purchasers of equity units and common stock in Ambac's March 2008
offerings.  The suit names as defendants Ambac, the underwriters
for the three offerings, Ambac's independent Certified Public
Accountants and certain present and former directors and officers
of Ambac.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding Ambac's business and financial results and guarantees of
CDO and MBS transactions and that the Registration Statements
pursuant to which the three offerings were made contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of the securities laws.

On August 27, 2009, Ambac and the individual defendants named in
the consolidated securities action moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On February 22, 2010, the Court
dismissed the claims arising out of the March 2008 equity units
and common stock offering (resulting in the dismissal of Ambac's
independent Certified Public Accountants from the action), and
otherwise denied the motions to dismiss.  On April 15, 2010, the
Court ordered a Discovery Plan and Proposed Pretrial Schedule,
pursuant to which discovery was scheduled to commence on May 10,
2010, with dispositive motions due by December 2, 2011.  On
December 9, 2010, Ambac and the present or former officers or
directors who are defendants in these actions entered into a
memorandum of understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to
settlement and on May 4, 2011, Ambac and the present or former
officers or directors who are defendants in these actions entered
in a stipulation of settlement to settle the claims asserted in
these actions.  On September 13, 2011, the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an
order approving the stipulation of settlement and Ambac's entry
into the stipulation of settlement and performance of all of its
obligations thereunder, and on September 28, 2011, the District
Court entered a judgment approving the settlement.  An objector to
the settlement has filed a notice of appeal from the Bankruptcy
Court's order and a notice of appeal from the District Court's
judgment.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Appeals From "Tolin" Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from court orders approving the settlement of a putative
class action lawsuit styled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac
Financial Group Inc. et al., are pending, 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 December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action
entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et
al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and
director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241.  An amended
complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009.  This action
is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured Repackaged
Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates,
Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
Securities 2007-1 from June 29, 2007 through April 22, 2008.  The
STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly issued by a
subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly
collateralized solely by Ambac's DISCS.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial
results and Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in
violation of the securities laws.  On April 15, 2009, Ambac and
the individual defendants named in Tolin moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On December 23, 2009, the Court initially
denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but later recalled that
decision and requested further briefing from parties in the case
before it rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss.  The
additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010, and oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was heard on August 4, 2010.

On December 9, 2010, Ambac and the former officer and director and
the former officer who are defendants in this action entered into
a memorandum of understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to
settlement and, on May 4, 2011, Ambac and the former officer and
director and the former officer who are defendants in this action
entered into a stipulation of settlement to settle the claims
asserted in this action.  On September 13, 2011, the Bankruptcy
Court entered an order approving the stipulation of settlement and
Ambac's entry into the stipulation of settlement and performance
of all of its obligations thereunder, and on September 28, 2011,
the District Court entered a judgment approving the settlement.
An objector to the settlement has filed a notice of appeal from
the Bankruptcy Court order and a notice of appeal from the
District Court's judgment.


AMERICAN DENTAL: Settles "Special Situations" Opt-Out Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On September 27, 2011, the parties to the opt-out complaint
entitled "Special Situations Fund III, L.P. et al. v. American
Dental Partners, Inc. et al.," civil action number 1:10-CV-10331
(D. Mass) (the "Opt-Out Action"), entered into a confidential
settlement pursuant to which the plaintiffs filed a voluntary
dismissal of the Opt-Out Action, American Dental Partners, Inc.
disclosed in its November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

The settlement payment was funded entirely by the Company's
insurer.

On February 22 and 23, 2010, Special Situations Fund III L.P.,
Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., and Special Situations Fund
III Q.P., L.P. had excluded themselves from the class action
settlement resolving consolidated actions entitled "In re American
Dental Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation," civil action number
1:08-CV-10119-RGS, and filed the Opt-Out Action.  The Opt-Out
Action complaint (i) asserted that the plaintiffs purchased over
500,000 shares of the Company's common stock during the period of
February 25, 2004, through December 13, 2007, (ii) alleged that
the Company and certain of its executive officers violated the
federal securities laws, in particular, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, by making
allegedly material misrepresentations and failing to disclose
allegedly material facts concerning the lawsuit by Park Dental
Group, or PDG, against PDHC, Ltd., entitled PDG, P.A. v. PDHC,
Ltd., Civ. A. Nos. 27-CV-06-2500 and 27-CV-07-13030, filed in the
Fourth Judicial District of Hennepin County, Minnesota, on
February 3, 2006, and conduct at issue in that action during the
period of February 25, 2004, through December 13, 2007, which had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's common stock, (iii) asserted control person claims under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the executive
officers named as defendants, and (iv) claimed that certain of the
alleged misrepresentations also violated Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78(r).  The plaintiffs'
complaint sought an unspecified amount of money damages, costs and
attorneys' fees and any other relief the Court may have deemed
proper.


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Still Faces Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
American Superconductor Corporation continues to defend itself
from a consolidated amended securities class action complaint
filed in Massachusetts, 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.

Between April 6, 2011 and April 29, 2011, six putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.  On May 12, 2011, an additional complaint was
filed against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities
offering.  On June 7, 2011, the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts consolidated these actions under the
caption Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al.
Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.  On June 16, 2011, the court
appointed the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead
Counsel and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as
Lead Plaintiff.  On August 31, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint against the Company, its officers
and directors, and the underwriters who participated in its
November 12, 2010 securities offering, asserting claims under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as well as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges that during the
relevant class period, the Company and its officers omitted to
state material facts and made materially false and misleading
statements relating to, among other things, the Company's
projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well as its
relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that artificially
inflated the value of its stock price.  The complaint further
alleges that the Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering
contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state
material facts required to be stated therein.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, rescindment of its November 12, 2010
securities offering, and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.


APPLE REIT SEVEN: No Longer a Defendant in "Kronberg" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action filed against the Apple REIT Companies in
New Jersey is still pending, according to Apple REIT Seven Inc.'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 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.


ARCH COAL: Class Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust ("Saratoga") filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia against Arch Coal, Inc.'s subsidiary,
International Coal Group, Inc. ("ICG"), and certain of its
officers and directors seeking unspecified damages.  The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based
on alleged false and misleading statements in the registration
statements filed in connection with ICG's November 2005
reorganization and December 2005 public offering of common stock.
In addition, the complaint challenges other of ICG's public
statements regarding its operating condition and safety record.
On July 6, 2009, Saratoga filed an amended complaint asserting
essentially the same claims but seeking to add an individual co-
plaintiff.  ICG has filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  In June 2011, ICG agreed to settle this matter for a
total of $1.375 million.  On August 1, 2011, the court issued its
order preliminarily approving settlement and scheduled a
settlement fairness hearing on November 14, 2011.

No further 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.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Response to Amended Complaint Due Dec. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s response to a consolidated amended
complaint is due on December 30, 2011, 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.

Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock.  The complaints have been brought as
purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include
allegations that the Company and certain of its current and former
employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
lorcaserin program, thereby artificially inflating the price of
the Company's common stock.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  On November 19,
2010, eight prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel.
The Court took the motions to consolidate under submission on
January 14, 2011.  On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the
actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint.  The Company's response to the consolidated
amended complaint is due on December 30, 2011.  In addition to the
class actions, a complaint involving similar legal and factual
issues has been brought by at least one individual stockholder and
is pending in federal court.  The Company's response to the
individual stockholder's complaint is also due on December 30,
2011.

The Company says it intends to defend against the claims advanced
and to seek dismissal of these complaints.  Due to the early stage
of these proceedings, the Company is not able to predict or
reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims.


BURGER KING: Still Faces Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed in California, 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 September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleged that all 96 Burger
King restaurants in California leased by the Company and operated
by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal
and state law.  In September 2009, the court issued a decision on
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In its decision,
the court limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited
by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for
each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials.  In March 2010,
the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10
restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to
the settlement.  In February 2011, a class action lawsuit was
filed with respect to the other 86 restaurants.  The plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in the lawsuit, but the Company is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of this litigation.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeal From "No Standing" Order Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order holding that an objector had no standing
to appeal Capstone Turbine Corporation's settlement of a class
action lawsuit remains pending, 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 2001, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "District Court") against the Company,
two of its then officers, and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering.  The lawsuit purports to be a class
action filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from June 28, 2000, to December 6, 2000.  An
amended complaint was filed on April 19, 2002.  The plaintiffs
allege that the prospectuses for the Company's June 28, 2000
initial public offering and November 16, 2000 secondary offering
were false and misleading in violation of the applicable
securities laws because the prospectuses failed to disclose the
underwriter defendants' alleged agreement to allocate stock in
these offerings to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds of other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998; the
complaints have been consolidated into an action captioned In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92.  On
October 9, 2002, the plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, the
claims against the named officers and directors in the action
against the Company, pursuant to the terms of Reservation of
Rights and Tolling Agreements entered into with the plaintiffs
(the "Tolling Agreements").  Subsequent addenda to the Tolling
Agreements extended the tolling period through August 27, 2010.
The District Court directed that the litigation proceed within a
number of "focus cases" and on October 13, 2004, the District
Court certified the focus cases as class actions.  The Company's
case is not one of these focus cases.  The underwriter defendants
appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's class
certification decision.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended complaints against the six focus cases and on September
27, 2007, again moved for class certification.  On November 12,
2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to
dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints.
On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the motions to
dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs
who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial
offering price and those who purchased outside the previously
certified class period.  The motion for class certification was
withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008.  On April 2,
2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement between the
plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval.  The
District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on
June 10, 2009.  The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on
September 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court
entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement and
directing that the Clerk of the District Court close these
actions.  On August 26, 2010, based on the expiration of the
tolling period stated in the Tolling Agreements, the plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Termination of Tolling Agreement and
Recommencement of Litigation against the named officers and
directors.  The plaintiffs stated to the District Court that they
do not intend to take any further action against the named
officers and directors at this time.  Appeals of the opinion
granting final approval were filed, all of which were disposed of
except that the appeals filed by one objector were remanded to the
district court to determine standing to appeal.

On August 25, 2011, the District Court issued an order holding
that the final objector had no standing to appeal.  The objector
has appealed that decision.  Because of the inherent uncertainties
of litigation and because the settlement remains subject to
appeal, the Company says the ultimate outcome of the matter is
uncertain.  Management believes that the outcome of this
litigation will not have a material impact on the Company's
business, operating results, cash flows, financial position or
results of operations.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Amador" Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 5
------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on motion for final approval of a settlement agreement in
the class action lawsuit commenced by Amador, et al., is set for
December 5, 2011, according to Career Education Corporation's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and
former students of the California Culinary Academy ("CCA") filed a
complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco
captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career
Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy and Career Education Corporation.  Plaintiffs plead their
original complaint as a putative class action and allege four
causes of action: fraud; constructive fraud; violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law; and violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a
variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the
admissions process.  The alleged misrepresentations relate
generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education,
the competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students'
employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of
statistics published by CCA.

On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams
and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class.
The Adams action also is styled as a class action and is based on
the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempts to
plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action.
The Adams action has been deemed related to the Amador action and
is being handled by the same judge.  The Adams action has been
stayed.

Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on or about March 19,
2010, alleging the same causes of action, but included a new claim
based on violations of the California Education Code, which was
recently reinstated by the California legislature.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss this new claim.  The motion was taken
under submission by the Court and has not been ruled on.

In October 2010, the parties reached agreement on all the material
terms of a settlement and executed a formal settlement agreement
as of November 1, 2010.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.  The monetary component of the settlement involves
payment by the Company of approximately $40.8 million to pay
claims by all students who enrolled in CCA and/or graduated from
CCA from September 28, 2003, through October 8, 2008.  The payment
includes plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain expenses to be
incurred in connection with the implementation of the settlement.
During 2010, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $40.8 million
which represents its best estimate of the loss related to this
matter.  The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the
Court and the parties are in the process of implementing the
settlement terms.  The Company disbursed $40.0 million during the
first quarter of 2011, as required by the terms of the agreement.

The deadline for filing claims and/or opting out of the settlement
was June 6, 2011.  Approximately 167 students opted out of the
Settlement.

On July 25, 2011, the Company filed a motion seeking an order
disallowing the requests submitted on behalf of 42 of the students
purporting to opt out of the settlement in order to preserve their
right to pursue individual claims.  This motion alleges that these
opt outs were untimely or otherwise improperly submitted.  On July
25, 2011, the Company filed a second motion relating to the opt
out process.  This motion was filed based on concerns about
plaintiffs' counsel's apparent role in either soliciting,
encouraging or advising class members to opt out of the
settlement, and in filing a lawsuit on their behalf while the
settlement approval process is pending.  This motion seeks a
variety of relief, including the right to rescind the settlement,
opposing plaintiffs' counsel's adequacy and fees, and other
equitable relief to attempt to remedy the effect of these
activities.  These motions, along with the motion for final
approval of the settlement, are set for hearing on December 5,
2011.  If the settlement is not approved or is rescinded, then the
class action litigation may be reinstated.

On June 3, 2011, the same attorneys representing the class in the
Amador action filed a separate complaint in the San Francisco
County Superior Court entitled Abarca v. California Culinary
Academy, Inc., et al, on behalf of 115 individuals who are opt
outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore
not subject to the Amador settlement.  On June 15, 2011, the same
attorneys filed another action in the San Francisco County
Superior Court entitled Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy, Inc., et al., on behalf of another 31 individuals who are
opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and
therefore not subject to the Amador settlement.  On August 12,
2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a third action on behalf of five
individuals who opted out of or were not parties to the Amador
settlement entitled Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy.  None of these three lawsuits are being prosecuted as a
class action.  They each allege the same claims as were previously
alleged in the Amador action, plus claims for breach of contract
and violations of the repealed California Education Code.  The
plaintiffs in these cases seek damages, including consequential
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company has
not responded to these three complaints, which have been related
and transferred to the same judge that is handling the Amador
case, because they have been stayed pending a ruling on the class
settlement in the Amador action.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise as
discovery and pre-trial proceedings progress, the outcome of the
Abarca, Andrade and Aprieto legal proceedings is uncertain at this
point.  Based on information available to the Company at present,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss
for these actions because these matters are in their early stages,
and involve many unresolved issues of fact and law.  Accordingly,
the Company has not recognized any liability associated with these
actions.


CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in
Illinois alleging breach of contract, 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 August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former Admissions
Representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
captioned Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation.  The
two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and
unjust enrichment claims arising from the Company's decision to
terminate its Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation
Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to
represent a nationwide class of similarly situated Admissions
Representatives who also were affected by termination of the Plan.
On October 6, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The Court has set a briefing schedule and a ruling is
anticipated within the next several months.  Discovery has not yet
begun, but the parties expect to be ordered to commence discovery
while the dispositive motion is pending.  Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available at present, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a potential range of loss for this action
because these matters are in their early stages, and involve many
unresolved issues of fact and law.  Moreover, the Company does not
know the number of class members, if any, entitled to recovery.
Accordingly, the Company has not yet recognized any liability
associated with these actions.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Kelly" Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of Career Education
Corporation's settlement of a collective action and a related
state court class action lawsuit is scheduled for December 19,
2011, 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 December 20, 2010, Edward J. Kelly, Jon Pizzica, and
Christopher Steinbrunn filed a collective action complaint
captioned Kelly, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al.,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against Career Education Corporation alleging that
the Company had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing
to pay plaintiffs for all of the hours that they worked, including
overtime hours (the "Kelly lawsuit").  Plaintiffs formerly worked
as Admissions Representatives at Le Cordon Bleu Institute of
Culinary Arts, Inc. in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("LCB-
Pittsburgh").  The Kelly lawsuit is brought on behalf of all
current and former Admissions Representatives at all of the
Company's culinary arts strategic business units for the period
commencing three years prior to the filing of the collective
action complaint to the present.  In their complaint, plaintiffs
in the Kelly lawsuit seek unspecified back overtime pay,
attorneys' fees and costs, and liquidated and/or compensatory
damages.  In addition to the three named plaintiffs, 11 other
former Admissions Representatives who worked at LCB-Pittsburgh
joined the litigation.

On April 19, 2011, the Company, without admitting any liability,
reached an agreement in principle to settle both the Kelly lawsuit
and a related Pennsylvania state court class action lawsuit.  The
settlement covers only the 60 individuals who worked in
Pennsylvania as Admissions Representatives at LCB-Pittsburgh
during the three year statute of limitations period.  In
connection with the settlement, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on August 1, 2011, which effectively consolidated the
collective action complaint with the related state court class
action complaint.  On August 16, 2011, the parties filed a motion
for preliminary approval of the class and collective action
settlement with the federal court.  The Court preliminarily
approved the settlement on August 19, 2011.  Pursuant to the
settlement, notice of the settlement was sent to the 60 class
members on or about September 9, 2011.  Class members had until
November 8, 2011, to decide whether to participate in the
settlement and until December 8, 2011, to object to the
settlement.  No class members opted out of the settlement by the
October 8, 2011 deadline.  A final approval hearing is scheduled
for December 19, 2011.  Following approval of the settlement,
settlement payments would be made to participating class members,
the releases of wage and hour claims of class members would become
effective, and both the Kelly and the related state court lawsuit
would be dismissed with prejudice.  The Company recorded a charge
of $0.2 million which represents the Company's best estimate as of
September 30, 2011.


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Court Ruling in "Lilley" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument was heard in October 2011 on an appeal from an order
certifying a class in a lawsuit alleging Career Education
Corporation violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud 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.

On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint, captioned Lilley,
et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming as defendants
Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008, and
September 24, 2010.  The five plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant
program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville,
Illinois.  The class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled in
that program since July 1, 2003.  The amended class action
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Illinois
Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, for alleged unfair
conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law claims
of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission.

In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the
plaintiffs allege that the school's enrollment agreements
contained false and misleading information regarding placement
statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions,
Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized
materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive
information.  Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a
standardized admissions test to determine program placement when
the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide
allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and
misrepresented the transferability of credits.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and
restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant
students, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 20, 2010.  On October 27, 2010, the Court granted
defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' fraudulent omission
claims.  The Court denied the motion with respect to the statutory
claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

By Order dated December 3, 2010, the Court certified a class
consisting of all persons who attended SBC in Collinsville,
Illinois, and enrolled in the Medical Assisting Program during the
period from July 1, 2003, through November 29, 2010.  This class
consists of approximately 2,300 members.  Defendants filed a
petition for leave to appeal the trial court's class certification
order to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.  On February 10,
2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeals granted defendants'
petition for leave to appeal.  Oral argument was heard on the
appeal on October 4, 2011.  While that appeal is pending, all
proceedings in the Circuit Court are stayed.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available at present, the Company notes that
it cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any,
for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing
the appropriate measure of damages and the number of potential
class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if the
Company was to be found liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not
recognized any liability associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Status Hearing Set for Dec. 13 in TCPA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A status hearing is scheduled for December 13, 2011, in the class
action lawsuits alleging Career Education Corporation violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection 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.

On August 4, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Fahey, et al v. Career Education Corporation, was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by Sheila Fahey alleging
that she had received an unauthorized text message advertisement
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
"TCPA").  On September 3, 2010, the Company removed this case to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On
November 22, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Fahey
case.  That motion is still pending.  The Court has stayed any
further activity on the Fahey case until resolution of an appeal
in the Seventh Circuit of a case involving issues similar to those
raised in the Company's motion to dismiss.  On August 18, 2010,
the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the Fahey action filed
a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of Sergio Rojas alleging similar
violations of the TCPA, captioned Rojas, et al v. Career Education
Corporation.  Rojas, like Fahey, seeks class certification of his
claims.  The alleged classes are defined to include persons who
received unauthorized text message advertisements from the
Company.  Rojas and Fahey each seek an award trebling the
statutory damages to the class members, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

On September 7, 2011, the Court issued an order staying further
proceedings while the parties entered into settlement negotiations
on these cases.  The parties in the Rojas and Fahey cases have
made progress toward reaching a settlement, but certain issues
remain unresolved.  On November 1, 2011, the Court issued an order
continuing the previously entered stay for an additional 45 days
to allow the parties to continue settlement negotiations.  The
Court also scheduled a further status hearing for December 13,
2011.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point.  Based on information available at present, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss for
this action because these matters are in their early stages, and
involve many unresolved issues of fact and law.  Moreover, the
Company does not know the number of class members, if any,
entitled to recovery.  Accordingly, the Company has not recognized
any liability associated with these actions.


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Surrett" Suit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit filed in Oregon, 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 March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and
Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon, in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County.
Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative
class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April
10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and
breach of contract.  Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary
Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of misrepresentations to
them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students'
employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and
quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students
could expect to pay as compared to salaries they may earn after
graduation.  WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of
plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on
September 12, 2008.  Shannon Gozzi subsequently withdrew as a
named plaintiff and former named plaintiff Meghan Koehnen's claims
have been dismissed.  Jennifer Schuster became a plaintiff, and
when Ms. Koehnen's claims were dismissed, she became the sole
named plaintiff.  The parties completed written discovery on class
issues.  On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order
granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud
claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of
the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach
of contract and unjust enrichment claims.  The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006, and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

Because Ms. Schuster was not a member of the certified class (she
enrolled before March 5, 2006), plaintiff's counsel substituted in
a new class representative for her in 2010 named Nathan Surrett
pursuant to a stipulation among the parties which provided, among
other things, that WCI retains the right to challenge whether the
new class representative is adequate (with plaintiff retaining the
burden of proof on that issue).  Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended
Complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class
allegations by Mr. Surrett.  Mr. Surrett was deposed in the fall
of 2010.  Class notice was sent out on April 22, 2011, and the
opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011.  The class consists of
approximately 2,600 members.

The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery.  WCI has
filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims in
light of the decision by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T
v. Concepcion and the arbitration clauses in the enrollment
agreements signed by the plaintiffs.  That motion is expected to
be heard in November 2011.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen, and that may arise in the future, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available at present, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this
action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the
appropriate measure of damages and the number of class members who
might be entitled to recover damages, if the Company was to be
found liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any
liability associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Vasquez" Suit Class Cert. Hearing on Jan. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearing is set for January 31, 2012, in the
class action lawsuit commenced by Daniel Vasquez and Cherish
Herndon in California, according to Career Education Corporation'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 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation was filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v.
California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education
Corporation.  The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud,
constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the
admissions process during the alleged class period.  The alleged
class is defined as including "all persons who purchased
educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc.
("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods
applicable to the herein alleged causes of action (including,
without limitation, the period following the filing of the
action)."  Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive
fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it.  Defendants also
successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged
violations of California's former Educational Reform Act.

The plaintiffs have filed a fourth amended complaint, in which
they assert the same claims against the Company, but have added
claims against approximately 15 student lenders.  The plaintiffs
allege the student lenders are contractually liable for damages
incurred as a result of conduct by the Company by virtue of
certain "holder clauses" included in their loan documents.

The parties are engaged in class discovery.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification, and the Company filed an
opposition on September 16, 2011.  The Court is allowing
plaintiffs to take limited discovery in support of a reply brief,
and has set the class certification hearing for January 31, 2012.

The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of the claims
asserted by the class representatives.  The motion was denied
after a hearing on October 21, 2011.

Plaintiffs' counsel have filed four separate but related "mass
actions" entitled Banks, et al. v. California School of Culinary
Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court; Abrica v. California
School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court,
Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles
County Superior Court, and Alday v. California School of Culinary
Arts, Los Angeles Superior Court.  All four cases are being
prosecuted on behalf of hundreds of individual former students.
The allegations are the same as those asserted in the Vasquez
class action case.  The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of
tuition monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.  All of these cases have been or are expected to be deemed
related.  Once deemed related, they will be transferred to the
Judge handling the Vasquez class action.  Each case has been
stayed or will be stayed upon transfer pending a ruling on class
certification in the Vasquez case.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the Company says the
outcome of these legal proceedings is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available at present, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these
actions because the Company's possible liability depends on an
assessment of the appropriate measure of damages, if the Company
was to be found liable and whether, in the case of the Vasquez
action, a class is certified and, if so, the size of any such
class.  Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability
associated with these actions.


CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Faces Securities Law Violations Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Central European Distribution Corporation is facing a securities
class action lawsuit commenced by Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Fund, 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 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund vs. Central European
Distribution Corporation, et al. was filed on behalf of a putative
class of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from August
5, 2010, through February 28, 2011, against the Company's and
certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities
law in connection with alleged materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's business,
financial results and prospects in the Company's public statements
and public filings with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
for the second and third quarters of 2010, relating to declines in
the Company's vodka portfolio, its need to take an impairment
charge relating to the deterioration in fair value of certain of
its brands in Poland and negative financial results from the
launch of Zubrowka Biala, a new vodka product.  The complaint
seeks unspecified money damages.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself, therefore, no provision for any
potential liability in this respect has been recorded as of
September 30, 2011.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2011, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Cisco Systems, Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors.  A second lawsuit with substantially
similar allegations was filed with the same court on April 12,
2011, against Cisco and certain of its officers and directors.
The lawsuits are purportedly brought on behalf of those who
purchased Cisco's publicly traded securities between May 12, 2010,
and February 9, 2011, and between February 3, 2010, and February
9, 2011, respectively.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants made
false and misleading statements during quarterly earnings calls,
purport to assert claims for violations of the federal securities
laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously.  While the Company believes there
is no legal basis for liability, due to the uncertainty
surrounding the litigation process, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 22,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.


CITY OF TAMPA, FL: Housing Authority Faces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
William R. Levesque, writing for St. Petersburg Times, reports
that a dozen residents of the city's subsidized public housing
system have filed suit against the Tampa Housing Authority, saying
it misappropriated federal money and failed to aid those displaced
when the agency demolished or renovated units.

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, said the
authority withheld utility allowances intended to help low-income
residents pay their electric bills.

The authority did not pay these allowances "despite numerous
requests from tenants to do so," said the lawsuit, which does not
note how much money was withheld.

The residents who are suing lived at several authority projects,
including Central Park Village, Ponce de Leon (now called Belmont
Heights Estates), College Hill and Riverview Terrace, now called
the Oaks of Riverview.

Authority officials contacted last week declined to comment.
Authority attorney Ricardo Gilmore also declined to comment,
except to say, "The authority will vigorously defend" itself.

The suit seeks class-action status, noting that up to 1,892
current and former residents of Tampa public housing might be
eligible to join.

The suit also alleges that the authority has failed to adequately
maintain public housing and refused to pay tenants federal money
earmarked by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
for training to operate and finance a small business.

The suit said the failure was "either due to misappropriation of
funds and/or mismanagement."

Several residents have been evicted in violation of their leases
without the agency making any accommodations to help them find
alternative housing, the suit says.

"Thus, Tampa Housing Authority evictions forced them to live on
the streets or alternatively to seek sub-standard, low-income
housing," it said.

Tampa attorney Kaydell Wright-Douglas, who represents the
residents who filed suit, said she hopes to negotiate with the
authority to resolve some of these issues before trial.

"We don't want protracted litigation," she said.  "That really
doesn't serve anybody's interests."

The attorney said her clients would not comment for this story.


DISH DBS: 9th Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Channel Bundling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in October
2011 its June 3, 2011, order affirming the dismissal of an
antitrust class action lawsuit involving DISH DBS Corporation,
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.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
lawsuit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009,
the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  The plaintiff class sought rehearing en banc.

On October 31, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating
the June 3, 2011 order, directing that a 3-judge panel be
reconstituted, and denying the plaintiff class' motion for
rehearing as moot.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this case.  The
Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of
the lawsuit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages.


ECLIPSE: Warehouse Workers Sue Over Wage Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Kari Lydersen, writing for In These Times, reports that workers in
Walmart's warehouses in Chicago and southern California charge
that the logistics companies contracted by the mega-retailer are
nickel-and-diming them, shaving dollars off their hourly wages as
temporary workers and obscuring the practice by failing to give
them accurate pay stubs.

On November 19, the group Warehouse Workers for Justice helped
workers file their fourth class action lawsuit since 2009 against
companies that operate Walmart warehouses in the Chicago area.

This lawsuit charges that at least 18 workers at a warehouse in
suburban Elwood realized once they were paid that they got less
than promised and in fact less than minimum wage from the company
Eclipse Advantage.  Last week, workers marched to Eclipse offices
demanding its billing and payment records so they can figure out
exactly how much they are owed.

Shoddy record-keeping and incomplete or non-existent paystubs are
a common complaint in the industry, where workers are often not
even sure what company exactly they are working for and what their
official pay rate is.  The lawsuit also names Mid-West Temp Group
Inc.  Some workers were hired by Mid-West to work for Eclipse,
others were hired directly by Eclipse.  Multiple levels of
subcontractors are another common facet of the warehousing
industry.

The lawsuit complaint notes that workers were promised $9.25 to
$10 an hour plus a productivity bonus, but realized once they got
checks that they were paid for substantially fewer hours than they
had actually worked, bringing their de facto hourly wage way down.
The suit charges they were also promised paid vacation -- a
recruitment tactic during the busy holiday season -- but were
never granted paid leave.

The lawsuit charges the companies violated state and federal labor
law and the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act, one of
the strongest such state laws in the country.  Among other things
the complaint charges that workers were hired and paid for less
than four hours at a stretch -- the state temporary labor law
mandates workers must receive payment for shifts of at least four
hours at a time.

The complaint states:

"Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other laborers a minimum
of four hours 'show up pay' on days when they were contracted to
work but not utilized for a minimum of four hours and failed to
pay Plaintiffs and other laborers vacation pay that they had
earned and accrued pursuant to Illinois law and Defendants had
promised them to induce them to work for Defendants instead of
working for other staffing agencies."

In a press release worker Roberto Gutierrez said:

"I worked twenty-one hours for Eclipse my first week and I was
paid fifty-seven dollars for it . . . The company says I only
worked twelve hours, but even by their logic I was still paid less
than minimum wage.  That's never right, especially so close to the
holidays, that's why we came together and filed this, to put a
stop to it."

None of the lawsuits name Walmart directly as a plaintiff, but
through public relations campaigns the group and their supporters
are trying to drive home the message that Walmart is ultimately
responsible for the wages and working conditions in the warehouses
where goods for their stores are received, stored and distributed.
Such warehouses are an essential part of the modern big box store
operation, where goods are constantly restocked based on
computerized systems indicating exactly when products are sold.

Last month, the California labor department fined an operator of
Walmart warehouses half a million dollars for labor law
violations, and California workers filed a class action lawsuit
against that company -- Impact Logistics -- and other logistics
companies.


ENER1 INC: Defends Three Securities Class Suits in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ener1, Inc., is defending three securities class action lawsuits
pending in New York, according to the Company's November 22, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 18, 2011, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Beckman v. Ener1, Inc. et al., No. 11-CV-5794 (S.D.N.Y.);
and Neufeld v. Ener1, Inc., et al., No. 11-CV-5795 (S.D.N.Y.)).
On August 26, 2011, a third putative class action lawsuit was
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foster v. Ener1,
Inc., et al., No. 11-CV-6040 (S.D.N.Y.)).  The complaints in each
of these actions seek damages on behalf of persons who purchased
Ener1 securities between January 10, 2011, and August 15, 2011.
The complaints assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the
Company's public disclosures during the putative class period, and
in particular disclosures relating to the Company's loans to, and
receivables with, Think Holdings.  On October 17, 2011, three
competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff were filed.
Each of the proposed lead plaintiff groups has also requested that
the three lawsuits be consolidated.

The Company says it expects these actions to be consolidated and
for the lead plaintiff, once appointed, to file a consolidated
amended complaint.  The plaintiffs in each of the three actions
have agreed that no response from the defendants is necessary
until after the appointment of a lead plaintiff and the filing of
a consolidated amended complaint.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Gerber" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a merger-related class action lawsuit
commenced by Joel A. Gerber, 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 November 15, 2010, Joel A. Gerber filed a class action and
derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware captioned Joel A. Gerber  vs. EPE Holdings, LLC;
Enterprise Products GP, LLC; Enterprise Products Company;
Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. ("Enterprise" or "Company");
Randa Duncan Williams; O.S. ("Dub") Andras; Charles E. McMahen;
Edwin E. Smith; Thurmon Andress; Richard H. Bachmann; B.W.
Waycaster; Ralph H. Cunningham; W. Randall Fowler; and Randa
Duncan Williams, Richard H. Bachmann, and Ralph H. Cunningham, in
their capacity as Executors of the Estate of Dan L. Duncan,
Deceased, and Enterprise GP Holdings, L.P. ("Holdings").  This
litigation asserts claims against Holdings, Enterprise Products
GP, LLC ("EPGP"), Enterprise Products Company ("EPCO") and the
then directors of EPE Holdings LLC for breach of express and
implied duties in connection with the TEPPCO Partners, L.P.
("TEPPCO") Merger in October 2009 and the Holdings Merger in
November 2010.  The complaint also asserts claims against Mr.
Duncan's estate, EPCO and Enterprise for tortious interference and
unjust enrichment in connection with the transactions.  The
complaint alleges that Holdings sold Texas Eastern Products
Pipeline Company, LLC ("TEPPCO GP" which is the general partner of
TEPPCO), to Enterprise in the TEPPCO Merger at an unfair price to
Holdings and that the terms of the Holdings Merger were unfair to
Holdings' unitholders.  The complaint also alleges that the
members of EPE Holdings' ACG Committee, which approved both the
TEPPCO Merger and Holdings Merger, could not be considered
independent because of their past relationships with Mr. Duncan.

On December 13, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit.  In response to the motion to dismiss, on March 18, 2011,
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On April 1, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
October 7, 2011, oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held
before the court.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Duncan Merger-Related Suit Dismissed in Oct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit in Delaware arising from
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.'s proposed merger with Duncan
Energy Partners was dismissed in October 2011, 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 April 28, 2011, Enterprise Products Partners L.P. ("Enterprise"
or "Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Duncan Merger Agreement"), by and among Enterprise, its general
partner Enterprise Products Holdings LLC, EPD MergerCo LLC
("Duncan MergerCo," a Delaware limited liability company and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise), Duncan Energy Partners and
DEP GP.  At the effective time of the merger, Duncan MergerCo will
merge with and into Duncan Energy Partners, pursuant to the Duncan
Merger Agreement, with Duncan Energy Partners surviving the merger
as a wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise (the "Duncan Merger"),
and all of the outstanding Duncan Energy Partners common units at
the effective time of the merger will be cancelled and converted
into the right to receive common units representing limited
partner interests in Enterprise based on an exchange rate of 1.01
Enterprise common units for each Duncan Energy Partners common
unit.

On March 8, 2011, Michael Crowley, a purported unitholder of
Duncan Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of
the public unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned
Michael Crowley v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC,
W. Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III,
Larry J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, Enterprise Products Partners
L.P., Enterprise Products Holdings LLC, and Enterprise Products
Operating LLC (the "Crowley Complaint").  The Crowley Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the named directors of DEP GP
have breached fiduciary duties in connection with the Duncan
Merger, that Duncan Energy Partners and DEP GP aided and abetted
in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that we, as the
majority and controlling unitholder, along with EPO or Enterprise
Products Operating LLC, have breached fiduciary duties by not
acting in the minority unitholders' best interests to ensure the
transaction was entirely fair.

On March 11, 2011, Sanjay Israni, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
public unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Sanjay
Israni v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC,
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Product Holdings
LLC, Enterprise Production Operating LLC, W. Randall Fowler, Bryan
F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, and Richard
S. Snell (the "Israni Complaint II").  The Israni Complaint II
alleges, among other things, that the named directors of DEP GP
have breached fiduciary duties in connection with the Duncan
Merger and that we, along with all of the other named defendants
aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 28, 2011, Michael Rubin, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
public unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Michael
Rubin v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W.
Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry
J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, Enterprise Products Partners L.P.,
Enterprise Products Holdings LLC, and Enterprise Products
Operating LLC (the "Rubin Complaint").  The Rubin Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the named directors of DEP GP
have breached fiduciary duties in connection with the Duncan
Merger, that Duncan Energy Partners and DEP GP aided and abetted
in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that the
Company, as the majority and controlling unitholder, along with
EPO, have breached fiduciary duties by not acting in the best
interests of the minority unitholders to ensure the transaction
was entirely fair.

On April 5, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Crowley Complaint, the
Israni Complaint II, and the Rubin Complaint filed a Proposed
Order of Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Counsel in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The court granted
that order on the same day consolidating the three actions into a
single consolidated action, captioned In re Duncan Energy Partners
L.P. Unitholders Litigation.  On June 3, 2011, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint which alleges,
among other things, breach of express and implied contractual
duties contained in Duncan Energy Partners' partnership agreement
by DEP GP and the named directors of DEP GP and that all
defendants have aided and abetted these alleged breaches.  The
consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants
failed to provide full and fair disclosures regarding the proposed
transaction.  On October 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal and the case was
dismissed on October 17, 2011.

On March 7, 2011, Merle Davis, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a petition in the 269th District Court of
Harris County, Texas, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Merle Davis, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Duncan
Energy Partners L.P., W. Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William
A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, DEP Holdings,
LLC, and Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (the "Davis Petition").
The Davis Petition alleges, among other things, that the Company
and the named directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties
in connection with the Duncan Merger and that the Company and
Duncan Energy Partners aided and abetted in these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.

On March 9, 2011, Donald Weilersbacher, a purported unitholder of
Duncan Energy Partners, filed a petition in the 334th District
Court of Harris County, Texas, as a putative class action on
behalf of the unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned
Donald Weilersbacher, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., Enterprise
Products Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W. Randall Fowler,
Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, and
Richard S. Snell (the "Weilersbacher Petition").  The
Weilersbacher Petition alleges, among other things, that the named
directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties in connection
with the Duncan Merger and that the Company aided and abetted in
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 17, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Davis Petition and the
Weilersbacher Petition filed a motion and proposed Order for
Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment of Interim Co-Lead
Counsel, and Order Compelling Limited Expedited Discovery.
Plaintiffs and defendants subsequently agreed to postpone
discovery until after the plaintiffs file a consolidated petition.
On March 28, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion and
proposed Order for Consolidation of Related Actions and
Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel.  On May 4, 2011, the court
entered an order consolidating the cases and appointing interim
lead counsel.  On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their
consolidated petition.  On June 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Nonsuit Without Prejudice and the cases were dismissed
without prejudice.

On July 5, 2011, Merle Davis and Donald Weilersbacher, purported
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, filed a complaint  in the
United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Merle Davis and
Donald Weilersbacher, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated vs. Duncan Energy Partners, L.P., W. Randall
Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J.
Casey, Richard Snell, DEP Holdings, LLC, and Enterprise Products
Partners L.P. (the "Davis/Weilersbacher Federal Complaint").  The
Davis/Weilersbacher Federal Complaint alleged, among other things,
that Duncan Energy Partners, DEP GP and the named directors of DEP
GP breached express and implied contractual duties in connection
with the Duncan Merger, that all defendants aided and abetted in
these alleged breaches, and that the Company and Duncan Energy
Partners violated Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  The plaintiff's filed a Stipulation of Dismissal Without
Prejudice, which was signed by the court on August 24, 2011.

On August 3, 2011, John Rinker and Arthur H. Speier, purported
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the
United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned  John Rinker and
Arthur H. Speier, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W.
Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry
J. Casey, Richard S. Snell and Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
The Rinker/Speier complaint alleges, among other things, that
Duncan Energy Partners, DEP GP and the named directors of DEP GP
breached express and implied contractual duties in connection with
the Duncan Merger, that all defendants aided and abetted in these
alleged breaches, and that the Company and Duncan Energy Partners
violated Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  On
October 17, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Stipulation of Dismissal
Without Prejudice, which was signed by the court on October 19,
2011.


FIRST NIAGARA: NewAlliance Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits arising from First Niagara Financial Group,
Inc.'s acquisition of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., were dismissed
following the approval of the parties' 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.

On April 15, 2011, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
common shares of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. ("NewAlliance"), the
parent company of NewAlliance Bank, for total consideration of
$1.5 billion, and thereby acquired NewAlliance Bank's 88 branch
locations across eight counties from Greenwich, Connecticut, to
Springfield, Massachusetts.  The Company says the merger with
NewAlliance enabled it to expand into the New England market,
improve its core deposit base, and add additional scale in its
banking operations.

In late August and September 2010, following the announcement of
the Company's merger with NewAlliance, ten purported class actions
were filed in Connecticut Superior Court and in the Delaware Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming NewAlliance, the
Company, and NewAlliance's directors as defendants.  Certain of
these actions also name FNFG Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and certain NewAlliance officers as
defendants.  These actions allege, among other things, that
NewAlliance's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
NewAlliance's stockholders by failing to maximize stockholder
value in approving the merger agreement with the Company and by
providing incomplete disclosures to stockholders in advance of
their upcoming vote whether to approve the merger.  The actions
further allege that NewAlliance and the Company aided and abetted
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  These actions sought to
enjoin the merger on the agreed upon terms and also sought
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On November 5, 2010, the plaintiffs in both actions advised
NewAlliance that they had agreed to stay the Delaware actions and
proceed in the Connecticut actions alone.  After expedited
discovery was conducted, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding setting forth settlement terms that, subject to
approval by the Connecticut Superior Court, would resolve the
actions.  In the memorandum of understanding, the Company and
NewAlliance denied that they committed any of the wrongful acts
alleged in the complaints, but agreed to amend the disclosures to
stockholders in advance of the vote whether to approve the merger.
The Connecticut Superior Court approved the settlement at a
hearing on August 22, 2011, dismissing the Connecticut actions
with prejudice.  The Delaware Court of Chancery likewise dismissed
the Delaware actions with prejudice on September 30, 2011.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Expects Ruling on Dismissal Appeal in 2012
------------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., said in its November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011, that it does not expect a court
ruling on an appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
until 2012.

In February 2010, the Company was named in a putative class action
alleging that it violated its fiduciary duty pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") to employees who
participated in the Company's 401(k) plan ("Plan") by continuing
to offer Company stock as an investment option after investment in
the stock allegedly ceased to be prudent.  On July 16, 2010, the
Company moved to dismiss the complaint and asserted, among other
things, that the Plan's investment in employer stock was protected
by a presumption of prudence under ERISA, and that plaintiff's
allegations failed to overcome such presumption.  The parties
submitted relevant materials to the court as of February 2, 2011,
and on March 31, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs have filed an appellate brief
with the court and the Company has filed its reply brief.  The
Company does not expect a court ruling on this matter until 2012.


FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, NJ: Seeks New Medical Monitoring Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
Carly Q. Romalino, writing for Gloucester County Times, reports
that a new Kiddie Kollege medical monitoring trial could be on the
horizon.

Attorneys representing Franklin Township have asked a Superior
Court judge to take a second look at the class action lawsuit that
left the municipality with a half-million-dollar judgment.

Jim Maley, the township's attorney in Kiddie Kollege matters,
filed a motion to amend and request relief from the judgment in
the medical monitoring case.

"Basically, it's a motion for a new trial," said Mr. Maley.

Now-retired Superior Court Judge James E. Rafferty based his
ruling in the Kiddie Kollege medical monitoring trial on findings
in an earlier trial between Navillus Group -- a real estate firm
owned by Jim Sullivan -- and Philip Giuliano, former owner of the
thermometer factory building that was later converted to a daycare
center under new ownership.

Mr. Giuliano, owner of Accutherm, walked away from the small
Station Avenue plant where thermometers were assembled leaving the
building polluted with mercury.

Years later, Navillus Group bought tax sale certificates to the
property when it went into foreclosure.  The real estate brokers
then leased the building to daycare operators in 2004.  The state
Department of Environmental Protection suddenly shut down the
center in 2006 when it was discovered that more than 100 children
had been exposed to high levels of mercury vapor.

Because Judge Rafferty based his decision in the medical
monitoring case on the 2009 tax sale certificate trial -- of which
he was also the judge -- the fact that it was overturned should
change the outcome of the subsequent medical monitoring case,
Mr. Maley argued.

The New Jersey DEP and Franklin Township filed separately in
January to appeal Judge Rafferty's 2009 tax sale certificate
decision.

"Judge Rafferty relied on that Navillus decision to a great
extent," Mr. Maley said.  "We need a new trial."

Attorneys for Navillus Group -- a real estate partnership between
members of the Sullivan family, including Jim Sullivan Jr. of
Franklin Township -- have filed petitions for the tax sale
certificate case to be heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

After the Supreme Court decides whether it will hear the case,
Superior Court Judge Ann McDonnell, who has taken on Kiddie
Kollege court proceedings after Judge Rafferty's retirement, will
decide whether a new trial will be set for the medical monitoring
case.

In the meantime, steps have been taken to set up the medical
monitoring protocol that Judge Rafferty ruled the children were
entitled to receive.

Months of squabbling over legal fees have tied up the funds that
support the monitoring program.

The five-law-firm team of lawyers who represent the children in
the class action lawsuit have pushed for more than $900,000 in
legal fees from the defendants who did not settle in the case
against them -- Franklin Township and the state.  The Sullivans
and Gloucester County reached settlement agreements before the
trial ended.

In January, Judge Rafferty ordered $1.5 million to be paid into a
medical monitoring protocol fund that is overseen by court-
appointed master James Gruccio, a Vineland attorney.

For months, the transfer of funds to the account was held up by
debates over legal fees.

Judge McDonnell recently ordered $825,000 be transferred to the
account so work to put together the medical monitoring program
could begin.

"I have already started to outline a protocol with the help of
plaintiffs' counsel," said Mr. Gruccio, "Our present attention is
to select a panel of physicians to whom the parents can bring
their children for the testing."

After physicians are selected, notices will be sent to those
included in the class action lawsuit.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: To Appeal Denial of Motion to Arbitrate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., said in its November 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that it
intends to appeal the denial of its motion to arbitrate a
consolidated class action lawsuit.

On June 5, 2009, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by Alexandra Avery.  Ms. Avery purports to
represent all 12-hourly employees and the complaint alleges causes
of action for restitution of unpaid wages as a result of unfair
business practices, injunctive relief for unfair business
practices, failure to pay overtime wages, and penalties associated
therewith.  On December 23, 2009, the Company filed an answer to
the complaint, generally denying all of the plaintiff's
allegations.  On January 25, 2010, a potential class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company by Julie Ross.  Ms. Ross
purports to represent all similarly-situated employees and the
complaint alleges causes of action for violation of the California
Labor Code and unfair competition law.  On
September 3, 2010, the plaintiffs in both the Avery and Ross
actions filed a consolidated complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint") that alleges the causes of action found in the initial
Ross complaint.  On October 12, 2010, the Company filed an answer
to the Consolidated Complaint, which generally denied all
allegations.

On July 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration
of the matter, which was denied on October 21, 2011.

The Company says it intends to appeal the denial of its motion to
arbitrate and will vigorously defend itself in connection with the
claims in the Consolidated Complaint.  The parties are currently
exchanging discovery in the action.  At this early stage in the
proceedings, the Company is unable to determine the cost of
defending this lawsuit or the impact, if any, this action may have
on its results of operations.


INVESTORS BANCORP: Enters Into Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Bancorp Inc. entered into an agreement to settle a
purported class action lawsuit filed against the Company in
connection with its acquisition of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp Inc.,
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 August 17, 2011, the Company announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement under which the Company will acquire
Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. for $0.80 per share or
approximately $10.3 million cash consideration in the aggregate.
In addition, the Company entered into a separate agreement with a
real estate investment fund to sell most of Brooklyn Federal
Bancorp, Inc.'s commercial real estate loan portfolio immediately
following the completion of the merger.  The merger has been
approved by the boards of directors of each company and is
expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2011 or first quarter
of 2012, subject to regulatory and Brooklyn Federal shareholder
approval.

On August 24, 2011, Joseph Underwood, a shareholder of Brooklyn
Federal Bancorp, Inc. filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings
against Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc., BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn
Federal Savings Bank, and their respective directors, and
Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC and Investors
Bank, formerly Investors Savings Bank.  The Lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that Brooklyn Bancorp's directors breached their
fiduciary duties and obligations to the public shareholders of
Brooklyn Bancorp and that Investors Bancorp 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
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 attorneys' fees.  The parties to the
Lawsuit began settlement discussions shortly after receiving
notice of the existence of the Lawsuit.

After due consideration and analysis, Investors Bancorp, without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and in exchange for a
release and settlement of all claims asserted or claims that could
have been asserted by the Shareholders in the Lawsuit, has agreed
to make an additional payment to the public shareholders of
Brooklyn Bancorp of $0.07 per share, provided that such
shareholders do not opt out of the settlement and Lawsuit.  The
agreement by and between counsel for the Lead Plaintiff, Investors
Bancorp and the other co-defendants to the Lawsuit was
memorialized on October 28, 2011, in a certain Memorandum of
Understanding.  The settlement is subject to Court approval and
other certain conditions.


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Parker Waichman Alonso Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP on Nov. 25 disclosed that it has filed
a lawsuit against JetBlue Airways Corporation on behalf of
passengers stranded on the tarmac at Bradley International Airport
in Hartford, Connecticut, on October 29, 2011.  The lawsuit, which
was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York, seeks class action status on behalf of all U.S. residents
who were passengers aboard JetBlue flights diverted to Bradley
International Airport from New York airports on October 29, 2011,
and were stranded on the tarmac for more than three hours. (Case
No.: 5:11-cv-01387).

According to the Complaint, lead plaintiffs Viviane Joseph,
Timothy Moffitt, and Megan Cotrone, all residents of Florida, were
passengers aboard various JetBlue flights on October 29, 2011.
That day, a rapidly deepening Atlantic low pressure system brought
heavy winter storm conditions to the Northeast region of the U.S.
Winter storm warnings were issued from Pennsylvania to Maine, and
Connecticut was in the direct line of sight of the rapidly
approaching storm.

Because of the winter storm conditions, approximately 23 flights
were diverted to Bradley International Airport.  JetBlue Airways
diverted 6 New York-bound flights to Bradley, including the three
flights on which the Plaintiffs were traveling.  As a result of
these diversions, passengers on the JetBlue flights were stranded
on the tarmac for up to 7 1/2 hours.  Their lawsuit alleges that
during that time, Plaintiffs were subjected to intolerable and
inhumane conditions, including rolling blackouts and
malfunctioning toilets that backed up and would not flush.
According to the complaint, crews on the affected flights also ran
out of potable water and food for passengers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of New York's Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, false imprisonment, negligence and negligence
per se, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  The
complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and all members of the proposed Class.

If you or someone you know were a passenger aboard a JetBlue
flight diverted to Bradley International Airport on October 29,
2011, and you were stranded on the tarmac for more than three
hours, please visit Parker Waichman Alonso LLP's JetBlue Tarmac
Delay page to obtain more information about joining this class
action lawsuit.  The page will be updated regularly as more
information regarding the JetBlue tarmac delays becomes available.

                 About Parker Waichman Alonso LLP

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP -- http://www.yourlawyer.com-- is a
personal injury law firm that represents plaintiffs nationwide.
The firm has offices in New York, New Jersey, Florida and
Washington, D.C. Parker Waichman Alonso LLP has assisted thousands
of clients in receiving fair compensation for injuries and damages
resulting from defective medical devices, drugs side effects and
other products.

Contact: Parker Waichman Alonso LLP
         David B. Krangle, Esq.
         Telephone: (800) LAW-INFO
                    (800) 529-4636


KADANT INC: Inks Deal to Settle Class Suit Over Defective Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kadant Inc. entered into a deal to settle a nationwide class
action lawsuit related to defective composites decking building
products manufactured by Composites LLC, 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
October 1, 2011.

The Company was previously named as co-defendant, together with
Composites LLC and two other defendants, in several state class
action complaints and one federal class action complaint filed in
2008 and 2009.  These complaints sought to recover damages
associated with allegedly defective composite building products
manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October
2003.  This litigation has been dismissed, in the case of the
federal class action, and voluntarily withdrawn without prejudice
by the state plaintiffs.

In October 2011, the Company, its Composites LLC subsidiary, and
other co-defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff
class representatives intended to settle these claims in a
nationwide class action, filed in Connecticut state court.  Under
the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to provide
reimbursement to eligible settlement class members who submit a
proof of claim, documenting, among other matters, original proof
of purchase and degradation.  The total reimbursement is capped at
$5.0 million and the settlement agreement is subject to the
approval of the court.

In connection with the settlement agreement, the Company and the
other co-defendants have not admitted any wrongdoing, any
violation of any statute or law, or the truth of any claims or
allegations of the plaintiffs.  The settlement is subject to court
approval and there is no assurance that it will be approved in its
present form or at all.  If the settlement is not approved by the
court, the Company may be exposed to new complaints against it or
the other indemnified parties.  While the Company continues to
believe any such asserted or possible claims against it or other
indemnified parties would be without merit, the cost of litigation
and the outcome, including any settlement, could adversely affect
the Company's consolidated financial results.

As of the end of the third quarter of 2011, the Company accrued
$2.6 million for the payment of claims under the settlement.  If
the actual claims submitted and approved under the settlement
agreement exceed the amount of this reserve, the Company will
reflect the amount of the additional claims paid in the results of
the discontinued operation in future periods, up to a maximum of
$5.0 million as agreed in the settlement agreement.  Any increases
in the amount of accrued claims beyond the amount of the reserve,
would adversely affect the Company's consolidated financial
results.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Delaware Suit Deal Became Final in October
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc.'s stipulation of settlement and dismissal
relating to a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in
Delaware became final in October 2011 after the time to file an
appeal of the order approving the agreement expired, the Company
disclosed in its November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On June 1, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of
RehabCare Group, Inc. ("RehabCare") (the "Merger").  Upon
consummation of the Merger, each issued and outstanding share of
RehabCare common stock was converted into the right to receive
0.471 of a share of Kindred common stock and $26 per share in
cash, without interest (the "Merger Consideration").

On February 10, 2011, Arthur I. Murphy, Jr., a purported
stockholder of RehabCare, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri (the "Circuit
Court") against RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred (the
"Murphy litigation"); and on March 2, 2011, Alfred T. Kowalewski,
a purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court, Missouri against RehabCare,
RehabCare's directors and Kindred (the "Kowalewski litigation"
and, together with the Murphy litigation, the "Missouri
litigation").  On February 15, 2011, the Norfolk County Retirement
System, a purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery against RehabCare,
RehabCare's directors and Kindred (the "Norfolk County
litigation"); on February 28, 2011, City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System, a purported stockholder of
RehabCare, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery against RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred (as
the "City of Pontiac litigation"); and on March 4, 2011, Plumbers
& Pipefitters National Pension Fund, a purported stockholder of
RehabCare, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery against RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred (the
"Plumbers & Pipefitters litigation" and, together with the Norfolk
County litigation and the City of Pontiac litigation, the
"Delaware litigation").

The complaints in the Missouri litigation and Delaware litigation
contain similar allegations, including among other things, that
RehabCare's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
RehabCare stockholders, including their duties of loyalty, due
care, independence, good faith and fair dealing, by entering into
a merger agreement which provides for inadequate consideration to
RehabCare stockholders, and that RehabCare and Kindred aided and
abetted RehabCare's directors alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing the
defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement, or in the event the defendants consummate the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of
such transactions and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Kowalewski litigation
filed a motion with the Circuit Court to consolidate the Missouri
litigation and to appoint lead counsel.  On March 31, 2011, the
plaintiffs in the Kowalewski litigation filed an amended complaint
and a motion for expedited discovery and on April 11, 2011, the
plaintiffs in the Murphy litigation filed an amended complaint and
a motion for expedited discovery.  This April 11, 2011 amended
complaint in the Murphy litigation also added Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. as a named defendant in the litigation.  On April 7,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or stay the
Missouri litigation.  After holding hearings on April 8 and April
22, 2011, the Circuit Court stayed the Missouri litigation by
Order dated April 25, 2011.

On March 9, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware
litigation under the caption "In Re RehabCare Group, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation" and plaintiffs filed a verified
consolidated class action complaint on April 5, 2011.

On May 12, 2011, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation
regarding the settlement of the Delaware litigation.  In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, (i) Kindred and RehabCare agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which were
contained in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 12, 2011, (ii)
RehabCare agreed to make the payment, at and subject to the
closing of the merger between Kindred and RehabCare, of $2.5
million in cash into a settlement pool for the benefit of the
plaintiff class in In re RehabCare Group, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, to be distributed after final approval of the
settlement of the Delaware Litigation and (iii) Kindred, Kindred
Healthcare Development, Inc. and RehabCare agreed to enter into an
amendment, dated May 12, 2011, to the merger agreement, dated as
of February 7, 2011, among Kindred, Kindred Healthcare
Development, Inc. and RehabCare, the material terms of which are:

   * inclusion of an acknowledgement by Kindred and RehabCare of
     the waiver of any existing standstill undertakings for the
     benefit of RehabCare;

   * change of the definition of "Company Termination Fee" to
     mean an amount equal to $13 million; and

   * modification of the agreement to eliminate the requirement
     for a three-business day period during which Kindred has the
     right to match a superior proposal.

On June 29, 2011, the parties submitted to the Court of Chancery a
proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal, which the Court
granted on July 1, 2011.  The Court of Chancery held a formal
settlement hearing on September 8, 2011, at which the Court
approved the agreed-upon Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal
as fair and reasonable, and awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in
the amount of $1.7 million plus expenses incurred.  The
Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal became final on October
11, 2011, after the time to file an appeal of the Court's order
approving the settlement expired.


LIFE PARTNERS: Faces "Steuben" Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the California Business and Professional
Code, according to the Company's November 22, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended February 28, 2011.

The Company is a party to a lawsuit filed on November 8, 2011,
which is styled Marilyn Steuben, on behalf of herself and all
other California citizens similarly situated v. Life Partners,
Inc., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles Court, Case No. BC472953.  This lawsuit is virtually
identical to the case commenced by John Willingham, other than it
is filed under California law rather than Texas law.  The
plaintiff is represented by the same law firm as Willingham.  The
lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty, violations of California
Business and Professional Code Section 17.200, and breach of
contract related to how the Company pay premiums on policies.  The
Company says it plans to defend itself vigorously in this
litigation, and believes it has valid defenses to the lawsuit,
including opposing certification of a purported class.


LIFE PARTNERS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Transfer "Willingham" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to transfer and consolidate for pre-trial purposes a class
action lawsuit involving a Company subsidiary with a similar
pending action, according to the Company's November 22, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended February 28, 2011.

On April 8, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the 40th Judicial District Court of Ellis County, Texas, styled
John Willingham, individually and on behalf of all other Texas
citizens similarly situated, v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No.
82640 (MR).  On July 27, 2011, by agreement of the parties, the
Willingham case was transferred to the 101st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County under Cause No. DC-11-10639.  On
September 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed his First Amended Original
Class Petition asserting claims of breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of contract, and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices-Consumer Protection Act.  All of plaintiff's claims are
based upon the alleged overpayment of premiums to the insurance
company, that is, the alleged failure to engage in "premium
optimization" on behalf of all Texas residents that purchased an
interest in a life settlement facilitated by LPI.  Plaintiff seeks
economic and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief in the form of enjoining LPI from continuing to
engage in the alleged practices.

On October 7, 2011, the parties filed a joint motion to transfer
and consolidate for pre-trial purposes the Willingham case with a
similar pending action styled Helen McDermott, et al. v. Life
Partners, Inc., Cause No. 11-02966, pending in the 191st Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, in which the plaintiff is
represented by the same law firm representing the Willingham
plaintiff.  LPI has filed its answer and intends to vigorously
defend the allegations in the lawsuit, including opposing
certification of a purported class.  Limited discovery has
commenced and no trial date has been set.


LIFE PARTNERS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in Texas, according to the Company's November 22, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended February 28, 2011.

In February and March of 2011, six putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Waco Division.  The first-filed of
these is styled Gerald A. Taylor, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc.,
Brian D. Pardo, Nina Piper, David M. Martin, and R. Scott Peden,
Civil Action No.: 2:11-CV-0027-AM.  On March 17, 2011, the Court
issued an Amended Order of Transfer, recusing Judge Walter S.
Smith from the six cases and transferring the cases to the Del Rio
Division of the Western District.  On July 5, 2011, these actions
were consolidated into the case styled Selma Stone, et al. v. Life
Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden, and David
M. Martin, Civil Action No. DR-11-CV-16-AM.  The Consolidated
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws was filed
on August 15, 2011, asserting claims of securities fraud under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder and for control person liability under
Section 20(a).  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the Company failed to disclose or misrepresented information about
the accuracy of life expectancy estimates on which the price of
the life settlements and the fees earned by Life Partners, Inc.
("LPI") were purportedly based.  The plaintiffs further allege
that these practices resulted in false and misleading financial
statements and reflected a lack of adequate internal and financial
controls.  The plaintiffs seek damages and an award of costs on
behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between May 29, 2007, and June
17, 2011.

On September 29, 2011, defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint seeking dismissal of all the plaintiffs' claims.
Defendants intend to vigorously defend the allegations in the
lawsuit, including opposing certification of a purported class.
All discovery in the case is stayed pending a ruling on the Motion
to Dismiss.  No trial date has been set.


LIFE PARTNERS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit involving a
subsidiary over alleged underestimation of life expectancies by
Dr. Donald Cassidy, according to the Company's November 22, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended February 28, 2011.

On March 7, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Eastern Division, styled William and Mary Rice, et al. v. Life
Partners, Inc. and Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No.
ECDV 11-00390 VAP (OPx).  On May 27, 2011, by agreement of the
parties, the Rice case was transferred to the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division.  On April 4, 2011, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, styled Frederick
Vieira, et al. v. Life Partners, Inc., No. 5:11-CV-01630-PSG.  On
June 3, 2011, pursuant to agreement of the parties, the Vieira
lawsuit was also transferred to the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division.  Thereafter, several substantially similar
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division, including Robert Yoskowitz, et. al. v.
Life Partners, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-01152-N, Sean T. Turnbow and
Masako H. Turnbow, et al. v. Life Partners, Inc. and Life Partners
Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-01030-M, William Bell, et
al. v. Life Partners, Inc. and Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Civil
Action No. 3:11-CV-1325-M, and Michael Jackman v. Life Partners
Holdings, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-01093-M.

Each of the lawsuits were consolidated on June 23, 2011, by Order
of Judge Lynn in the Northern District of Texas, and on July 11,
2011, the Court granted a motion to intervene, joining two
additional lawsuits that were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division, styled Bryan
Springston, et. al. v. Life Partners, Inc., et. al., Civil Action
Number 2:11-CV-00029-AM and Y. Patterson, et al. v. Life Partners,
Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-000030-AM.  The cases were
consolidated under the style Turnbow et al. v. Life Partners,
Inc., Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, and R. Scott
Peden, Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-1030-M.  On August 25, 2011,
plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint
("Complaint"), alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty against
Life Partners, Inc. ("LPI"), aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against Pardo, Peden, and the Company, breach of
contract against LPI, and violation of California Unfair
Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq.) by LPI, Pardo, and Peden.  All of plaintiffs' claims arise
out of the alleged provision of underestimated life expectancies
by Dr. Donald Cassidy to LPI and LPI's use thereof in the
facilitation of life settlement transactions in which plaintiffs
acquired interests.

On September 15, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
is pending.  No discovery has occurred in the case and the case is
not yet set for trial.


LIFE PARTNERS: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of "Arnold" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit commenced by Michael Arnold
and Janet Arnold said that they will appeal from a court order
dismissing their claims against a subsidiary of Life Partners
Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's November 22, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended February 28, 2011.

On March 14, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the 14th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, styled
Michael Arnold and Janet Arnold v. Life Partners, Inc., Life
Partners Holdings, Inc., and Abundant Income, Cause No. 11-02995.
Plaintiffs ultimately amended their petition several times, adding
additional named plaintiffs, and dismissing the Company with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs ultimately asserted two causes of action.
The first claim asserted that defendants violated the registration
provisions of the Texas Securities Act because the life
settlements facilitated by LPI were securities and were not
registered.  The second claim asserted that defendants committed
fraud under the Texas Securities Act because they represented that
the life settlements were not securities.  LPI answered and filed
counterclaims against plaintiffs for the filing of a frivolous
lawsuit.

On September 26, 2011, the Court entered an Order granting LPI's
motion for partial summary judgment.  The motion was based on,
among other arguments, the arguments that the life settlements had
previously been held not to be securities under federal and state
law.  As a result of the Court Order, plaintiffs' claims against
LPI were dismissed with prejudice.  LPI intends to seek summary
judgment on its counterclaims and the recovery of damages
resulting from the filing of a frivolous lawsuit.  Plaintiffs have
stated their intent to appeal the Court's decision dismissing
their claims.  LPI intends to vigorously defend the Court's Order
on appeal if necessary.


LIFE PARTNERS: Trial in "McDermott" Class Suit Set for 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a putative class action lawsuit commenced by Helen Z.
McDermott against a subsidiary of Life Partners Holdings, Inc., is
scheduled for 2013, according to the Company's November 22, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended February 28, 2011.

On March 11, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, styled
Helen Z. McDermott, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No. 11-02966.
McDermott asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative
class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased
any portion of a life settlement that matured earlier than the
estimated maximum life expectancy.  Plaintiffs seek as purported
damages (i) the amount of funds placed in escrow that was
allegedly not needed or used for policy maintenance and was not
returned or paid to plaintiffs, (ii) attorneys' fees, and (iii)
costs.  Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief, restitution, and
disgorgement.  LPI has filed its answer and the parties have
engaged in pre-certification discovery.  LPI intends to vigorously
defend the allegations in the lawsuit, including opposing
certification of a purported class.  The case had an initial trial
setting of November 28, 2011, but the parties have agreed to enter
into an agreed scheduling order with a trial setting in 2013.


LOEHMANN'S HOLDINGS: Strikes Settlement of Wage-And-Hour Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that Loehmann's
Holdings Inc. on Nov. 22 asked a New York bankruptcy court to
bless a $1.3 million settlement with a class of 2,500 California
workers in a lawsuit accusing the discount retailer of wage-and-
hour violations.

In a lawsuit lodged in California Superior Court in Los Angeles
County in March 2010, before Loehmann's sought Chapter 11
protection, former store employee Tiana Daniels alleged numerous
violations of state labor laws on behalf of herself and a putative
class of other California employees, Law360 relates.

                         About Loehmann's Holdings

Bronx, New York-based Loehmann's Holdings, Inc., is a discount
retailer with more than 60 stores.  The Bronx, New York-based
company is owned indirectly by Istithmar PJSC, an investment firm
owned by the government of Dubai.

Loehmann's filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on
November 15, 2010 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 10-16077).  It
estimated its assets and debts at $100 million to $500 million.

Affiliates Loehmann's Inc. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 10-16078),
Loehmann's Operating Co. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 10-16079),
Loehmann's Real Estate Holdings, Inc. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No.
10-16080), and Loehmann's Capital Corp. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No.
10-16081) filed separate Chapter 11 petitions.

Frank A. Oswald, Esq., at Togut, Segal & Segal LLP, assisted the
Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  Perella Weinberg Partners
LP served as the Debtors' investment banker and financial advisor.
Clear Thinking Group LLC served as the Debtors' restructuring
adviser.  Troutman Sanders LLP served as the Debtor's special
corporate counsel.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC served as the
Debtors' claims and notice agent.

Mark S. Indelicato, Esq., Mark T. Power, Esq., and Janine M.
Cerbone, Esq., at Hahn & Hessen LLP, in New York, served as
counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

In March 2011, Loehmann's Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates
successfully completed its restructuring and has emerged from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.  The Company secured $45
million in exit financing from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and
Whippoorwill Associates, Inc., as agent for its discretionary
funds and accounts.


MEDIVATION INC: Lead Plaintiff Files Second Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a consolidated class action lawsuit pending
in California filed a second amended complaint, according to
Medivation, Inc.'s November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In March 2010, the first of three putative securities class action
lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers.  The lawsuits are largely identical and
allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The plaintiffs allege among other things that the
Company disseminated false and misleading statements about the
effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of their costs
and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
September 21, 2006, and March 2, 2010.  The actions were
consolidated in September 2010 and in April 2011 the court entered
an order appointing Catoosa Fund, L.P. and its attorneys as lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  Thereafter, the lead plaintiff filed
a consolidated, amended complaint, which was dismissed without
prejudice as to all defendants on August 18, 2011.  The lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 2, 2011.

The Company's management believes that it has meritorious defenses
and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.  However, this
lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may
be significant, and the Company may not prevail.  The Company
believes it is entitled to coverage under its relevant insurance
policies, subject to a $350,000 retention, but coverage could be
denied or prove to be insufficient.  As of September 30, 2011, the
Company had incurred $351,000 in expenses chargeable against that
retention.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Class Suit in Pennsylvania Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania, 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.

In September 2010, a housing discrimination complaint was filed
against MGIC with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development alleging that MGIC violated the Fair Housing Act and
discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her sex and
familial status when MGIC underwrote her loan for mortgage
insurance.  In May 2011, HUD commenced an administrative action
against MGIC and two of its employees, seeking, among other
relief, aggregate fines of $48,000.  The HUD complainant elected
to have charges in the administrative action proceed in federal
court and on July 5, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a
civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against MGIC and these employees on
behalf of the complainant.  The complaint seeks redress for the
alleged housing discrimination, including compensatory and
punitive damages for the alleged victims and a civil penalty
payable to the United States.  MGIC denies that any unlawful
discrimination occurred and disputes many of the allegations in
the complaint.

In October 2010, a separate purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MGIC by the HUD complainant in the same District
Court in which the DOJ action is pending alleging that MGIC
discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and familial
status when MGIC underwrote her loan for mortgage insurance.  In
May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion to dismiss with
respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims.

MGIC intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations
in both the class action lawsuit and the DOJ lawsuit.  Based on
the facts known at this time, the Company does not foresee the
ultimate resolution of these legal proceedings having a material
adverse effect on it.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion for Relief From Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for relief from a district court ruling dismissing a
consolidated class action complaint against MGIC Investment
Corporation is pending, 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.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 22,
2009.  Due in part to its length and structure, it is difficult to
summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears
the allegations are that the Company and its officers named in the
Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting
or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss
development in the Company's insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS,
including its liquidity.  The Complaint also named two officers of
C-BASS with respect to the Complaint's allegations regarding C-
BASS.  The Company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted
on February 18, 2010.

On March 18, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.  The Amended Complaint alleged that the Company
and two of its officers named in the Amended Complaint violated
the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to
disclose material information about C-BASS, including its
liquidity, and by failing to properly account for the Company's
investment in C-BASS.  The Amended Complaint also named two
officers of C-BASS with respect to the Amended Complaint's
allegations regarding C-BASS.  The purported class period covered
by the Amended Complaint began on February 6, 2007 and ended on
August 13, 2007.  The Amended Complaint sought damages based on
purchases of the Company's stock during this time period at prices
that were allegedly inflated as a result of the purported
violations of federal securities laws.

On December 8, 2010, the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended
complaint was denied and the Complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.  On January 6, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the
February 18, 2010 and December 8, 2010 decisions to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  On June 6, 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for relief
from that court's judgment of dismissal on the ground of newly
discovered evidence consisting of transcripts the plaintiffs
obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange
Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS.
The Company is opposing this motion and the matter is awaiting
decision by the District Court.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued Over Property Title Transfer Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Reid, writing for The Daily Reporter, reports that a lawsuit
against a majority of Michigan's mortgage service firms has been
converted into a class action for the state's 83 counties, after
it was filed locally by Branch County Register of Deeds Nancy
Hutchins.

The new suit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court by Hutchins and
Curtis Hertel, Jr., the Ingham County Register of Deeds, alleges
the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS) and others
owe millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

"It's not a lot of money" for Branch County, Ms. Hutchins
explained.  "But every little bit helps" since commissioners are
trying hard to avoid layoffs to balance the 2012 budget.

Since she filed the suit locally in August, more firms are paying
transfer taxes rather than are seeking exemptions.  Of those who
claim exemptions, "there is no way or means to check" on the
validity, Ms. Hutchins said.

The 2008 national mortgage crisis caused foreclosures, which
brought to light the use of MERS to avoid the local taxes when
mortgages were transferred and assigned.

MERS is a national clearing house, created to track mortgages for
banks and loan companies.  The suit alleges the company and
numerous banks failed to pay property transfer taxes each time
ownership of the note/mortgage/title was transferred to another
owner in the MERS system.

Also named in the suit are three foreclosure attorneys, who are
also big Republican party donors, Marshall Isaacs from Orlans
Associations and Ellen Coon and Jeanne Kivi of Trott and Trott.

Both firms came under fire in recent months for participating in
robo-signing, having employees or attorneys sign foreclosure
documents without verifying their accuracy.

Ms. Hutchins believes Branch County has lost over $100,000 in the
last five to 10 years but can't be certain.  "That's a very rough
estimate," she said.

Each time ownership, the title or mortgage to a property is
changed or transferred, the county is due a transfer tax.  For
sales, this is $110 per $100,000 of sale price and the state is
due $750 per $100,000 value or a portion thereof.

Sale of a $100,000 home would typically bring in $1,100 tax to the
county and $7,500 to the state.

When a mortgage is registered with MERS it can change hands many
times without any fees ever being recorded.  Only when there is a
foreclosure does the real and current owners of the loan have to
be revealed.  Some attorneys have challenged how the owners obtain
titles and how it can be satisfied other than by the holder of
record.

The suit is expected to have national implications and may end in
federal court.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.  Defendants in the case include
NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary, NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation ("NMFC"), and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company, and several
unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies.  The
case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.  Plaintiff seeks monetary damages,
alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false
statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for
securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members.
On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the Court granted on
March 31, 2011, with leave to amend.  Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company has again filed
a motion to dismiss.  The Company says it cannot provide an
estimate of the range of any loss.  The Company believes that it
has meritorious defenses to the case and expects to defend the
case vigorously.

No further 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.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Still Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion for summary judgment in the consolidated securities class
action lawsuit pending 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.

On September 15, 2008, and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between
February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.  On December 11, 2008,
these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled
Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H
(RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C.,
S.D. Cal.). In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case
In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation.  The plaintiffs
filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who
allegedly purchased the Company's stock between February 27, 2007,
and November 10, 2008.  The consolidated complaint names the
Company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.  The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements during
the relevant time period regarding the strength of the Company's
products and market share, the Company's financial results and its
internal controls.  The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified
amount of damages and costs.  The court has denied defendants'
motions to dismiss.  In May 2010, the court entered an order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified a class of purchasers of Company common stock between
February 27, 2007, and September 15, 2008.  On
February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery, the Company
filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims.
A trial date had been set for May 10, 2011.  On March 15, 2011,
the case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable
Anthony J. Battaglia. Following the reassignment, the court
vacated the trial date pending the court's consideration of
dispositive motions.  Oral argument on the motion for summary
judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011, after which the
court took the matter under submission.  The court has not yet
issued a ruling on the motion.

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

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
The Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this
lawsuit on its financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces More Suits Over Weak Die/Packaging Material
--------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation continues to face more class action lawsuits
arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions
of its previous generation products used in notebook
configurations, according to the Company's November 22, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 30, 2011.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of the Company's previous generation products
used in notebook configurations.  Most of the lawsuits were filed
in Federal Court in the Northern District of California, but three
were filed in state court in California, in Federal Court in New
York, and in Federal Court in Texas.  Those three actions have
since been removed or transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
where all of the actions now are currently pending.  The various
lawsuits are titled Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp., Feinstein v. NVIDIA
Corp., Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and
Hewlett Packard, Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett
Packard, Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc., Cormier v.
NVIDIA Corp., National Business Officers Association, Inc. v.
NVIDIA Corp., and West v. NVIDIA Corp.  The First Amended
Complaint was filed on October 27, 2008, which no longer asserted
claims against Dell, Inc.  The various complaints assert claims
for, among other things, breach of warranty, violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Business & Professions Code sections
17200 and 17500 and other consumer protection statutes under the
laws of various jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and strict
liability.

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the cases
related under the relevant local rules.  On December 11, 2008,
NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the consumer class
action cases.  On February 26, 2009, the District Court
consolidated the cases, as well as two other cases pending against
Hewlett Packard, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and
ordered the plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2,
2009.  On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related
issues.   On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg
LLP lead counsel.  On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27
other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On August 19, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on
that motion on October 19, 2009.  On November 19, 2009, the Court
issued an order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of
action for Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27
other states and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend
plaintiffs' causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under
California Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss as to the other causes of action.  The Court gave
plaintiffs until December 14, 2009, to file an amended complaint.
On December 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint, asserting claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and
Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.  On
January 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Breach
of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  In addition, on April 1, 2010,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all
people who purchased computers containing certain of the Company's
generation media and communications processor ("MCP") and graphics
processing unit ("GPU") products.  On May 3, 2010, the Company
filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
A hearing on both motions was held on June 14, 2010.

On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the
District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached
a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  The
settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals,
including final approval by the court.  As a result of the
settlement in principle, and the other estimated settlement, and
offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge
of $12.7 million to sales, general and administrative expense
during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011.  In addition, a
portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges the Company
recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging
set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to
estimated additional repair and replacement costs related to the
implementation of these settlements.  On
August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement and Release.  On September 15, 2010, the Court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement
and providing for notice to the potential class members.  The
Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20, 2010, and on that
same day the Court approved the settlement and entered Final
Judgment over several objections.  In January 2011, several
objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the Final Judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On February 28, 2011, a group of purported class members filed a
motion with the District Court purporting to seek enforcement of
the settlement.  The Motion claimed that NVIDIA was not properly
complying with its obligations under the settlement in connection
with the remedies provided to purchasers of Hewlett-Packard
computers included in the settlement.  On March 4, 2011, NVIDIA
and Class Counsel at Milberg LLP filed oppositions to the Motion.
The Court held a hearing on March 28, 2011, and denied the Motion
on May 2, 2011.

On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v.
NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting
claims for breach of implied warranties arising out of the weak
die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers
alleged to not be covered by the settlement approved by the
California court in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  On
November 3, 2011, the action was transferred to the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, based upon
stipulation of the parties.  On September 27, 2011, a second
putative class action captioned Van der Maas v. NVIDIA Corp., et
al., was filed in the Central District of California against
NVIDIA, Asustek Computer Inc., and Asustek Computer International
on behalf of certain consumers alleged not to be covered by the
NVIDIA GPU settlement.  This action asserts claims for violations
of California's unfair competition laws, violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligence and strict liability, and
violation of the Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 17.50.
The Company says it intends to defend against the actions
vigorously.


NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of their consolidated
securities class action lawsuit against NVIDIA Corporation, the
Company disclosed in its November 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 30, 2011.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the
Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California arising out of the Company's
announcements on July 2, 2008, that it would take a charge against
cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising
from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the
Company's previous generation media and communications processor
("MCP") and graphics processing unit ("GPU") products and that the
Company was revising financial guidance for its second quarter of
fiscal year 2009.  The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the
caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL).  Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008.  On
February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of
co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  On February 19, 2009, co-Lead
Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the
District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of
Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit.  On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware
granted the stay.  On
November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing
the District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs'
counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings.   On
December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The consolidated complaint
sought unspecified compensatory damages.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010 and a
hearing was held on June 24, 2010, before Judge Seeborg.  On
October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  On December 2, 2010, co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The
Company moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint
on February 14, 2011.  Following oral argument, on October 12,
2011, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to dismiss
without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit.


OLYMPUS: ADR Holders File Class Action in Pennsylvania Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Sky News reports that a US investor has filed a class-action suit
against Olympus, accusing the company of presenting false
financial statements for at least five years to cover up massive
losses, the Japanese firm says.

The case was filed with a Pennsylvania court by an individual on
behalf of all holders of Olympus American Depositary Receipts
(ADR) purchased between November 7, 2006, and November 7, 2011,
Olympus said in a statement issued in Tokyo on Nov. 25.

ADRs allow a foreign company to trade on US stock exchanges.

In the US case, the plaintiff argues that the company presented
incorrect financial results over at least five years in order to
conceal losses.

Olympus on November 8 admitted to hiding losses on securities
investments dating back to the 1990s and said that it used funds
related to recently scrutinized acquisitions to help do so.

The value of its ADRs fell to $9.05 that day, from $13.72 the
previous day, and slid further to $6 on November 10.

In the suit, the plaintiff demands an unspecified amount of
compensation from the firm and the three chief executives in
office during the five-year period, notwithstanding that one of
them, Briton Michael Woodford, was fired on October 14 by the
Olympus board for demanding explanations for these malpractices.

The other CEOs referred to are Tsuyoshi Kikukawa, in office
immediately before and after Mr. Woodford, and current chief
executive Shuichi Takayama appointed after Mr. Kikukawa's
resignation.

Olympus believes, however, the case will have little significance
as there is only a small proportion of its ADRs outstanding.


OLYMPUS CORP: Investors in Japan Mull Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Kana Inagaki, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that as the
accounting scandal dogging Olympus Corp. unfolds, lawyers say they
are being contacted by individual investors in Japan quietly
mulling suing the company to seek compensation for the erosion of
billions of dollars of shareholdings.

Large-scale suits by individual shareholders have been rare in
Japan up this point, but lawyers say the apparently open-and-shut
nature of the Olympus case could help reshape investors'
willingness to enforce their rights here.

While a class action against the camera and endoscope maker has
already been filed in the U.S., the absence of a system in Japan
where a single individual can represent a group in a court claim
has made it more costly for investors in Japan to take legal
action.

But lawyers say the case for the roughly 16,000 retail Olympus
shareholders -- nearly 10% of the company's total shares
outstanding -- appears relatively straightforward, with the
company having already admitted to "inappropriate accounting"
involving a cover-up of investment losses dating back two decades.

"It will be the kind of a lawsuit where individual investors are
guaranteed to win," said Yo Ota, a partner at the Tokyo-based law
firm Nishimura & Asahi.

Exactly how much compensation might be rewarded to investors
remains uncertain: Olympus' shares plummeted as much as 82% after
the spectacular Oct. 14 ouster of former chief executive Michael
Woodford who was stripped of his job after demanding that the
company's board investigate a series of questionable acquisitions
and huge fees paid out to little-known advisers.

At the low point on Nov. 11, $7.1 billion was wiped off Olympus
market value.  The shares have since rallied on hopes that any
regulatory sanctions applied to the company will stop short of the
extreme of delisting its shares.

"This case will likely have a pioneering role in showing that
Japanese investors, long considered as submissive, will speak out
when necessary," said Toshihiro Miki, a lawyer who specializes in
securities litigations for individual shareholders.

While the eventual findings of Japanese securities regulators and
police investigating Olympus will be crucial, three lawyers say
they have already been consulted by at least a dozen shareholders
on the possibility of filing a lawsuit to receive compensation for
the losses incurred in the stock's downward spiral.

On Nov. 8, Olympus admitted that officials had hidden losses from
the 1990s through acquisitions totaling nearly $3 billion.  The
company is now preparing to correct its financial statements and
its stock will be delisted from the Tokyo Stock Exchange if it
fails to submit an auditor-approved earnings report by Dec. 14.

Already in the U.S., law firms including Bernstein Liebhard LLP
and Sarraf Gentile LLP have filed a class action against Olympus
on behalf of U.S. investors in its American depositary receipts.

In Japan, the public response from domestic individual investors
has so far been muted.

But lawyer Keitaro Shirai said a client, an investor based in
western Japan, sent a letter on Nov. 2, requesting the company's
statutory auditors file a suit against Olympus board members who
served at the time of acquisitions made between from 2006 and
2008.

Mr. Shirai declined to identify his client, but said that the
individual may launch a shareholder representative lawsuit seeking
payment of nearly Y140 billion in damages to the company
management responsible for the deals, if the auditors fail to act
within 60 days.

Olympus said its auditors have received the letter and are still
examining the contents of the request.  The company added it has
not received notice of other lawsuits by individual investors.

As well as the burden of individual costs, retail investor
lawsuits are rarer in Japan than in the U.S. for a number of
reasons such as a lack of recognition about what legislation
permits.

A 2004 law revision actually made it easier for Japanese retail
investors to file claims for damages caused by fabrication of
financial statements, by removing the need to provide evidence of
the company's intent or negligence where problems arise.

But one challenge for Olympus investors will be a clause in the
2004 law under which the amount of damages incurred is calculated
by determining the difference in the average share price for the
month before the fraud became "public knowledge" and the month
after.

In the case of Olympus, the law could be interpreted to imply the
falsification was "officially announced" when the company admitted
to hiding losses on Nov. 8, several significant weeks after shares
began their slide on Oct. 14.


ORIENT PAPER: Stockholder Class Suit in California Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper Inc. continues to defend itself from an amended
class action complaint filed in California, 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 August 6, 2010, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company, certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company, and Roth Capital Partners, LLP.  The
complaint in the lawsuit, Mark Henning v. Orient Paper et al.,
CV-10-5887 RSWL (AJWx), alleges, among other claims, that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and
omitted to state material facts that rendered its affirmative
statements misleading as they related to the Company's financial
performance, business prospects, and financial condition, and that
the defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued
or corrected.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
compensatory damages and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts'
fees.  Mr. Henning purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf
of a class consisting of the Company's stockholders (other than
the defendants and their affiliates).  The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on January 28, 2011, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss with the court on March 14, 2011.  On July 20,
2011 the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, thus
allowing the litigation to proceed to discovery.  Nevertheless, at
this stage of the proceedings, management cannot opine that a
favorable outcome for the company is probable or that an
unfavorable outcome to the company is remote.


OZZIE JUROCK: B.C. Supreme Court Approves Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Luk, writing for The Province, reports that The B.C.
Supreme Court approved an application for a class-action lawsuit
against Ozzie Jurock, a self-proclaimed real-estate guru, and his
partners, David Barnes and Ralph Case, on Nov. 24.

The suit is filed by buyers of Prince Rupert condos, who claim
that Mr. Jurock misled them into buying problem-plagued units
owned by Mr. Jurock and his partners.

Gregory Bosworth, a film producer from Bowen Island, is bringing
the action on behalf of everyone who bought a unit in Roosevelt
Apartments in Prince Rupert.  He himself bought a unit for $73,000
in 2007.

Mr. Bosworth alleges that Mr. Jurock and his partners told buyers
that the investment would provide them with "long-term capital
appreciating and an ongoing rental-income stream."  The disclosure
statement allegedly stated that the four buildings in the complex
were "free from material defect."

However, two years after Bosworth bought the unit, he learned that
the windows and patio doors were leaking, and poor seals were
causing high heating bills.  An engineering review also found
chimney cracks, leaking frames and other defects.  Mr. Bosworth
and other buyers claim that Mr. Jurock and his partners had failed
to inform investors about the deficiencies, which cost each owner
$35,000 to repair.  Mr. Jurock and his partners have 30 days to
appeal the court's certification decision.


S1 CORP: Reaches Agreement in Principle in Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
S1 Corporation said in its November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011, that it reached an agreement in principle to
settle a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Delaware.

On July 29, 2011, a putative stockholder class action captioned
Levitan v. S1 Corp., et al., C.A. No-6730, was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and the
individual members of the Company's board of directors.  The
complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
directors would breach their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a
proposed acquisition of the Company by ACI Worldwide, Inc.
("ACI").  Among other things, the complaint sought to enjoin the
Company and its directors from completing such a proposed
acquisition by ACI or, alternatively, rescission of such a
proposed acquisition by ACI in the event the Company and ACI were
able to consummate such a transaction.  On August 8, 2011, a
putative stockholder filed an action in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware captioned Mang v. Dreyer, et al., C.A. No.
6760, asserting class and derivative claims against the Company
and the individual members of the Company's board of directors.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties and committed gross
mismanagement and waste by reason of having rejected ACI's
proposal.

On August 9, 2011, a putative stockholder class action was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Yu v.
S1 Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6771.  The complaint alleged, among
other things, that the Company's directors had breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to pursue the ACI proposal and/or
failing to initiate a bidding or auction process for acquisition
of the Company, and by issuing incomplete or misleading
disclosures in the Company's proxy solicitation materials.  Both
the Mang and Yu complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin
both the stockholder vote in connection with, and any consummation
of, the Company's now-terminated merger with Fundtech Ltd.

On August 12, 2011, counsel for Plaintiffs Mang and Yu filed a
proposed Order of Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Counsel,
which would consolidate the Mang and Yu actions and designate the
Yu complaint as the operative complaint in the consolidated
action.  On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff Levitan filed an Amended
Verified Class Action Complaint, which no longer sought to enjoin
the directors from pursuing the ACI proposal, but instead sought
to enjoin the Company's merger with Fundtech.  On August 17, 2011,
counsel for Plaintiffs in all three actions modified the
previously-filed request for consolidation so as to request
consolidation of all three actions, again designating the Yu
complaint as the operative complaint, and advised the Court that
the Defendants did not oppose such consolidation.  On August 18,
2011, the Court granted the motion and ordered that the three
cases be consolidated (the "Consolidated Lawsuit").

On August 19, 2011, the Court scheduled a hearing on Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction for September 16, 2011.  On
August 31, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint
that did not substantively alter the claims being advanced or the
relief being sought.  Subsequent to the Company's announcement
that the meeting for the stockholder vote on the proposals related
to the now-terminated merger with Fundtech was to be delayed, the
hearing on Plaintiffs' motion was rescheduled for October 3, 2011.

When the Company announced on September 16, 2011, that the
Fundtech transaction was terminated, Plaintiffs requested that the
October 3, 2011 hearing be taken off calendar.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the action on September 19, 2011.

On October 25, 2011, the Company announced that it and other named
defendants have reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs
to settle the Consolidated Lawsuit pursuant to an agreement, the
Company filed an amendment to its Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 ("Schedule 14D-9") with the SEC.  The
amended Schedule 14D-9 contains certain additional disclosures the
Company agreed to make in connection with the settlement of the
Consolidated Lawsuit, although the Company has not admitted in any
way that those disclosures are material or are otherwise required
by law.

The Company says it does not expect this cost to be material to
its consolidated results of operations and financial position.
The Company notes that the settlement will not affect the offer
price to be paid in the Amended Offer by ACI Merger Sub or the
merger consideration the Company's stockholders would be entitled
to receive pursuant to the terms of the Transaction Agreement.

On October 28, 2011, the Company and ACI announced that they each
received a request for additional information from the U.S.
Department of Justice (the "DOJ") relating to ACI's proposed
acquisition of the Company.  The request was under notification
requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act
of 1976, as amended (the "HSR Act").  The effect of the request is
to extend the waiting period imposed by the HSR Act until 30 days
after ACI has substantially complied with the request, unless
voluntarily extended or terminated sooner by the DOJ.  The request
is focused on the Company's card payments business.

On October 31, 2011, ACI extended the Amended Offer until 5:00
p.m., Eastern Time, on November 30, 2011, unless further extended.


SANDISK CORP: 9th Cir. Denies Indirect Purchasers' Rehearing Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied in August
2011 a petition for a rehearing filed by indirect purchaser
plaintiffs in In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, according
to SanDisk Corporation's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

Between August 31, 2007, and December 14, 2007, the Company (along
with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was
sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), in eight purported class action
complaints.  On February 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were
consolidated into two Complaints, one on behalf of direct
purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, in a
purported class action captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust
Litigation.  Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory and flash memory products conspired
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of NAND flash
memory in violation of state and federal laws and sought an
injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs and disgorgement of
profits.  The direct purchaser lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice.  On March 31, 2010, the District Court denied the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion, and
denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the Consolidated
Amended Complaint to substitute certain class representatives.

On April 5, 2011, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the class certification
decision and on April 19, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed a Rule 23(f) petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") to request permission to
appeal that decision.  On June 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied
that petition.  On July 12, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, which the Ninth
Circuit denied on August 24, 2011.


SANDISK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Plea to File Brief in "Ritz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion for
permission to file a reply brief in support of its petition for
interlocutory appeal in the class action lawsuit filed by Ritz
Camera & Image, LLC, according to the Company's November 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 2, 2011.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products.  The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers
of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures
controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006, through the present.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company created and
maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using
them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other
patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the
District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in
part the Company's motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari
being dismissed as a defendant.  In addition, the Company filed a
motion requesting that the District Court certify for immediate
interlocutory appeal the portion of its Order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to
pursue Walker Process antitrust claims.  The Company answered the
Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of Ritz's allegations of
wrongdoing.  A hearing on that motion was held on May 6, 2011.

On September 7, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's
request to certify the issue for appeal.  On September 19, 2011,
the Company filed a petition for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal in the Federal Circuit.  On October 3, 2011,
Ritz filed an opposition to the Company's petition.  On
October 13, 2011, the Company filed a motion for permission to
file a reply brief in support of its petition for interlocutory
appeal.  The Federal Circuit has not issued a decision on the
Company's petition.  On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition Federal Antitrust Class Action
Against SanDisk, et al.


SANDISK CORP: Still Defends Antitrust Suit Over SD Cards
--------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation continues to defend an antitrust class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect
purchasers of Secure Digital cards, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2011.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a nationwide class of
indirect purchasers of Secure Digital ("SD") cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and
Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal
antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California
antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law.  Plaintiffs
allege the Company (along with the other members of SD-3C)
conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated
with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California
antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly
caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards.  The
allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the
complaint captioned Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic
Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C
LLC.  Pursuant to a stipulation entered on June 27, 2011, the
defendants' response to this complaint was due on November 21,
2011, and all discovery was stayed until that date.

The Company disclosed that it received two demand letters dated
March 30, 2011, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A
Section 9 ("93A Demand Letters").  Both letters gave notice of
intention to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide
class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims
against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic; Toshiba, and Toshiba
America Electronic Components, Inc. under Massachusetts unfair
competition law if the Defendants do not tender a settlement.
These letters generally repeat the allegations in the antitrust
cases filed against SD-3C and Panasonic defendants in Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al. and against the
Company, SD-3C, Panasonic defendants, and Toshiba defendants in
Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al.  On April 21, 2011, the Company
responded to both letters detailing their deficiencies.


SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Class Suits in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Satcon Technology Corporation continues to defend itself from two
purported securities class action complaints filed in
Massachusetts, 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.

In July 2011, two purported securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its former Chief Financial Officer by the following plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in
the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts: Allan Edwards
(filed July 19, 2011) and Larry Ziegler (filed July 21, 2011).
The virtually identical complaints are purportedly brought on
behalf of persons who acquired the Company's common stock during
the period of March 4, 2010, through July 5, 2011, and allege
claims against all defendants for violations under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
as well as claims against the individual defendants for violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Putative plaintiffs claim
that the defendants caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices through false and misleading
statements and/or omissions related to the Company's business.
The complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages sustained
as a result of the defendants' actions, including reasonable costs
and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and
proper.  The Company believes these allegations are baseless and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


SEALED AIR: Cryovac Suits Remain Stayed by Grace Bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Since the beginning of 2000, Sealed Air Corporation has been
served with a number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the
1998 multi-step transaction that brought the Cryovac packaging
business and the former Sealed Air's business under the common
ownership of the Company (the Cryovac transaction), the Company is
responsible for alleged asbestos liabilities of W. R. Grace & Co.
and its subsidiaries, some of which were also named as co-
defendants in some of these actions.  Among these lawsuits are
several purported class actions and a number of personal injury
lawsuits.  Some plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury or
wrongful death, while others seek medical monitoring,
environmental remediation or remedies related to an attic
insulation product.  Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor
Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing
materials that are the subjects of these cases.  None of these
cases has reached resolution through judgment, settlement or
otherwise.  Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding has stayed
all of these cases.

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


SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit's Petition to Appeal Due December 5
---------------------------------------------------------
A petition by a Signet Jewelers Limited subsidiary seeking
authorization to appeal is due on December 5, 2011, according to
the Company's November 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2011.

In March 2008, private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit for
an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc. ("Sterling"),
a subsidiary of Signet, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities.  In June 2008, the District Court referred
the matter to private arbitration where the plaintiffs sought to
proceed on a class-wide basis.  In June 2009, the arbitrator ruled
that the arbitration agreements allowed the plaintiff to proceed
on a class-wide basis and seek class certification.  Sterling
challenged the ruling and the District Court vacated the
arbitrator's decision in July 2010.  The plaintiffs appealed that
order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On July 1, 2011, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's
decision and instructed the District Court to confirm the
Arbitrator's Award.  On July 15, 2011, Sterling filed a petition
for rehearing en banc of the Second Circuit panel's decision,
which was denied on September 6.  Sterling plans to appeal the
Second Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Sterling's
petition seeking authorization to appeal is due on December 5,
2011.


SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend "Lovston" Suit in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
commenced by Terena Lovston in Arkansas, 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 13, 2011, Terena Lovston filed a lawsuit against the
Company in Circuit Court in Lonoke County, Arkansas, Case No.
CV-11-321.  The complaint alleges, on her behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for
its toning footwear products violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and is resulting in unjust enrichment.  The
complaint seeks certification of a statewide class and
compensatory damages.  On June 3, 2011, the Company removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas, and it is now pending as Terena Lovston v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., 4:11- cv-00460-DPM.  On June 6, 2011, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the action or transfer it to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, in
view of the prior pending action commenced by Tamara Grabowski.
On July 19, 2011, the court indicated its intent to remand the
case to Arkansas state court but stayed remand pending further
briefing by the parties.  On August 5, 2011, the court issued an
order staying the case pending completion of the appellate process
in the Tomlinson action.  On November 7, 2011, the United States
Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for a writ of
certiorari in the action commenced by Patty Tomlinson.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or
a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse
result would have a material adverse impact on its results of
operations or financial position, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses, vehemently denies the allegations, believes
that class certification is not warranted and intends to defend
the case vigorously.


SKECHERS USA: "Grabowski" Suit Remains Stayed in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Tamara Grabowski against
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., remains stayed 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.

On June 18, 2010, Tamara Grabowski filed an action against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, Tamara Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
Case No. 10 CV 1300 JM (WVG), on her behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.  The complaint, as subsequently
amended, alleges that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups
violates California's Unfair Competition Law and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and constitutes a breach of express
warranty (the "Grabowski action").  The complaint seeks
certification of a nationwide class, damages, restitution and
disgorgement of profits, declaratory and injunctive relief,
corrective advertising, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 7, 2011, the court stayed the action on the ground that
the outcomes in pending appeals in two unrelated actions will
significantly affect whether a class should be certified.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or
a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse
result would have a material adverse impact on its results of
operations or financial position, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, believes
that class certification is not warranted and intends to defend
the case vigorously.


SKECHERS USA: "Morga" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Venus Morga against Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., remains stayed 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.

On August 25, 2010, Venus Morga filed an action against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, Venus Morga v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case
No. 10 CV 1780 JM (WVG), on her behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.  The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups violates
California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and constitutes a breach of express warranty.
The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, damages,
restitution and disgorgement of profits, declaratory and
injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On March 7, 2011, the court stayed the action on the ground that
the outcomes in pending appeals in two unrelated actions will
significantly affect whether a class should be certified.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or
a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse
result would have a material adverse impact on its results of
operations or financial position, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses, vehemently denies the allegations, believes
that class certification is not warranted and intends to defend
the case vigorously.


SKECHERS USA: "Stalker" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Sonia Stalker against
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., remains stayed 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.

On July 2, 2010, Sonia Stalker filed an action against the Company
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, alleging that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups
violates California's Unfair Competition Law and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The complaint, as subsequently
amended, seeks certification of a nationwide class, actual and
punitive damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief,
corrective advertising, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On July
23, 2010, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, and it is
now pending as Sonia Stalker v. Skechers USA, Inc., CV 10-5460 SJO
(JEM).  On August 23, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the action or transfer it to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, in view of the prior pending
action commenced by Tamara Grabowski.  On August 27, 2010,
plaintiff moved to certify the class, which motion the Company has
opposed.

On January 21, 2011, the court stayed the action for the separate
reasons that the Grabowski action was filed first and takes
priority under the first-to-file doctrine and that the outcomes in
pending appeals in two unrelated actions will significantly affect
the outcome of plaintiff's motion for class certification and the
resolution of this action.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or
a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse
result would have a material adverse impact on its results of
operations or financial position, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses, vehemently denies the allegations, believes
that class certification is not warranted and intends to defend
the case vigorously.


SKECHERS USA: Supreme Court Denies Petition in "Tomlinson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s
petition seeking a writ of certiorari relating to the propriety of
remand of the class action lawsuit commenced by Patty Tomlinson,
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 January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against the
Company in Circuit Court in Washington County, Arkansas, Case No.
CV11-121-7.  The complaint alleges, on her behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for
Shape-ups violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
constitutes a breach of certain express and implied warranties,
and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson action").
The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class,
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  On February 18, 2011, the Company removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, and it is now pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-05042 JLH.  On March 16, 2011, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the action or transfer it to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, in
view of prior pending action commenced by Tamara Grabowski. On
March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action back to
Arkansas state court, which motion the Company opposed.  On
May 25, 2011, the court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas
state court and denied the Company's motion to dismiss or transfer
as moot, but has stayed remand pending completion of appellate
review.

On September 2, 2011, the Company filed a petition in the United
States Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari relating to the
propriety of remand, and on November 7, 2011, the Supreme Court
denied the Company's petition.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or
a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse
result would have a material adverse impact on its of operations
or financial position, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses, vehemently denies the allegations, believes that class
certification is not warranted and intends to defend the case
vigorously.


SOUTHERN COPPER: AMC to Appeal Decision in Minera Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Southern Copper Corporation's November 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011, its parent, Americas Mining
Corporation, will appeal a court decision that found that SCC paid
AMC too much stock consideration in SCC's merger transaction with
another AMC subsidiary.

Three purported class action derivative lawsuits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (New Castle County) late in December
2004 and early January 2005 relating to the proposed merger
transaction between the Company and Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
(the "Transaction"), which was completed effective April 1, 2005.
On January 31, 2005, the three actions -- Lemon Bay, LLP v.
Americas Mining Corporation ("AMC"), et al., Civil Action No. 961-
N, Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and Southern
Peru Copper Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 969-N, and James
Sousa v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action
No. 978-N -- were consolidated into one action, captioned.  In re
Southern Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, Consol. Civil Action No. 961-N; the complaint filed by
Lemon Bay was designated as the operative complaint in the
consolidated lawsuit.  The consolidated action purports to be
brought on behalf of the Company and its common stockholders; the
defendants in the consolidated action are AMC, German Larrea Mota-
Velasco, Genaro Larrea Mota-Velasco, Oscar Gonzalez Rocha, Emilio
Carrillo Gamboa, Jaime Fernando Collazo Gonzalez, Xavier Garcia de
Quevedo Topete, Armando Ortega Gomez and Juan Rebolledo Gout
(together, the "AMC Defendants"), Carlos Ruiz Sacristan, Harold S.
Handelsman, Gilberto Perezalonso Cifuentes, and Luis Miguel
Palomino Bonilla (together, the "Special Committee Defendants").

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Transaction was the result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company's directors and was not entirely fair to the Company and
its minority stockholders.  Fact discovery closed in early 2010
and expert discovery closed on June 18, 2010.  On June 30, 2010,
the plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment.  On August 10,
2010, the AMC Defendants and the Special Committee Defendants
filed separate cross-motions for summary judgment.  On
December 21, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion and the
AMC Defendants' cross-motion, but granted the Special Committee
Defendants' motion, dismissing the Special Committee Defendants
from the action.  A four day trial was held on
June 21-24, 2011.  Post-trial argument took place on July 12,
2011.

On October 14, 2011, the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware issued an opinion on a lawsuit challenging the 2005
merger between SCC and Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V., which was a
subsidiary of AMC, the parent company of SCC.  Specifically, the
Court found that SCC paid AMC too much stock consideration in the
transaction.  AMC has indicated that it will appeal the decision.

Southern Copper Corporation -- http://www.southernperu.com/-- is
a copper mining company with principal operations in Peru and
Mexico.  The Company also has an active ongoing exploration
program in Chile and in 2011, it has started exploration
activities in Argentina.  In addition to copper, the Company
produces significant amounts of other metals, either as a by-
product of the copper process or in a number of dedicated mining
facilities in Mexico.


SOUTHERN COPPER: AMC Withdraws Proposed Merger Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation disclosed in its November 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that its parent,
Americas Mining Corporation, had withdrawn the proposed
transaction to combine AMC and the Company.

On July 22, 2010, the Company received a non-binding proposal from
its parent company, Americas Mining Corporation ("AMC"), offering
to effect an all-stock business combination of SCC and AMC, the
parent company of ASARCO LLC ("Asarco"), in which all stockholders
of SCC would receive 1.237 common shares of AMC in exchange for
each share of SCC.  Under the proposal presented by AMC, the stock
of AMC would be registered and listed on the New York, Mexico and
the Lima Stock Exchanges.  In August 2010, the Company formed a
special committee of independent directors to evaluate AMC's
proposal.  On October 28, 2011, AMC announced, in light of recent
discussions with the special committee of independent directors,
that it had withdrawn the proposed transaction to combine AMC and
Southern Copper.

Four purported class action derivative lawsuits have been filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery (Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Retirement System et al. v. SCC et al., Gary Martin et al. v. SCC
et al., Thomas Griffin et al. v. SCC et al., and Sheet Metal
Workers Pension Plan of Northern California et al. v. SCC et al.)
from August 2010 to October 2010 relating to the proposed
combination of the Company with AMC.  The complaints name SCC, its
current and certain former directors, AMC and its
parent, Grupo Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V. ("Grupo Mexico") as
defendants.  Two of the actions also name Asarco as a defendant.
The actions purport to be brought on behalf of the Company's
common stockholders.  A previously reported complaint filed in the
Superior Court of Arizona, City of North Miami Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement Plan et al. v. SCC et al.,
has been voluntarily dismissed.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the proposed
transaction would result in breaches of fiduciary duties by the
defendants and is not entirely fair to the Company and its
minority stockholders.  The complaints seek, among other things, a
preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the transaction,
the award of damages to the plaintiffs and the class, and such
other relief that the court deems equitable, including interest,
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.  On January 25, 2011, the
Oklahoma Firefighters and Sheet Metal Workers plaintiffs filed an
amended and joint motion to consolidate and have Firefighters'
counsel appointed lead counsel.  Plaintiffs also moved to stay the
Martin and Griffin actions.  The Sheet Metal plaintiffs have
withdrawn their prior motion to consolidate in connection with the
new motion.  Oral argument on all plaintiffs' motions and cross-
motions to stay or consolidate and appoint lead counsel is
pending.

The Firefighters' plaintiffs also moved for leave to file an
amended complaint to add or supplement factual allegations
concerning the summary judgment ruling in the Lemon Bay action.
On April 1, 2011, the plaintiffs' motion was granted.

On October 28, 2011, AMC announced that it had withdrawn the
proposed transaction to combine AMC and Southern Copper.

The Company does not believe that the outcome of the purported
class action derivative lawsuits would have a material adverse
effect on its financial position or results of operations.  While
the defendants, including Grupo Mexico and its affiliates, believe
that the claims in the purported class action derivative lawsuits
are without merit, the Company says it cannot assure that these or
future claims, if successful, will not have an adverse effect on
Grupo Mexico, AMC or the Company.

Southern Copper Corporation -- http://www.southernperu.com/-- is
a copper mining company with principal operations in Peru and
Mexico.  The Company also has an active ongoing exploration
program in Chile and in 2011, it has started exploration
activities in Argentina.  In addition to copper, the Company
produces significant amounts of other metals, either as a by-
product of the copper process or in a number of dedicated mining
facilities in Mexico.


STAMPS.COM INC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, Stamps.com Inc. was named, together with certain of its
current and former board members and/or officers, as a defendant
in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
initial public offering and a secondary offering of the Company's
common stock. Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation,
including interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys'
fees).  In October 2009, the court approved a settlement of this
action, which does not require the Company to make any payments.
The court approval has been appealed.

No further 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.


STATE AUTO FINANCIAL: Class Suit in Ohio Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation continues to defend itself from
a putative class action lawsuit filed in Ohio, 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.

In December 2010, a putative class action lawsuit (Kelly vs. State
Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed against
State Auto Financial, State Auto P&C and State Auto Mutual in
state court in Ohio.  In this lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in deceptive
practices by failing to disclose to plaintiffs the availability,
through one or more related companies, of insurance policies
providing for identical coverage and service as those policies
purchased by plaintiffs but at a lower premium amount.  Plaintiffs
are seeking class certification and compensatory and punitive
damages to be determined by the court and restitution and/or
disgorgement of profits derived from plaintiffs and the alleged
class.  The Company believes its practices with respect to
pricing, quoting and selling its insurance policies are in
compliance with all applicable laws, denies any and all liability
to plaintiffs or the alleged class, and intends to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.


SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Class Action in Sacramento Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Smith, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that Sutter
Health is being sued for negligence and other allegations in the
mid-October theft of a computer from Sutter Medical Foundation
headquarters that held information on more than 4 million of its
patients.

The class-action suit, filed on Nov. 21 on behalf of plaintiff
Karen Pardieck of Folsom in Sacramento Superior Court, alleges
that the Sacramento-based health network was negligent in
safeguarding its computers and data and then did not notify the
millions of patients whose data went missing within the time
required by state law.  The suit seeks $1,000 for each member of
the class and attorneys' fees.

The computer was stolen during a break-in through a smashed window
the weekend of Oct. 15.  Employees discovered the theft Oct. 17.
Sutter patients were being notified recently.

"Sutter should've had that under lock and key, not protected by a
pane of glass," attorney Robert Buccola of the Sacramento firm
Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood LLP, which filed the suit, said on
Nov 22.  "If there's proprietary information in their files, they
have a financial interest to make sure security is of the utmost
importance."

Some 3.3 million patients whose providers are supported by Sutter
Physician Services were affected.

Their names, addresses, e-mail addresses, dates of birth,
telephone numbers and names of patients' health insurance plans
dating from 1995 were contained in the computer's database.

The computer contained the same information for 943,000
Sutter Medical Foundation patients.  It also included data on
foundation patients from January 2005 to January 2011, including
descriptions of medical diagnoses or procedures used for business
operations.

Sutter Health officials said the data breach is the largest ever
at the health network.

The data were stored on a password-equipped but unencrypted
desktop computer in the administrative offices of Sutter Medical
Foundation in Natomas.

Sutter officials said they were in the process of encrypting
patient data stored on its desktop computers, but had not yet
protected the stolen computer.  Data on its laptop and mobile
devices were secure.

Reports of missing or stolen patient information are becoming a
more common occurrence.

Over the last two years, health care organizations have reported
364 incidents involving the loss or theft of information ranging
from names and addresses to Social Security numbers and medical
diagnoses on nearly 18 million patients, according to The
Associated Press.

On Nov. 22, Sutter spokesman Bill Gleeson defended the time it
took the health network to notify patients, saying a team had to
first determine what was on the computer.  Sutter also put a
private investigator on the case.

"It took some time. We began a detailed, complicated process of
notifying that number of patients," Mr. Gleeson said.

Mr. Gleeson also said Sutter "deeply regrets the theft," but would
not comment on the lawsuit or on allegations that the health
network had no system to back up the millions of pieces of data
contained in the stolen computer.


UNITED STATES: Keepseagle Class Action Settlement Meetings Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that as part of the claims-filing
process, attorneys appointed by the court will hold meetings
across the country to provide assistance to Native American
farmers and ranchers who wish to file a claim in the $760 million
dollar Keepseagle class action settlement.  The settlement
resolves a lawsuit claiming that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture discriminated against Native Americans in farm loan
application and servicing.  Bartlesville will host one of the
meetings, which will be on December 5-8.  During that time, class
members can get free assistance in filing a claim.  Class members
who have already registered for a claims package will receive a
schedule of meetings.  The complete schedule of claims filing
meetings is also available at http://www.IndianFarmClass.comor by
calling 1-888-233-5506.  Other area meetings will be in Muskogee,
Norman, Stroud, Miami, Pawnee, and Tahlequah.


UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court has given preliminary approval to a
deal settling a consolidated shareholder class action complaint
against Universal Hospital Services Inc., 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 6, 2011, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Sunrise Merger Sub, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Emergent Group, pursuant to which the Company and
Sunrise Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the
issued and outstanding shares of Emergent Group's common stock at
a purchase price of $8.46 per share in cash, followed by a merger
of Sunrise Merger Sub with and into Emergent Group with Emergent
Group surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.  The
Merger was completed on April 1, 2011.

Three putative shareholder class action complaints challenging the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement were filed on
behalf of three separate plaintiffs in the Superior Court of the
State of California in the County of Los Angeles against Emergent
Group, UHS, Sunrise Merger Sub and the individual members of the
Emergent Group Board.  One was filed on February 22, 2011 by Brian
McManus, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
a second was filed on February 28, 2011 by Bryan Lamb,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and the
third was filed on March 2, 2011 by Leena Dave, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated.  Each complaint alleges,
among other things, that the members of the Emergent Group Board
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the public shareholders of
Emergent Group by attempting to sell Emergent Group by means of an
unfair process with preclusive deal protection devices at an
unfair price of $8.46 in cash per share and by entering into the
Merger Agreement, approving the Offer and the proposed Merger,
engaging in self dealing and failing to take steps to maximize the
value of Emergent Group to its public shareholders.  The
complaints further allege that Emergent Group, UHS and Sunrise
Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
In addition, the complaints allege that certain provisions of the
Merger Agreement unduly restricted Emergent Group's ability to
negotiate with rival bidders.  The complaints sought, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants
from consummating the Merger and other forms of equitable relief.

On March 22, 2011, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
lawsuits for all purposes, and renamed the consolidated lawsuits
"In re Emergent Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation".  On March 24,
2011, a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the
consolidated lawsuits was agreed to by the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants.  Following entry of the MOU the parties entered into a
definitive Settlement Agreement, subject to Court approval, that
provided in exchange for the Emergent Group's amendment of its
Schedule 14D-9 to include certain supplemental disclosures
Plaintiffs will seek an order dismissing all actions alleging
claims relating to the Merger and providing a full and final
release in favor of the Defendants and their related parties from
any claims that arose pursuant to or are related to the Offer or
the Merger.  The Defendants have agreed that Emergent Group or its
successor or their respective insurers will pay the Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses as are awarded by the Court not to
exceed $225,000.  At September 30, 2011, the Company has paid
$75,000 and anticipate the remainder of the balance to be paid by
the Company's insurers.  The Court asked for additional
information from the parties during the first preliminary approval
hearing and declined to preliminarily approve the settlement.  The
second motion to obtain preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement was filed on July 15, 2011, and was approved on
September 7, 2011.


WEBMD HEALTH CORP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp. is facing a consolidated class action complaint
in New York, 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 August 2, 2011 and August 26, 2011, federal securities class
action complaints entitled Canson v. WebMD Health Corp., et al.
and Malland v. WebMD Health Corp., et al., respectively, were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011.  The
complaints in the two cases are substantially similar and allege
that the Company and certain of its officers made false and
misleading statements in violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and seek unspecified damages and costs.  On November 7,
2011, the two cases were consolidated under the caption In re
WebMD Health Corp. Securities Litigation and lead plaintiff and
lead counsel were appointed.  A pretrial conference has been
scheduled for November 29, 2011.


* Food Labeling Consumer Class Actions on the Rise in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stoel Rives LLP's Tom Woods, Esq., and Melissa Jones, Esq.,
writing for Natural Resource Report, reports that consumer class
action plaintiffs remain very active in California, with cases
continuing to be filed against food manufacturers and suppliers
regarding alleged misleading labeling and marketing claims.  Just
last week, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Trader
Joe's alleging that it falsely advertised and sold cookies and
apple juice as "All-Natural" even though the products contained
synthetic ingredients.  In the past few months alone, several
other large companies have been sued over allegedly false "All
Natural" claims in lawsuits involving ice cream, juice, granolas,
energy bars, and cereal.  In the same time period, other class
actions have been filed in California regarding the marketing of
products that are made from genetically modified plants and
grains, such as cooking oil.

These actions are most commonly brought under California's unfair
competition law (referred to as the "UCL" or Sec. 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code).  The problem for
companies sued under California's UCL is that it is difficult to
get claims dismissed at an early stage.  Lawsuits frequently
survive the pleading stage because claims are evaluated from a
subjective, and not objective, standard.  Cases are allowed to
proceed even though only one plaintiff establishes standing to sue
by showing they actually relied on a company's statement.
Finally, preemption defenses are frequently inapplicable.

Companies should get proactive in light of this litigation trend,
which isn't going away, and examine their labels to minimize the
risk of litigation.  Those that have been sued should consider
creative ways to address these class actions by developing and
preserving constitutional challenges.  Despite recent California
cases making it easier for plaintiffs to maintain their lawsuits
at an early stage, aggressive discovery may prevent plaintiffs
from certifying the proposed class.


* India's New Companies Bill to Introduce Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Moneylife reports that the Cabinet on Nov. 24 approved the
Companies Bill, 2011, which aims to update corporate laws in India
and introduce modern concepts like mandatory corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and class action suits, reports PTI.

Intended to replace the existing half-a-century-old Companies Act,
the Bill has undergone several modifications in view of the
Rs14,000 crore Satyam accounting fraud.

Following Cabinet clearance, it is now likely to be taken up for
consideration and passage in the ongoing Winter Session of
Parliament.

"Cabinet has cleared the Companies Bill, 2011.  It is likely to be
tabled (for consideration and passage) in the ongoing Winter
Session," a corporate affairs ministry official said.

Besides strengthening the provisions to check fraud, the Bill has
introduced ideas like mandatory CSR, class action suits and a
fixed term for independent directors.

Among other things, it also proposes to tighten laws for raising
money from the public.  The Bill also seeks to prohibit any
insider trading by company directors or key managerial personnel
by treating such activities as a criminal offence.

Further, it has proposed that companies should earmark 2% of their
average profits of the preceding three years for CSR activities
and make a disclosure to shareholders about the policy adopted in
the process.

Welcoming the Cabinet decision, industry body Confederation of
Indian Industry (CII) said that on enactment, the Companies Bill
will be a boon for business, corporates, investors and
stakeholders at large.

"Industry anxiously awaits a new corporate law that would lay
stress on responsible self-regulation.  Needless to say, the new
company law is expected to be more streamlined and facilitative,"
CII director general Chandrajit Banerjee said.

The new law would strengthen the concept of shareholders'
democracy and offer protection of the rights of minority
stakeholders.

The law also proposes to introduce responsible self-regulation
replete with disclosures and accountability.

It will also facilitate the transition of controls currently
exercised by the government over internal corporate processes and
decisions to shareholders.

In addition, the Bill seeks to give more teeth to the Serious
Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) by providing it statutory
recognition and endowing it with more powers.

The Bill, which was originally introduced in the Lok Sabha in
2008, lapsed because of the change of government.  It was
reintroduced in August 2009.


                           *********

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  * * *