CAR_Public/111201.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 238

                             Headlines

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Securities Class Action
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Calif. Consumers Agree to Settle Class Action
AFFINIA GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Suit
AGNICO-EAGLE MINES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
APPLE INC: Judge Certifies Class in Digital Music Antitrust Suit

ARCA BIOPHARMA: To Pay $167K in Defense Costs in Suit vs. Nuvelo
ARTHROCARE CORP: Settles Securities Class Action
AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Class Action Denial in Car Battery Suit Upheld
BERNARD CHAUS: "Braun" Class Suit Remains Pending in New York
BLUEGREEN CORP: Georgia Ct. Dismisses Lawsuit Over Marina Project

BORDERS: Settles Class Action Over WARN Act Violations
CASCADE BANCORP: Final Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Dec. 12
CHINA ADVANCED: Defends Stockholder Class Suits in Delaware
CONVERTED ORGANICS: Reaches Settlement Deal in "Leeseberg" Suit
CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Improper Wage Practices

CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Gets Final Court Nod on Ill. Suit Settlement
DEPO AUTO: Settles Automotive Lighting Products Antitrust Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Store Managers' Suit in Alabama
DOLLAR TREE: Oral Arguments in Suit Dismissal Appeal in January
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California

DOLLAR TREE: Panel to Hear Bid to Consolidate Suits in December
DRUG STORES: Sup. Ct. Won't Hear Class Action Claim v. W.Va AG
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits Still Pending in Calif.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Sees Court Okay of Settlement in Early 2012
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Parties in Merger-related Suits Ink MOA

FACEBOOK: Judge Dismisses Privacy Class Action
FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From Braun IPO Suit Settlement Pending
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Still Defends Suit Over Improper Bank Charges
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Awaits Final Court OK of Class Suit Settlement
FXCM INC: Continues to Defend RICO Class Suit in New York

GREEN BANKSHARES: Considering Mediation in Securities Class Suits
GREEN BANKSHARES: North American-Related Suit Settlement Pending
GULF RESOURCES: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Lewy" Suit
HSBC: Settles Madoff Class Action for $62.5 Million
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces IPO-related Class Suits

INX INC: Defends Class Suit Over Merger Deal With Presidio
JONES FINANCIAL: Unit Reaches Settlement in Lehman-Related Suit
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari Petition
MERCEDES BENZ: Sued in Calif. Over Defective E-Class Vehicles
MICHAEL FOODS: Continues to Defend Egg Products Anti-trust Suit

MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Discovery in "Bussey" Suit Ongoing
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Order on Class Cert. Bid in "Hardy" Suit
NATIONAL SECURITY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Alabama
NATIONAL SECURITY: Hurricane-Related Lawsuits Still Pending
NETFLIX INC: Judge Dismisses Monopoly Class Action

NEVADA PROPERTY: Condominium Suit Opt In Participants Dismiss Case
RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Onko-Sure Suit Proceeding to Discovery
SAFELITE: Former Technician Files Overtime Class Action
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit
SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Deal to Resolve Suits Over Merger

TMX FINANCE: Class Suits vs. Units Remain Pending
UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in N.J.
YTB INTERNATIONAL: 2 Consumer Lawsuits Remain Pending in Illinois





                          *********

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC on Nov. 28 disclosed that the United States
District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of publicly-traded
securities of Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE PUBLICLY-TRADED SECURITIES OF ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(trading symbol nasdaq:ACUR) BETWEEN FEBRUARY 21, 2006, AND APRIL
22, 2010, INCLUSIVE:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, that a hearing will be held on February 16, 2012 at 9:15
a.m., before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall at the Everett
McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn
Street, Courtroom 2319, Chicago, IL 60604, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Class(1) can be certified
for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23; (2) whether the proposed Settlement for the sum of
$1,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (3) whether, after the hearing, this
Action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms
and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement dated
as of October 31, 2011; (4) whether the Plan of Allocation is
fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved; and (5)
whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in this
Action should be approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded common
stock of Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (trading symbol nasdaq:ACUR)
between February 21, 2006, and April 22, 2010, inclusive, or
purchased or otherwise acquired call options on the common stock
of Acura Pharmaceuticals between February 21, 2006, and April 22,
2010, inclusive, or sold or otherwise disposed of put options on
the common stock of Acura Pharmaceuticals between February 21,
2006, and April 22, 2010, inclusive, your rights may be affected
by the Settlement of this Action.  If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement with all Defendants, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Settlement Fairness Hearing and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release, you should obtain copies by writing to In re Acura
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services at P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media,
PA 19063 or by visiting the Web site of the Claims Administrator
at http://www.strategicclaims.net

The Notice contains details about this Action and Settlement,
including what you must do to exclude yourself from the
Settlement, object to the terms of the Settlement, or file a Claim
Form.  If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form and Release postmarked no later than March 19, 2012,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
Request for Exclusion postmarked by February 2, 2012, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above.  All Class Members who have not timely and validly
requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation.  Your objection must be postmarked on or before
February 2, 2012 and mailed to the Court; Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC,
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class; and Counsel for the
Defendants at the following addresses:

COURT:

        Clerk of the Court
        Everett McKinley Dirksen
        United States Courthouse
        219 South Dearborn Street
        Chicago, IL 60604

FOR LEAD PLAINTIFF:

        Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
        KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
        206 Covington Street
        Madisonville, Louisiana 70447
        Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class

FOR DEFENDANTS:

        Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq.
        LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
        233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5800
        Chicago IL 60606
        Counsel for Defendants

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class at the
address listed above.

        DATED: NOVEMBER 28, 2011
        BY ORDER OF THE COURT
        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
        NORTHERN District of ILLINOIS


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Calif. Consumers Agree to Settle Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for California consumers who purchased the recalled
Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) contact lens solution on Nov. 28
disclosed that they have agreed to settle a Court-certified class
action consumer fraud lawsuit against Advanced Medical Optics (now
known as Abbott Medical Optics, "AMO") concerning its sale of the
solution.  The settlement is subject to court approval.  The
lawsuit is styled Lazar vs. Advanced Medical Optics, Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 07CC01296.

In May 2007, AMO recalled Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) after a
report issued by the United States Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention noted an increased statistical risk of developing a
parasitic eye infection called Acanthamoeba keratitis in contact
lens wearers who used the product.

Plaintiffs Nicole Lazar and Cameron Smith filed the lawsuit on
behalf of all California consumers who purchased the product.
Plaintiffs allege that AMO misled consumers into falsely believing
that the product would effectively "disinfect" their contact
lenses when in fact the solution did not disinfect against
Acanthamoeba and other harmful organisms that are known to
contaminate contact lenses.  The plaintiffs sought a refund of the
money that California consumers paid to purchase the product.  AMO
denies Plaintiffs' allegations and claims that Complete(R)
MoisturePlus(TM) met all FDA requirements.

Plaintiffs and AMO reached the settlement after four years of
litigation, several mediation sessions, and just days before trial
was scheduled to start.  The settlement imposes the following
obligations on AMO:

   -- AMO will give a 100% cash refund for every bottle of
Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) that a California consumer bought if
the consumer can document the purchase through a receipt or a
bottle;

   -- If a consumer cannot document his purchase of the product
through a receipt or a bottle but attests to the purchase, AMO
will give the consumer a coupon that is "as good as cash" toward
the purchase of certain other AMO products;

   -- AMO will pay the difference between the total of the cash
refunds paid and $650,000 to Guide Dogs of America and Children's
Vision First;

   -- AMO shall not sell Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM) in
California;

   -- If AMO applies to the FDA during the next three years for
clearance to market a multi-purpose disinfecting solution that
employs a "no-rub" and "no-rinse" regimen, AMO shall request the
FDA's permission to include on the product label specific
cautionary language concerning the disinfecting ability of the
solution.

Eligible consumers can obtain the 100% cash refund or the "good as
cash" coupon by making a claim through the Court-supervised claim
process.

"We believe that this is a fair settlement for all of the
California consumers who purchased Complete(R) MoisturePlus(TM),"
says Plaintiffs' co-lead attorney James A. Quadra of Calvo Fisher
& Jacob, LLP.  Plaintiffs' other co-lead attorney, Ronald T.
Labriola of The Senators (Ret.) Firm, LLP, also noted that
"California law protects consumers from misleading business
practices and this settlement provides California consumers with
the opportunity to obtain a complete refund of the purchase price
of this product."

Complete information about the claim process, a claim form, and
the complete terms of the settlement are available online at
http://www.AMOSETTLEMENT.comand from the Court-appointed co-lead
counsel for the Class, Messrs. Quadra and Labriola, whose
information is below.

Contact:
         Ronald Labriola, Esq.
         The Senators (Ret.) Firm, LLP
         4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 370
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 209-9820

              - or -

         James Quadra, Esq.
         Calvo Fisher & Jacob, LLP
         One Lombard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: 415-374-8370
         E-mail: jquadra@calvofisher.com


AFFINIA GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary continues
to defend against a class action complaint alleging price-fixing
of filters, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed by S&E Quick
Lube Distributors, Inc., of Utah against several auto parts
manufacturers for allegedly conspiring to fix prices for
replacement oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.  Several auto
parts companies are named as defendants, including Champion
Laboratories, Inc., Purolator Filters NA LLC, Honeywell
International Inc., Cummins Filtration Inc., Donaldson Company,
Baldwin Filters Inc., Bosch USA., Mann + Hummel USA Inc.,
ArvinMeritor Inc., United Components Inc. and Wix Filtration Corp
LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries.  The lawsuit is currently
pending as a consolidated Multi-District Litigation ("MDL")
Proceeding in Chicago, Illinois, because of multiple "tag-along"
filings in several jurisdictions.  Two suits have also been filed
in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.  Wix Filtration,
along with other named defendants, has filed various motions to
dismiss plaintiff' complaints, which were denied by the court in
December 2009.  Several defendants, including Wix Filtration,
refiled motions to dismiss based upon plaintiff's most recent
amended complaint.  The court denied those motions in September
2010.  Discovery in the action continues.  In June 2011, the U.S.
Department of Justice indicted the plaintiffs' main witness,
William Burch, for making false statements in connection with the
litigation.  Mr. Burch pleaded guilty, was sentenced to two years
in prison and the parties are now considering the implications.
Three defendants to the action, Baldwin Filters Inc., Cummins
Filtration Inc. and Donaldson Company, have settled the claims
against them for minimal payments.

The Company continues to believe that Wix Filtration did not
engage in any improper conduct and in any event did not have
significant sales in this particular market at the relevant time
periods so the Company does not expect the lawsuit to have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flow.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend this matter.


AGNICO-EAGLE MINES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Nov. 28 disclosed that it has filed a
shareholder class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited between April 29, 2010
and October 19, 2011, inclusive, alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The case is entitled Hastings v.
Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited, C.A. No. 11-CV-8466 (S.D.N.Y.).

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R.
Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919
North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com or at:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/Agnico-Eagle-Mines-Limited-AEM

Agnico-Eagle, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, development, and production of mineral properties in
Canada, Finland, and Mexico.

The Complaint names Agnico-Eagle and certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers as defendants.  The
Complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose material
adverse facts regarding the Company's overall operational and
financial condition that were caused by significant geo-physical
problems in its mining operations and gold production at its
Goldex mine located in Val d'Or, Quebec, Canada.  The Defendants'
failure to disclose these problems during the Class Period
rendered their statements concerning the Company's financial
condition and future prospects materially false and misleading.

On October 19, 2011, the Company announced it was suspending
mining operations and gold production at the Goldex mine,
effective immediately.  The Company's announcement cited the
receipt of an opinion from a second rock mechanics consulting firm
recommending that "underground mining operations be halted until
the situation is investigated further."  The "situation" was water
inflow and ground stability issues within the mine.  As a result,
Agnico-Eagle revealed that it will write off its investment in
Goldex and it is expected that this will total approximately $260
million.


APPLE INC: Judge Certifies Class in Digital Music Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge certified a class of consumers who claim Apple monopolized
digital music and digital music players with their iTunes and iPod
products between 2006 and 2009.

The amended complaint, which cites the Sherman Act as well as
California's Clayton and Cartwright Acts, alleges that consumers
paid too much for iPods as a result of Apple's anticompetitive
conduct.

Specifically, iPod purchasers argued that Apple used iPod software
and firmware updates to prevent consumers from playing music
purchased from non-Apple sources on iPods.

"Apple deliberately makes Online Music purchased at the Music
Store inoperable with its competitor's Digital Music Players,"
according to the amended complaint.  "Apple deliberately makes the
iPod unable to play music sold at rival Online Music stores."

As a result, Apple allegedly created monopolies in the digital
music and portable digital music player markets and inflate the
prices for iPods bought between fall of 2006 and spring of 2009.

Apple had hoped to limit the class to end-user consumers,
excluding resellers, "on the ground that resellers are not
situated similarly to end-users insofar as resellers benefit from
higher retail prices."

U.S. District Judge James Ware rejected that maneuver last week,
saying "plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated class-wide methods
of proving impact and damages."

A 2009 order that found resellers would be properly included in
the class also resolved the reseller issue, Judge Ware added.

Apple also erred in claiming that resellers should be excluded
because they "benefit from higher retail prices," according to the
Nov. 22 ruling.

Judge Ware defended this position by citing the 2008 opinion in
Meijer v. Abbott Laboratories, which held that the price a
retailer charges the end-user has no bearing whether a supplier
has unlawfully overcharged the retailer.

The designated lead plaintiffs, Somtai Troy Charoensak, Mariana
Rosen and Melanie Tucker are represented by:

          Bonny Sweeney, Esq.
          Thomas Merrick, Esq.
          Alexandra Bernay, Esq.
          Carmen Medici, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
                     (800) 449-4900
          E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com
                  tmerrick@rgrdlaw.com
                  xanb@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, No.
05-cv-00037 (N.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/MOzvjp

Apple is represented by:

          Robert Mittelstaedt, Esq.
          Craig Stewart, Esq.
          David Kiernan, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          E-mail: ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com
                  cestewart@jonesday.com
                  dkiernan@jonesday.com


ARCA BIOPHARMA: To Pay $167K in Defense Costs in Suit vs. Nuvelo
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARCA Biopharma, Inc., related in its November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011, that in conjunction with the
recent settlement and dismissal of a purported class action
lawsuit filed in 2007 against Nuvelo Inc. and certain of Nuvelo's
former officers, ARCA separately agreed with its legal counsel to
pay $167,000 of legal defense costs incurred, but only if ARCA
obtains additional funding of at least $10 million in 2011.  If
ARCA does not obtain such additional funding in 2011, ARCA will
have no such payment obligation.

On January 27, 2009, ARCA Colorado completed a merger with Nuvelo
Inc., in which a wholly owned subsidiary of Nuvelo merged with and
into ARCA Colorado, with ARCA Colorado continuing after the Merger
as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Nuvelo.  Immediately following the Merger, the Company changed its
name from Nuvelo, Inc. to ARCA biopharma, Inc.


ARTHROCARE CORP: Settles Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
ArthroCare Corp. on Nov. 28 disclosed that it has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the private securities class
action suits pending against the Company and two of its former
officers.  These suits were previously consolidated into the
action titled In Re ArthroCare Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS (consolidated) in the U.S. District
Court, Western District of Texas.

The settlement, subject to final documentation and court approval,
would settle all claims arising from the purchase or sale of
ArthroCare securities of a class of all purchasers of ArthroCare
common stock [and call options, and sellers of put options on
ArthroCare common stock] between December 11, 2007 and February
18, 2009, inclusive (the Class), except those members of the Class
who opt out, for a payment of $74 million to a settlement fund to
be created for the settlement.  If the settlement is approved,
counsel for the plaintiff will apply for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses from the settlement fund.

                         About Arthrocare

ArthroCare develops and manufactures surgical devices,
instruments, and implants that strive to enhance surgical
techniques as well as improve patient outcomes.


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Class Action Denial in Car Battery Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News Company, reports
that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge did not abuse his
discretion in denying class certification of two lawsuits accusing
the Automobile Club of Southern California of false advertising
and fraud in connection with the sale of replacement car batteries
to stranded motorists.

Div. Three on Nov. 22 granted a request by a non-party, American
Honda Motors, Inc., for publication of the Oct. 26 opinion in the
case, affirming the orders by Judge William F. Highberger.

The case involved two consolidated actions in which plaintiffs
alleged that the auto club falsely advertised that members were
given discounted prices and free labor and installation when they
purchased batteries through a program promoted by the club, and
that members were fraudulently induced to purchase new batteries
they didn't need.

Those practices violated the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and the common law, the plaintiffs alleged.

                         Program Explained

The program was operated through a third party, a subsidiary of
the Australian company Club Assist LLC.  Through contracts with
various AAA clubs, the third party provides trained technicians
who test batteries of cars that will not start.

When called to the scene where a car will not start, the
technician takes a supply of fresh batteries.  If the car's
battery fails conductance tests, the technician may recommend that
the battery be immediately replaced, rather than merely jump-
started.

The company's agreements with the auto clubs provide that while it
can sell batteries to anyone, it will charge AAA members $25 less
than non-members, making the member price somewhere from $105 to
$140, depending on the battery.  The price includes installation,
and the local auto club gets $9 for each battery sold to a member.

Judge Highberger ruled that the class members' claims lacked the
typicality and commonality required for the suits to proceed as
class actions.  He cited evidence that battery replacement was
only recommended 22% of the time, even though the average life
expectancy of a modern car battery is only three to four years.

                          Lack of Evidence

He also pointed out that there was no showing that any of the
named plaintiffs had their batteries unnecessarily replaced, or
that class members were uniformly exposed to the allegedly false
advertising in the Westways magazine sent to AAA members or on the
AAA Web site, or on the invoices, which at least one named
plaintiff did not read, which were not uniform, and which were not
presented to the customers until after they purchased the
batteries.

Justice Walter Croskey, writing for the Court of Appeal, said
Judge Highberger used the correct legal standard.

Justice Croskey distinguished In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46
Cal.4th 298, which held that Proposition 64's limitation of
standing to sue for UCL violations to those actually injured by
the violation does not apply to unnamed class members.  The high
court's ruling on class members' standing, Justice Croskey said,
is irrelevant because the question of commonality differs from
that of standing.

                            Case Cited

He cited Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2009)  78 Cal.App.4th 966, which
held that a suit charging a satellite television provider with
using false advertising to induce subscribers to purchase more
expensive "high definition" services could not proceed as a class
action because members of the proposed nationwide class did not
share a commonality of interests.

This district's Div. Eight held in that case that commonality was
lacking because class members' rights could vary from state to
state and because many subscribers did not rely on the alleged
falsehoods.

There was, Justice Croskey went on to say, substantial evidence
that the plaintiffs' claims did not raise common issues of fact.

With respect to the alleged unnecessary replacement, he noted that
of the four named plaintiffs, two did not allege that their
replaced batteries could still hold a charge, one made such a
claim but presented no evidence that the battery could still
actually start a car, and one alleged that her boyfriend told her
that her old battery was still good, but presented no evidence
that it actually worked.

None of the named plaintiffs, Justice Croskey added, claimed to
have relied on advertising in agreeing to purchase a new battery.

The case is Davis-Miller v. Automobile Club of Southern
California, Inc., 11 S.O.S. 6289.


BERNARD CHAUS: "Braun" Class Suit Remains Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed by Kenneth Braun relating
to a trademark license agreement between Bernard Chaus, Inc., and
Camuto Consulting, Inc., d/b/a Camuto Group remains pending in New
York, according to November 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2011.

On September 29, 2011, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint in connection with a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit relating to a trademark license agreement with Camuto
Consulting, Inc., d/b/a Camuto Group.  The named plaintiff is
Kenneth Braun and the purported class is shareholders of the
Company's Common Stock and their successors in interest, other
than the named defendants, who include current and former officers
and directors of the Company, Camuto and the Company itself.  The
lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
and alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties by
certain current and prior directors of the Company.  The Company
filed for an extension of time to submit its response, and the
plaintiff agreed to an extension.


BLUEGREEN CORP: Georgia Ct. Dismisses Lawsuit Over Marina Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Georgia federal court dismissed a lawsuit against Bluegreen
Corporation relating to a marina project and the time for parties
to appeal has lapsed, the Company disclosed in its November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On September 18, 2008, in Case No. 2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, styled Paul
A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of
Georgia, LLC, and Bluegreen Corporation, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick
Division, the plaintiffs brought suit alleging fraud and
misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at
the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.
The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the fraud and
misrepresentation counts and filed a count alleging violation of
racketeering laws.  On January 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
second complaint seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of more than 100 persons alleged to have
been harmed by the alleged activities in a similar manner.  On
September 2, 2011, the court issued an Order granting Bluegreen's
Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the lawsuit in full.
The time period within which the plaintiffs may appeal the
decision has expired.

Bluegreen Corporation -- http://www.bluegreencorp.com/-- provides
places to live and play through its resorts and residential
community businesses.


BORDERS: Settles Class Action Over WARN Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Publishers Weekly reports that Borders and a group of employees
who had filed a class action suit against the bankrupt chain over
being given insufficient notice before being laid off have reached
a tentative deal.  According to recent filings, both sides filed
motions with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan requesting a
settlement and creating a fund of $240,000.  In the filing,
attorneys for Borders and the class note that "due to the complex
nature of the issues involved, the Parties recognize that the
outcome of the WARN Action is uncertain."  By settling, Borders
seeks to avoid "extensive, costly and uncertain litigation."

The suit began this summer when employees let go in July and
August sued for unpaid wages and benefits, charging that Borders
had violated the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification
(WARN) Act.  Jared Pinsker served as class representative for
approximately 300 employees.

Separately, with its going-out-of business sales largely over,
Borders took in $400,000 in sales in the September 25-October 29
period with other income totaling $3 million.  According to its
monthly operating report for the period, the chain had net assets
in liquidation at the end of the month of $150.8 million and
liabilities of $851.7 million, leaving it with total liabilities
of about $700 million.


CASCADE BANCORP: Final Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Dec. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Idaho court will conduct a final hearing on December 12, 2011,
to consider a settlement resolving a class action complaint
against Cascade Bancorp's subsidiary, according to the Company's
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On August 18, 2010, the Bank of the Cascades was sued in an
asserted class action lawsuit, Russell Firkins & Rena Firkins v.
Bank of the Cascades, Case No. 1:10-cv-414-BLW in the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho.  The lawsuit
alleges that, in 2004, the Bank's predecessor (Farmers and
Merchants Bank), acting as trustee under three similar trust
indentures, inappropriately disbursed the proceeds of three bond
issuances, allegedly resulting years later in the bondholders'
loss of their collective investment of approximately $23.5
million.  Recovery is sought on claims of breach of the
indentures, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.  On November
22, 2010, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice for a lack
of subject matter jurisdiction in federal court.  Following
dismissal of the federal action, the parties reached a stipulated
agreement settling all claims, and such amount is included in
other expenses in the Company's September 30, 2011 condensed
consolidated statement of operations.  The complaint, signed
stipulated agreement, preliminary order and class notice have now
been filed in state court and appropriate notices have been sent
to the bondholders.  A final fairness and approval hearing is set
for December 12, 2011.  If the holders of more than 7.5% of the
face amount of the bonds opt out of the class, the Company can
declare the settlement null and void.  Management does not believe
it is probable that such event will occur.  Upon entry of a final
judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the case, BOTC
will disburse the settlement funds to class counsel.

Bend, Oregon-based Cascade Bancorp through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Bank of the Cascades, offers full-service community
banking through 32 branches in Central Oregon, Southern Oregon,
Portland/Salem Oregon and Boise/Treasure Valley Idaho.  Cascade
Bancorp has no significant assets or operations other than the
Bank.


CHINA ADVANCED: Defends Stockholder Class Suits in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc., is defending
itself against seven stockholder class action lawsuits over a
proposed common stock acquisition offer, the Company disclosed in
its November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

From July 29, 2011 to September 1, 2011, seven class action
complaints against the Company and its Board of Directors were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The
complaints have the following captions: Kinder v. China Advanced
Construction Material Group, Inc., and its Board of Directors et
al., C.A. No. 6729-CS (filed July 29, 2011); McElligott v. China
Advanced Construction Material Group, Inc., and its Board of
Directors et al., C.A. No. 6739-CS (filed August 2, 2011); Elias
v. China Advanced Construction Material Group, Inc., and its Board
of Directors et al., C.A. No. 6754-CS (filed August 5, 2011);
Camitta v. China Advanced Construction Material Group, Inc., and
its Board of Directors et al., C.A. No. 6770-CS (filed August 9,
2011); Jaworski v. China Advanced Construction Material Group,
Inc., and its Board of Directors et al., C.A. No. 6765-CS (filed
August 11, 2011); Bolen v. China Advanced Construction Material
Group, Inc., and its Board of Directors et al., C.A. No. 6811-CS
(filed August 26, 2011); and Mulder v. China Advanced Construction
Material Group, Inc., and its Board of Directors et al., C.A. No.
6830-CS (filed September 1, 2011).  The Stockholder Actions
generally allege that the Company and all of its directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the receipt by
the Company of a preliminary, non-binding offer from Xianfu Han,
the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Weili He,
the Company's Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common
stock not currently owned by them in a going private transaction
at a proposed price of $2.65 per share in cash.  The Stockholder
Actions seek, among other things, to declare that the Proposed
Transaction is unfair, unjust and inequitable, to enjoin the
Company from taking any steps necessary to accomplish or implement
the Proposed Transaction, and damages in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated.

China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc. --
http://www.china-acm.com-- through its subsidiaries, produces and
supplies ready mix concrete materials and related technical
services for large scale, high-speed rail, and other complex
infrastructure projects primarily in the People's Republic of
China.  The Company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in
Beijing, China.


CONVERTED ORGANICS: Reaches Settlement Deal in "Leeseberg" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Converted Organics, Inc., has negotiated a settlement agreement
resolving a class action complaint over an alleged failure to
register certain securities, according to the Company's
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On December 11, 2008, the Company received notice that a complaint
had been filed in a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of 59
persons or entities that purchased units pursuant to a financing
terms agreement, or FTA, dated April 11, 2006, captioned Gerald S.
Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The lawsuit alleges
breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith in connection with the alleged
failure to register certain securities issued in the FTA, and the
redemption of the Company's Class A warrants in November 2008.
The lawsuit seeks damages related to the failure to register
certain securities, including alleged late fee payments, of
approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified damages related to
the redemption of the Class A warrants.  In February 2009, the
Company filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Complaint.  On
October 7, 2009, the Court concluded that Leeseberg has properly
stated a claim for actual damages resulting from the Company's
alleged breach of contract, but that Leeseberg has failed to state
claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith, and the Court dismissed such claims. On
November 6, 2009, the Company filed its answer to the Complaint
with the Court.  On March 4, 2010, the parties participated in a
conference, and began discussing discovery issues.  Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Class Certification on June 22, 2010, which was
denied on November 22, 2010.  On March 3, 2011, the court denied
the Company's motion for partial summary judgment.  On March 25,
2011, some individual investors filed a new complaint against the
Company asserting similar claims to those in the Leeseberg
litigation.  The Court consolidated this case with the existing
lawsuit and, on May 12, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint.  On June 6, 2011, the Company filed its answer to
consolidated complaint and counter claims against Plaintiffs.  The
Parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations and have
reached a settlement agreement.  It is anticipated that the
settlement will be funded by the insurance provider and,
accordingly, no loss has been recorded related to these matters.

Related to the lawsuit mentioned, in December 2009, the Company
filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Massachusetts for the
County of Suffolk, captioned Converted Organics Inc. v. Holland &
Knight LLP.  The Company claims that in the event it is required
to pay any monies to Mr. Leeseberg and his proposed class in the
matter of Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc.,
that Holland & Knight should make the Company whole, because its
handling of the registration of the securities at issue in the
Leeseberg lawsuit caused any loss that Mr. Leeseberg and other
putative class members claim to have suffered.  Holland & Knight
has not yet responded to the complaint.  Holland and Knight has
threatened to bring counterclaims against Converted Organics for
legal fees allegedly owed, which the Company would contest
vigorously.  On May 12, 2010, the Superior Court stayed the
proceedings, pending resolution of the Leeseberg litigation. At
this early stage in the case, the Company is unable to predict the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or estimate any related
loss.

Boston, Mass.-based Converted Organics Inc. utilizes innovative
clean technologies to establish and operate environmentally
friendly businesses.  Converted Organics currently operates in
three business areas: Organic Fertilizer, Industrial Wastewater
Treatment, and Vertical Farming.


CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Improper Wage Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberDefender Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
by a former employee over alleged improper wage practices,
according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

On October 27, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
by a former employee against the Company and TriNet Employer
Group, Inc., which formerly handled payroll, benefits and certain
human resources matters for the Company, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

The former employee, on behalf of herself and the members of the
alleged class, has asserted claims based upon alleged: failure to
pay statutorily mandated wages; failure to pay reporting time
wages; failure to provide adequate meal and rest periods or proper
compensation in lieu thereof; failure to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements; failure to keep accurate payroll records; waiting
time penalties; and unlawful unfair and fraudulent activity.  The
former employee seeks unspecified restitution, damages, penalties
and other relief.

The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend it.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, CyberDefender
Corporation -- http://cyberdefender.com/-- provides Internet
security software, utilities and Live PC Support services that
work together to ensure maximum safety for consumers in a digital
world. CyberDefender develops and markets antispyware/antivirus
software and remote, live tech support services. In addition,
CyberDefender offers identity protection and computer optimization
services.


CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Gets Final Court Nod on Ill. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois court granted final approval of a settlement agreement
resolving a breach of contract class action lawsuit against
CyberDefender Corporation, according to the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A class action complaint was filed against the Company in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on May 6, 2011.
The claims are based upon: breach of express warranties;
violations of California's unfair competition, false advertising,
and consumer protection laws; breach of contract; breach of
implied warranties; and unjust enrichment.  The complaint sought
unspecified damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, the
payment of plaintiffs' reasonable litigation expenses and
attorneys' fees, and interest.

The Company and the attorneys for the plaintiffs entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement of the class action, which was filed
with the court on May 6, 2011.  The Stipulation received final
approval by the court on September 13, 2011.  The Stipulation
provides for a claims administration process pursuant to which
purchasers of the Company's products and services may apply for a
payment of $10, subject to certain conditions.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, CyberDefender
Corporation -- http://cyberdefender.com/-- provides Internet
security software, utilities and Live PC Support services that
work together to ensure maximum safety for consumers in a digital
world. CyberDefender develops and markets antispyware/antivirus
software and remote, live tech support services. In addition,
CyberDefender offers identity protection and computer optimization
services.


DEPO AUTO: Settles Automotive Lighting Products Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Hausfeld LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP on Nov. 28 issued a
statement regarding the Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products
Antitrust Litigation.

If you purchased certain Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products
("AALPs") directly from any of the below companies between
July 29, 2001 and February 10, 2009, your legal rights may be
affected by a Class Action Lawsuit and you may be entitled to a
cash payment.

DEPO AUTO PARTS INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD
MAXZONE VEHICLE LIGHTING CORP.
SABRY LEE (U.S.A.), INC.
SABRY LEE LTD.
TYC BROTHER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
GENERA CORP.
EAGLE EYES TRAFFIC INDUSTRIAL CO. INC.
E-LITE AUTOMOTIVE INC.

What is this lawsuit about?

Plaintiffs claim that during the Class Period, Defendants violated
the United States federal antitrust laws by agreeing to fix prices
on certain AALPs sold by Defendants, including headlamps and
bulbs, parking, tail and interior lights, spot lights, fog lights
and auxiliary lights, and excluding certain product numbers which
are listed in detail on the Settlement Web site,
http://www.AftermarketAutolightsSettlement.com

Defendants have denied all claims alleged by Plaintiffs, as well
as all charges of wrongdoing or liability.  The Court has not
decided in favor of either Party.

Proposed Settlements have been reached with Depo and Maxzone for
$25 million and the Sabry Lee Defendants for $450,000.00.  This
amount, after deduction of cost and fees, will be distributed to
the Class on a pro-rata basis depending on how much you spent on
AALPs from July 29, 2001 to February 10, 2009.  Settling
Defendants have also agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of the
claims against the remaining Defendants on behalf of the Class.

What are my options?

Remain in the Class and Submit a Claim: If you remain in the
Class, you may be eligible to share in the Settlement Fund, but
must complete and submit a timely claim form postmarked no later
than January 6, 2012 to Aftermarket Autolights Settlement, c/o
GCG, Inc., P.O. Box 91088, Seattle, WA 98111-9188.  By doing so,
you will also be bound by the outcome of the litigation as to the
non-Settling Defendants. Claim forms can be obtained from the
Settlement Web site at
http://www.AftermarketAutolightsSettlement.com

Exclude Yourself from the Class: If you want to exclude yourself
from the Settlement and from the lawsuit, you must submit a timely
written request for exclusion, postmarked by January 6, 2012 to
the above listed address.  If you choose to exclude yourself, you
will not be bound by the Settlements if approved, will not be
eligible to submit a claim or receive any money from the
Settlement Fund, and you will not be a part of or bound by the
continued proceedings in the lawsuit.  By excluding yourself,
however, you will keep your right to sue the Defendants.

Object or Comment on the Settlements: You may object to or comment
on any aspect of the Settlements.  Written objections to the
Settlements must be mailed to GCG at the above address, Class
Counsel, and Counsel for the Settling Defendants, and must be
received no later than January 6, 2012.  Objecting does not
exclude you from the Settlements.  You may request to speak at the
Final Approval Hearing set for February 23, 2012.  You may also
choose to appear at the Hearing through your own attorney at your
own expense.  Further information is found on the Settlement
Web site.

Class Counsel: The Court appointed Jason S. Hartley of Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Michael P. Lehmann of Hausfeld LLP and Jay L. Himes of
Labaton Sucharow LLP  as Class Counsel to represent you and other
Class Members.  Class Counsel will apply to the Court for payment
of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund.  The
motion(s) by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and costs and
incentive awards for the Class Representatives will be available
for viewing on the Settlement Web site,
http://www.AftermarketAutolightsSettlement.comon December 16,
2011.

The Court will hold the Final Approval Hearing at 8:30 am on
February 23, 2012, at the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles,
CA 90012.  At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the
Settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate.  The Court will
take into consideration any written objections filed in accordance
with the instructions in the Settlement Notice and decide whether
to approve payment of fees and expenses to Class Counsel.

This is only a summary.  For detailed information or to view the
full Settlement Notice and Settlement Agreements visit the
Web site at http://www.AftermarketAutolightsSettlement.comcall
888-404-8013, or write Aftermarket Autolights Settlement, c/o GCG,
Inc., P.O. Box 91088, Seattle, WA 98111-9188.

Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
additional information about the Settlements.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Store Managers' Suit in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., continues to defend a collective action
commenced on behalf of store managers in Alabama, according to the
Company's November 17, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2011.

In 2006, a former store manager filed a collective action against
the Company in Alabama federal court.  She claims that she and
other store managers should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and received overtime
compensation.  The Court preliminarily allowed nationwide (except
California) certification.  At present, approximately 265
individuals are included in the collective action.  The Company's
motion to decertify the collective action has been dismissed
without prejudice to refile at a later date. The Company has filed
a motion relating to discovery issues which awaits the Court's
decision.  Once decided, the Court indicated it will hold a status
conference to determine how the case moves forward procedurally.
There is no scheduled trial date.

The Company will vigorously defend the matter.  The Company does
not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business
or financial condition.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com/--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
Its stores offer consumable merchandise, including candy and food,
and health and beauty care, as well as household consumables, such
as paper, plastics, household chemicals, in select stores, and
frozen and refrigerated food; variety merchandise, which includes
toys, durable housewares, gifts, party goods, greeting cards,
softlines, and other items; and seasonal goods.  The company was
founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Oral Arguments in Suit Dismissal Appeal in January
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments relating to an appeal challenging the dismissal of
a gender pay lawsuit in Virginia against Dollar Tree, Inc., are
set for January 2012, according to the Company's November 17,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In 2008, the Company was sued under the Equal Pay Act in Alabama
federal court by two female store managers alleging that they and
other female store managers were paid less than male store
managers.  On March 31, 2011 the Court granted in part the
Company's motion to decertify the class finding that plaintiffs
could not maintain a nationwide collective action against the
Company.  Instead, only those plaintiffs, four in number, who were
employed by Dollar Tree in the district where the court is
located, were permitted to proceed with the case.  The claims of
those four plaintiffs have been settled with Court approval for an
immaterial amount.

In October 2009, 34 plaintiffs, most of whom were opt-in
plaintiffs in the Alabama action, filed a class action Complaint
in a federal court in Virginia, alleging gender pay and promotion
discrimination under Title VII.  On March 11, 2010, the case was
dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The appeal has been
fully briefed by the parties and oral arguments are scheduled in
January.

The Company will vigorously defend the matter.  The Company does
not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business
or financial condition.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
Its stores offer consumable merchandise, including candy and food,
and health and beauty care, as well as household consumables, such
as paper, plastics, household chemicals, in select stores, and
frozen and refrigerated food; variety merchandise, which includes
toys, durable housewares, gifts, party goods, greeting cards,
softlines, and other items; and seasonal goods.  The company was
founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage-and-
hour lawsuit in California, according to the Company's
November 17, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In April 2011, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, instituted a class action in
a California state court primarily alleging a failure by the
Company to provide meal breaks, to compensate for all hours
worked, and to pay overtime compensation.  The Company removed the
case to federal court which denied Plaintiffs' motion for remand
of the case to state court.  The case presently awaits a
scheduling order.  This is no trial date.

The Company will vigorously defend the matter.  The Company does
not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business
or financial condition.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
Its stores offer consumable merchandise, including candy and food,
and health and beauty care, as well as household consumables, such
as paper, plastics, household chemicals, in select stores, and
frozen and refrigerated food; variety merchandise, which includes
toys, durable housewares, gifts, party goods, greeting cards,
softlines, and other items; and seasonal goods.  The company was
founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Panel to Hear Bid to Consolidate Suits in December
---------------------------------------------------------------
A multidistrict litigation panel is set to consider a motion to
consolidate four lawsuits against Dollar Tree, Inc., in a Florida
federal court next month, according to the Company's November 17,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In July and September 2011, lawsuits were filed against the
Company in four federal courts by four different assistant store
managers, each alleging forced off the clock work in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state law.  The suits
are in Georgia, Colorado, Florida, and Texas.  The Texas suit has
been settled, pending court approval, for an immaterial amount to
be paid in the fourth quarter.  The Georgia suit seeks state wide
class certification for those assistant managers similarly
situated during the relevant time periods and the Florida and
Colorado cases seek nationwide certifications for those assistant
store managers similarly situated during the relevant time
periods.  The same law firm represents the plaintiff in each of
the cases.  The Company has commenced its investigation of the
allegations and has filed motions to dismiss and motions to
transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia in all
remaining cases.  No hearing dates on these motions have been
scheduled to date.  The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to
consolidate all these and other related cases with the Federal
Court Multi-District Litigation Panel.  This motion seeks to have
all assistant store manager off-the-clock cases consolidated and
transferred to the Southern District of Florida Miami Division
under the purview of a single plaintiff assistant store manager
off-the-clock case that has been stayed in that division.  A
hearing on this motion is scheduled before the Panel in December.

The Company will vigorously defend the matter.  The Company does
not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business
or financial condition.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
Its stores offer consumable merchandise, including candy and food,
and health and beauty care, as well as household consumables, such
as paper, plastics, household chemicals, in select stores, and
frozen and refrigerated food; variety merchandise, which includes
toys, durable housewares, gifts, party goods, greeting cards,
softlines, and other items; and seasonal goods.  The company was
founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DRUG STORES: Sup. Ct. Won't Hear Class Action Claim v. W.Va AG
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of a group of drug stores
that claimed West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw had
filed a class action lawsuit against it.

The court denied the drug stores' petition on Nov. 28, letting
stand a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit that said Mr. McGraw's lawsuit should be heard in a state
court.  The companies said it was essentially a class action and
should've been heard in federal court.

The case alleges six drug stores -- Wal-Mart, CVS, Kmart, Kroger,
Target and Walgreen -- did not pass savings on generic drugs to
consumers.

"Indeed, the West Virginia Attorney General's role here is more
analogous to the role of the EEOC or other regulator when it
brings an action on behalf of a large group of employees or a
segment of the public," says the Fourth Circuit's 2-1 judgment,
filed in August.  "Yet, the Supreme Court has concluded that such
a regulator's action is not a class action of the kind defined in
Rule 23."

After the judgment, the drug stores unsuccessfully asked for a
rehearing of the case before all of the Fourth Circuit judges.
The Fourth Circuit then chose, by a 2-1 vote of the same three
judges who heard the case, not to issue a stay of its decision,
allowing the case to proceed in Boone County Circuit Court.  A
petition for a full rehearing of that ruling was also denied.

Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented in the judgment and was the only
member of the three-judge panel to vote for a stay.  Even though
the action was brought under state statutes, it doesn't take away
the "essence" of the case, he wrote in his dissent.

"(T)he elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and
adequacy of representation have not been specifically pleaded,"
Gilman wrote.  "But I submit that these are subsidiary factors
that do not detract from the essence of the action.

"They are, in other words, 'bells and whistles' whose absence in
the pleadings do not prevent the Attorney General's suit from
being considered a class action under CAFA."

Judge Gilman wrote that similar lawsuits filed by Mr. McGraw's
outside counsel in other states are undisputed class actions.

Mr. McGraw hired two private firms -- Bailey & Glasser and
DiTrapano Barrett & DiPiero -- for the case.  The two firms have
contributed more than $60,000 to McGraw's campaign fund over the
years, including $11,800 for his 2008 race against Republican Dan
Greear.

Bailey & Glasser brought similar lawsuits in Michigan and
Minnesota.  The Michigan suits were dismissed by a state judge
because the only specific pricing information was obtained by a
West Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger.

The Minnesota lawsuit, brought on behalf of unions that provide
health care for their members, was initially dismissed in November
2009 by former U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum, who had harsh
words for the plaintiffs attorneys.

Judge Rosenbaum was peeved that the complaint, filed against 13
defendants, only contained specific pricing information about two
of them.

"(T)his Complaint utterly fails to state a cause of action on any
basis.  There are no, none, factual allegations touching any
defendant other than CVS and Walgreen's," Judge Rosenbaum said
Nov. 20, 2009.

"There being no facts from which a fact finder could infer any
liability concerning (the other defendants), and you asked me to
sustain a complaint based upon that.  It's not only laughable,
it's absolutely reprehensible."

A federal magistrate judge has recommended that the lawsuit will
be remanded to a Minnesota court.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits Still Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corporation continues to defend class
action lawsuits in California alleging violations of wage and hour
laws, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been
filed against the Company's subsidiary, American Medical Response,
Inc., and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations
of California wage and hour laws.  On April 16, 2008, Lori Bartoni
commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed
suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
The Banta and Karapetian cases have been coordinated with the
Bartoni case in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Alameda.  At the present time, courts have not certified
classes in any of these cases.  Plaintiffs allege principally that
the AMR entities failed to pay overtime charges pursuant to
California law, and failed to provide required meal breaks or pay
premium compensation for missed meal breaks.  Plaintiffs are
seeking to certify the classes and are seeking lost wages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted
under California law for violations of wage hour laws.  The
Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of potential
damages, if any.

No further updates were reported in the latest SEC filing.

Founded in 2005, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (EMSC) --
http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical
services in the United States.  It operates two business segments
-- American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), the Company's healthcare
transportation services segment, and EmCare Holdings Inc.
(EmCare), the Company's facility-based physician services segment.
The Company is a provider of ambulance services.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Sees Court Okay of Settlement in Early 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corporation has negotiated a tentative
settlement agreement to resolve class action lawsuits relating to
its merger agreement with a subsidiary of CDRT Acquisition
Corporation, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Eleven purported shareholder class actions relating to the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement have been filed
in state court in Delaware and federal and state courts in
Colorado against various combinations of the Company, the members
of the Company's board of directors, and other parties.  Seven
actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery beginning on
February 22, 2011, which were consolidated into one action
entitled In re Emergency Medical Services Corporation Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6248-VCS.  On April 4, 2011, the
Delaware plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action
complaint.  Two actions, entitled Scott A. Halliday v. Emergency
Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 2011CV316 (filed on
February 15, 2011), and Alma C. Howell v. William Sanger, et. al.,
Case No. 2011CV488 (filed on March 1, 2011), were filed in the
District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado.  Two other actions,
entitled Michael Wooten v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation,
et al., Case No. 11-CV-00412 (filed on February 17, 2011), and
Neal Greenberg v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et. al.,
Case No. 11-CV-00496 (filed on February 28, 2011), were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and have been
consolidated.  These actions generally allege that the directors
of the Company, Onex Corporation and/or Onex Corporation's
subsidiaries breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things: approving the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, which allegedly were financially unfair to the Company
and its public stockholders; agreeing to provisions in the Merger
Agreement that would allegedly prevent the board from considering
other offers; permitting the unitholders agreement (which secured
the majority votes in favor of the Merger) and failing to require
a provision in the Merger Agreement requiring that a majority of
the public stockholders approve the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement; and/or making allegedly materially
inadequate disclosures.  These actions further allege that certain
other defendants aided and abetted these breaches.  In addition,
the two actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado contain individual claims brought under Section 14(a)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, pertaining to the purported dissemination of allegedly
misleading proxy materials.  These actions seek unspecified
damages and equitable relief.  The Company has reached an
agreement in principle to resolve these suits, and believes that
resolution will be approved by the Courts in early 2012.

Founded in 2005, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (EMSC) --
http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical
services in the United States.  It operates two business segments
-- American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), the Company's healthcare
transportation services segment, and EmCare Holdings Inc.
(EmCare), the Company's facility-based physician services segment.
The Company is a provider of ambulance services.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Parties in Merger-related Suits Ink MOA
--------------------------------------------------------
Parties in several class action lawsuits challenging Express
Scripts, Inc.'s merger with Medco Health Solutions, Inc., entered
into a memorandum of agreement settling the litigation, according
to the Company's November 18, 2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 20, 2011, Express Scripts, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Express Scripts"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement"), as amended on November 7, 2011, with
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Medco"),
Aristotle Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Express Scripts ("Aristotle Holding"), Aristotle
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Aristotle Holding, and Plato Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Aristotle
Holding.

Since the announcement by the parties that they had entered into
the merger agreement on July 21, 2011, 22 lawsuits have been filed
by purported stockholders of Medco challenging the mergers.  The
complaints in the actions name as defendants Medco and/or various
members of the Medco board as well as Express Scripts, New Express
Scripts and the Merger Subs.

The plaintiffs in the purported class action complaints generally
allege, among other things, that (i) the members of the Medco
board breached their fiduciary duties to Medco and its
stockholders by authorizing the mergers and (ii) Express Scripts,
New Express Scripts and the Merger Subs aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Medco and its directors.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants
from consummating the mergers on the agreed-upon terms, and
unspecified compensatory damages, together with the costs and
disbursements of the action.

Among other things, the complaints allege that the price and
process leading up to the mergers was unfair.  In particular,
plaintiffs allege that:

   * The terms of the mergers are not the result of an auction
     process or active market check, and were arrived at without a
     full and thorough investigation of strategic alternatives;

   * The price of the Medco merger consideration is inadequate and
     undervalues Medco and its future growth prospects;

   * David B. Snow, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
     Officer of Medco, and other senior Medco executives cannot
     evaluate the proposed mergers impartially because they stand
     to receive change in control payments upon consummation of
     the mergers; and

   * The merger agreement contains preclusive deal protection
     devices that restrain Medco's ability to solicit or engage in
     negotiations with third parties regarding a proposal to
     acquire all or a significant interest in Medco, as well as a
     termination fee that deters potential bidders from coming
     forward.

Following the filing of the Form S-4 relating to the mergers on
October 6, 2011, several plaintiffs amended their complaints to
include allegations that disclosures made in the Form S-4 failed
to disclose all material facts about the process leading up to the
mergers.

                  Delaware Court of Chancery

As of November 15, 2011, 10 complaints have been filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned as follows:
Chevedden v. Snow, et al., C.A. No. 6694-CS; Colanino v. Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6708-CS; Knisley v. Snow,
et al., C.A. No. 6710-CS; Heimowitz v. Medco Health Solutions,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6711-CS; Waber v. Medco Health Solutions,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6716-CS; U.F.C.W. Local 1776 &
Participating Emp. Pension Fund v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 6720-CS; Westchester Putnman Counties Heavy &
Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds v. Medco Health Solutions,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6723-CS; Labourers' Pension Fund of Cent. &
E. Cana. v. Snow, et al., C.A. No. 6725-CS; Johnson v. Medco
Health Solutzions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6726-CS; and Schoenwald
v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6727-CS.
Defendants filed answers to all of the complaints in these
actions, and requests for discovery have been served by plaintiffs
in the Chevedden, Heimowitz, U.F.C.W., and Schoenwald actions.

On August 9, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the
10 actions pending before the Court as In re Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol., C.A. No.
6720-CS.

On August 23, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
order certifying a class of Medco stockholders consisting of all
record holders and beneficial owners of Medco common stock,
together with their successors and assigns, during the period
commencing on the date on which the Medco board approved the Medco
merger, and ending at the effective time of the Medco merger.  The
Court of Chancery appointed plaintiffs Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada, Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy &
Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Fund and U.F.C.W. Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Pension Fund as co-lead plaintiffs and
class representatives, the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP as co-lead counsel for the
class, the law firm of Bouchard Margules & Friedlander, P.A. as
liaison counsel for the class, and the law firms of Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP, Harwood Feffer LLP, Federman & Sherwood, Saxena
White P.A., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Faruqi &
Faruqi LLP and Fish & Richardson, P.C. as members of the
plaintiffs' executive committee.

On October 14, 2011, Express Scripts filed a Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings in the Delaware action.  On October 21, 2011,
Plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion for preliminary
injunction.  On October 27, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery
entered a Stipulated Order of Case Management and set a
preliminary injunction hearing.  On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs
informed the Court of Chancery that the parties had reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Delaware action and District
Court actions, and requested that the Court of Chancery stay all
proceedings pending settlement proceedings.

                  New Jersey Federal District Court

As of November 15, 2011, seven complaints have been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
captioned as follows: Nadoff v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et
al., No. 2:11-cv-04248-WJM-MF; Louisiana Mun. Police Emps.' Ret.
Sys. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-04211-
DMC-MF; Puerto Rico Gov't Emps. & Judiciary Ret. Sys. Admin. v.
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-04259-DMC-MF;
Sollins v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-
04307-DMC-MF; United Food & Commercial Workers Local 23 & Emp'rs
Pension Fund v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-
04328-DMC-MF; Oppenheim Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v. Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-04322-DMC-MF; and
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund v. Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-04412-DMC-MF.

On August 1, 2011, plaintiff in the Louisiana Mun. Police Emps.'
Ret. Sys. action filed an application for expedited discovery, and
on August 3, 2011, Magistrate Judge Falk held a teleconference
with the parties regarding the application for expedited
discovery.  On August 5, 2011, plaintiff in the Louisiana Mun.
Police Emps.' Ret. Sys. action filed an Amended Complaint, which
contains substantially the same allegations as plaintiff's
original complaint.

On August 8, 2011, defendants filed in the Louisiana Mun. Police
Emps.' Ret. Sys. action a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a Motion to
Stay in favor of the Delaware Action, and an opposition to
plaintiff's application for expedited discovery.  Express Scripts
also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

On August 17, 2011, the District Court consolidated the actions
pending before it as In re: Medco/Express Scripts Merger
Litigation, No. 11-4211 (DMC)(MF), and appointed Carrela, Byrne,
Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello; Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.; and
Bernstein Litiowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as Interim Lead Counsel,
and Motley Rice LLC; Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross; Brower
Piven, A Professional Corporation; and Barrack, Rodos & Bacine as
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee.  The Company refers to this
action as the district court action.

On August 18, 2011, plaintiffs in the district court action filed
a motion for class certification, seeking certification of the
same class of Medco stockholders that has since been certified by
the Court of Chancery in the Delaware action.  Defendants filed
their answering brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion on
September 6, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on
September 13, 2011.

On September 19, 2011, the District Court issued an order denying
defendants' Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and Motion to Stay in favor of the
Delaware Action.  On September 23, 2011, Express Scripts filed a
Motion to Certify the District Court's September 19, 2011 order
for interlocutory appeal, and a motion to stay proceedings pending
appeal.

On October 25, 2011, the District Court entered an order
certifying its September 19, 2011 order and opinion for
interlocutory appeal, and denying Express Scripts' request for a
stay pending appeal.  On October 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an
Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction requesting that the
District Court schedule a preliminary injunction hearing.

On October 31, 2011, Express Scripts filed with the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals a Petition to Appeal under Section 1292(b) of
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, a Motion to Stay proceedings in the
District Court pending appeal, and a Motion to Expedite the
Petition and the Motion to Stay.  On November 4, 2011, Plaintiffs
filed in the Third Circuit their opposition to Express Scripts'
Petition and motions, and on November 7, 2011 Express Scripts
filed its reply in the Third Circuit to Plaintiffs' opposition.
On November 7, 2011, Plaintiffs informed the District Court that
the parties had reached an agreement in principle to settle the
District Court and other actions, and requested the District Court
stay all proceedings in the action other than settlement
proceedings.

On November 8, 2011, Express Scripts informed the Third Circuit
that the parties had reached an agreement in principle to settle
the District Court and other actions, and requested the Third
Circuit stay consideration of Express Scripts' Petition and
Motions pending settlement proceedings.  On November 9, 2011, the
Third Circuit issued an order granting Express Scripts' Motion
requesting that the Court stay its review of Express Scripts'
Motion to Stay Pending Appeal pending the parties' execution of a
stipulation of settlement, and stay its review of Express Scripts'
Petition for Permission to Appeal pending approval of the
settlement.  The Third Circuit also ordered the parties to provide
the Court with status reports regarding the settlement beginning
ten days from the date of the Order, and continuing every ten days
thereafter.

                  Superior Court of New Jersey

As of November 15, 2011, five complaints have been filed in the
Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, captioned as follows:
Levinson v. Snow, et al., No. C-215-11; Kramer v. Snow, et al.,
No. C-217-11; Snider v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al., No.
C-220-11; Prongay v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al., No. C-
232-11; and Lasker v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al., No. C-
246-11.

On July 27, 2011, plaintiffs in the Levinson and Kramer actions
filed a Motion for Consolidation of Related Cases and Appointment
of Interim Class Counsel.

On August 10, 2011, plaintiffs in the Levinson and Kramer actions
filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings.  On August 11, 2011,
Express Scripts filed in the Levinson and Kramer actions an
Opposition to plaintiff's Motion for Consolidation of Related
Cases and Appointment of Lead Counsel and a Cross-Motion to
Dismiss or Stay the Action in Favor of the Delaware action.

On August 26, 2011, the Court entered a stipulated order staying
all of the Superior Court actions in favor of the Delaware action.

                     Memorandum of Understanding

The complaints in the actions name as defendants Medco and/or
various members of the Medco board as well as Express Scripts, New
Express Scripts and the Merger Subs.  Medco and Express Scripts
continue to deny that they engaged in any of the wrongdoing
alleged in the complaints; however, to avoid the risk that the
litigation might delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the mergers and to minimize the expense of
defending those actions, on November 7, 2011, Express Scripts and
Medco entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs
to settle the stockholder litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and the Delaware
Court of Chancery regarding the proposed mergers.  Pursuant to the
memorandum of understanding, Express Scripts and Medco entered
into the first amendment to the merger agreement and agreed to
hold the special meetings of their stockholders to vote on the
proposed mergers on that date or dates as determined by Medco and
Express Scripts, but in no event prior to December 21, 2011.
Express Scripts and Medco also agreed to include certain
additional disclosures concerning the merger agreement and the
mergers, which the Company refers to as the supplemental
disclosures, in the joint proxy statement/prospectus.  Subject to
completion of confirmatory discovery on the supplemental
disclosures by counsel to the plaintiffs, the memorandum of
understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Medco's shareholders.  In the event that the
parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey will consider the fairness, reasonableness,
and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement is approved by
the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions
that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
mergers, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Delaware law).  In addition, in connection with the settlement,
the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a
petition in the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
to be paid by Medco or its successor.  Medco or its successor will
pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded
by the court.  However, final court approval of the settlement is
not contingent on an agreement for attorneys' fees and expenses.
The settlement will not affect the merger consideration.  There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into the stipulation.
In that event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


FACEBOOK: Judge Dismisses Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that handing Facebook
and Zynga a victory, a federal judge has dismissed class-action
lawsuits accusing them of "leaking" users' personal information to
advertisers.  The dismissal was with prejudice, which means that
the case can't be refiled.

U.S. District Court Judge James Ware in San Jose, Calif. ruled
that consumers couldn't proceed with their claims because they
couldn't show that they had been harmed by any disclosures.
"Nominal damages and speculative harm to not suffice to show
legally cognizable damage," Judge Ware wrote.

Facebook and gaming company Zynga were accused of breaking
promises in their privacy policies by inadvertently passing along
users' names to advertisers through the referrer headers.  Those
headers -- the URLs transmitted by publishers when users click on
ads -- allegedly included users' Facebook IDs.

Internet pioneer Tim Berners-Lee warned back in 1999 that referrer
headers could leak information about Web users.  But lawsuits
about referrer headers didn't reach the courts until late last
year, shortly after reports about the issue surfaced in the press.
A similar lawsuit against LinkedIn was dismissed earlier this
month.  U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose ruled that
the user hadn't spelled out how he was injured by the alleged data
leakage.

Consumers suing Facebook and Zynga also argued that the companies
violated a federal privacy law regulating electronic data.  But
Judge Ware ruled that transmitting information to advertisers
after users clicked on the ads wasn't illegal under that law.

In the last year, numerous Web companies have been sued for
allegedly violating users' privacy.  While some companies --
including Quantcast, Specific Media and Metacafe -- have settled
with users, many others have convinced judges to dismiss the
lawsuits on the ground that the users hadn't been injured.

One exception occurred in a case against ad network Interclick,
which allegedly used history-sniffing techniques to discover which
sites users previously visited.  U.S. District Court Judge Deborah
Batts in New York ruled that consumers could proceed on claims
that Interclick violated a New York law regarding deceptive
business practices.

Another involved a lawsuit against RockYou, which suffered a
security breach that exposed users' e-mail addresses and
passwords.  U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton in the
Northern District of California rejected RockYou's bid to dismiss
the case at an early stage.  That case recently settled.


FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From Braun IPO Suit Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from a court opinion granting final approval of a
settlement resolving a putative class action lawsuit in connection
with Braun Consulting, Inc.'s August 1999 initial public offering
are pending, according to Fair Isaac Corporation's November 18,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

Braun (which the Company acquired in November 2004) was a
defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 26, 2001, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case
No. 01 CV 10629) that alleges violations of federal securities
laws in connection with Braun's initial public offering in August
1999.  This lawsuit is among approximately 300 coordinated
putative class actions against certain issuers, their officers and
directors, and underwriters with respect to those issuers' initial
public offerings.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval.  The
Company said the settlement requires no financial contribution
from the Company.  The 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.  The Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement and certified the
settlement classes on October 5, 2009.  The Court determined that
the settlement is fair to the class members, approved the
settlement and dismissed, with prejudice, the case against the
Company and its individual defendants.  Appeals of the opinion
granting final approval were filed, and the appeals filed by one
objector have been remanded to the district court to determine
standing to appeal.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation and because the settlement remains subject to appeal,
the ultimate outcome of the matter is uncertain.


FIRST CALIFORNIA: Still Defends Suit Over Improper Bank Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
First California Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend
against a class action complaint over alleged improper bank
charges, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In February 2011, First California Bank was named as a defendant
in a putative class action alleging that the manner in which the
Bank posted charges to its consumer demand deposit accounts
breached an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing and
violates the California Unfair Competition Law.  The action also
alleges that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its
consumer demand deposit accounts is unconscionable, constitutes
conversion and unjustly enriches the Bank.  The action is pending
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  The action seeks to
establish a class consisting of all similarly situated customers
of the Bank in the State of California.  The case is in early
stages, with no responsive pleadings or motions having been filed.
No class has been certified in the case.  At this state of the
case, the Company has not established an accrual for probable
losses as the probability of a material adverse result cannot be
determined and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposures, if any.  The Company intends to defend the
action vigorously.

First California Financial Group, Inc., is a bank holding company
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and
headquartered in Westlake Village, California.  The principal
asset of the Company is the capital stock of First California
Bank, or the Bank.  The Bank is a full-service commercial bank
headquartered in Westlake Village, California, chartered under the
laws of the State of California and subject to supervision by the
California Department of Financial Institutions and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Awaits Final Court OK of Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit, according to
the Company's November 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Between 2003 and 2006, following industry-wide market timing and
late trading investigations by regulators, Franklin and certain
related parties were named in civil lawsuits.  Certain of those
lawsuits have been resolved.

The lawsuits were filed against Franklin and certain of its
adviser and distributor affiliates, individual Franklin officers
and directors, a former Franklin employee, and trustees of certain
Franklin Templeton Investments mutual funds (the "Funds").  In
2004, the lawsuits were consolidated for coordinated proceedings
with similar lawsuits against numerous other mutual fund complexes
in a multi-district litigation titled "In re Mutual Funds
Investment Litigation," pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Case No. 04-md-15862 (the "MDL").
Plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints in the MDL on
September 29, 2004.  The three consolidated lawsuits involving the
Company include a class action (Sharkey IRO/IRA v. Franklin
Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01310), a derivative
action on behalf of the Funds (McAlvey v. Franklin Resources,
Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01274), and a derivative action on
behalf of Franklin (Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04-cv-01624)
and seek, among other forms of relief, one or more of the
following: unspecified monetary damages; punitive damages; removal
of Fund trustees, directors, advisers, administrators, and
distributors; rescission of management contracts and distribution
plans under Rule 12b-1 promulgated under the Investment Company
Act of 1940; and attorneys' fees and costs.

In response to the Company-related defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action complaint, on June 26, 2008, the
court issued an order dismissing certain claims, while allowing
others under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and under Sections 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 to remain, and dismissing all class action
claims against the named Funds.  In addition, all named individual
defendants have since been dismissed without prejudice from the
consolidated class action pursuant to stipulation.  On December 9,
2010, the court granted the Company-related defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment as to non-arranged market timing, finding
that the record could not support a finding of liability against
the Company-related defendants and denied lead plaintiff's cross-
motion for partial summary judgment.  The Company and lead
plaintiff in the consolidated class action reached agreement-in-
principle on December 21, 2010 to resolve that action, pursuant to
which the Company agreed to pay $2.75 million towards distribution
of settlement amounts reached in lead plaintiff's settlements with
other, non-Company defendants, and towards class counsel's fees,
and any unspent amounts will be distributed to relevant Funds.
The parties documented the terms of the agreement in a stipulation
(the "Stipulation and Releases"), which is subject to certain
conditions including court approval.  The court issued its
preliminary approval of the Stipulation and Releases on June 9,
2011 and conducted a final approval hearing on October 25, 2011.
The matter is now under submission with the court.

Pursuant to stipulation, the consolidated Fund derivative action
has been stayed since December 2010.  On June 9, 2011, consistent
with the terms of that stipulation, the Company-related defendants
gave notice of their withdrawal from the stipulation.  On July 15,
2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the stay (pending a
decision of appeal in another case), which the court granted on
August 25, 2011.  Accordingly, the consolidated fund derivative
action remains stayed at this time.  In addition, pursuant to
stipulation, the derivative action brought on behalf of Franklin
has been stayed since 2004.  Neither of the derivative actions has
progressed to expert discovery concerning alleged damages and the
Company is therefore unable to estimate an amount or range of any
possible additional losses relating to the market timing lawsuits.
Management strongly believes that the claims made in each of the
unresolved lawsuits are without merit and the Company intends to
defend against them vigorously.  The Company cannot predict with
certainty, however, the eventual outcome of those lawsuits, nor
whether they will have a material negative impact on the Company.
The nature and progression of litigation can make it difficult to
predict the impact a particular lawsuit may have on the Company.
Variables include, for example, whether the lawsuit asserts viable
claims or novel legal theories to be presented to a court for
determination as a threshold matter before the lawsuit can
proceed; whether there are other parties or nonparties who may
share in any ultimate liability; and whether the lawsuit has
progressed sufficiently through key fact discovery and damages
discovery to enable the Company to estimate the probability of
loss and/or to quantify a possible loss or range of possible loss.


FXCM INC: Continues to Defend RICO Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
FXCM Inc. continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit in
New York asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations, according to the Company's November 14,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On February 8, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York by a single former customer against Forex Capital Markets
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.  The complaint
asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C Section 1961 et seq., as well
as the New York General Business Law.  The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, trebled, and alleges false and
deceptive trade practices, fraudulent and unfair trade execution
and account handling practices.  A motion to compel arbitration
was filed by Forex Capital Markets LLC during April 2011.  In
September 2011, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend his
complaint to add additional allegations and additional parties,
including FXCM CEO Dror Niv and two software companies as
defendants, and a new plaintiff that also alleges it was a
customer.  The Company has opposed the motion for leave to amend.
Both the Company's motion to compel arbitration and the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend are pending.


GREEN BANKSHARES: Considering Mediation in Securities Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Green Bankshares, Inc., are considering entering into mediation
discussions in the securities class action complaints against it,
the Company disclosed in its November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

On November 18, 2010, a shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit (styled Bill Burgraff v. Green
Bankshares, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Tennessee, Northeastern Division, Case No. 2:10-cv-00253) against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
in Greeneville, Tennessee on behalf of all persons that acquired
shares of the Company's common stock between January 19, 2010 and
November 9, 2010.  On January 18, 2011, a separate shareholder of
the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled Brian
Molnar v. Green Bankshares, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division, Case No.
2:11-cv-00014) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the same court on behalf of all persons that
acquired shares of the Company's common stock between January 19,
2010 and October 20, 2010.  These lawsuits were filed following,
and relate to the drop in value of the Company's common stock
price after, the Company announced its third quarter performance
results on October 20, 2010.  The Burgraff case also complains of
the Company's decision on November 9, 2010, to suspend payment of
certain quarterly cash dividends.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements or failed to disclose that the Company was purportedly
overvaluing collateral of certain loans; failing to timely take
impairment charges of these certain loans; failing to properly
account for loan charge-offs; lacking adequate internal and
financial controls; and providing false and misleading financial
results.  The plaintiffs have asserted federal securities laws
claims against all defendants for alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs have also asserted control
person liability claims against the individual defendants named in
the complaints pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
two cases were consolidated on February 4, 2011.  On February 11,
2011, the Court appointed movant Jeffrey Blomgren as lead
plaintiff.  On May 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended and
consolidated complaint alleging a class period of January 19, 2010
to November 9, 2010.  On
July 11, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiff filed an opposition to
that motion on August 29, 2011, and Defendants filed a reply in
support of the motion to dismiss on October 3, 2011.  Plaintiff's
counsel has contacted defendants' counsel seeking to determine if
defendants wished to undergo mediation.  Defendants are
considering mediation, which is supported by defendant's insurance
carrier who now bears the cost of settlement.

The Company and the individual named defendants collectively
intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves against these
allegations.

Greeneville, Tennessee-based Green Bankshares, Inc., is the bank
holding company for GreenBank, a Tennessee-chartered commercial
bank that conducts the principal business of the Company.  On May
5, 2011, the Company and the Bank entered into an Investment
Agreement with North American Financial Holdings, Inc.,
a Miami-based national bank holding company, pursuant to which
North American has agreed to acquire approximately 120 million
shares of the Company's common stock at a per share purchase price
of $1.81, for a total investment of approximately $217 million.
On Sept. 7, 2011, North American and Green Bankshares announced
the closing of the investment in the Company by NAFH of
approximately $217 million through the purchase of the Company's
common stock.


GREEN BANKSHARES: North American-Related Suit Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Green Bankshares, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a
settlement resolving class action lawsuits relating to its
investment agreement with North American Financial Holdings, Inc.,
according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

Greeneville, Tennessee-based Green Bankshares, Inc., is the bank
holding company for GreenBank, a Tennessee-chartered commercial
bank that conducts the principal business of the Company.  On
May 5, 2011, the Company and the Bank entered into an Investment
Agreement with North American Financial Holdings, Inc., a
Miami-based national bank holding company, pursuant to which
North American has agreed to acquire approximately 120 million
shares of the Company's common stock at a per share purchase price
of $1.81, for a total investment of approximately $217 million.

On May 12, 2011, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action lawsuit (styled Betty Smith v. Green Bankshares, Inc.
et al., Case No. 11-625-III, Davidson County, Tennessee, Chancery
Court) against the Company, the Bank, the Company's Board of
Directors (Steven M. Rownd, Robert K. Leonard, Martha M. Bachman,
Bruce Campbell, W.T. Daniels, Samuel E. Lynch, Bill Mooningham,
John Tolsma, Kenneth R. Vaught, and Charles E. Whitfield, Jr., and
North American on behalf of all persons holding common stock of
the Company.  This complaint, which has been subsequently amended,
was filed following the Company's public announcement on May 5,
2011 of its entering into the Investment Agreement with North
American and relates to the proposed investment in the Company by
North American.

The amended complaint alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by accepting a sale price for the
shares to be sold to North American that was unfair to the
Company's shareholders and by issuing a proxy statement that
contained material omissions.  The complaint also alleges that the
Company, the Bank and North American aided and abetted these
breaches of fiduciary duty.  It seeks injunctive relief and/or
rescission of the proposed investment by North American and fees
and expenses in an unspecified amount.

On May 25, 2011, another shareholder of the Company filed a
similar putative class action lawsuit (styled Mark McClinton v.
Green Bankshares, Inc. et al., Case No. 11-CV-284ktl, Greene
County Circuit Court, Greeneville, Tennessee) against the Company,
the Company's Board of Directors and North American on behalf of
all persons holding the Company's common stock.  The complaint
similarly alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company by agreeing to sell shares to
North American at a price unfair to the Company's shareholders.
The complaint also alleges that the Company and North American
aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty.  It seeks and
injunction and/or rescission of North American's investment in the
Company and fees and expenses in an unspecified amount.

On June 16, 2011, another shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit (styled Thomas W. Cook Jr. v. Green
Bankshares, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00176, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Greeneville) against the Company, the Company's Board of Directors
and North American on behalf of all persons holding the Company's
common stock.  The complaint alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by
failing to maximize shareholder value in the proposed transaction
with North American.  The complaint also alleges that the Company
and the individual defendants violated the securities laws by
issuing a Preliminary Proxy Statement that contains alleged
material misstatements and omissions.  The complaint also alleges
that the Company and North American aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty.  It seeks an injunction and/or rescission of
North American's investment in the Company, monetary damages and
fees and expenses in an unspecified amount.

On July 6, 2011, another shareholder of the Company filed a
lawsuit (styled Barbara N. Ballard v. Stephen M. Rownd, et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00201, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville)against the
Company, the Company's Board of Directors and North American
asserting an individual claim that alleges that the individual
defendants violated the securities laws by issuing a Preliminary
Proxy Statement that contains alleged material misstatements and
omissions.  The complaint also alleges a class action claim on
behalf of all persons holding the Company's common stock against
the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty based on
these same alleged material misstatements and omissions.  The
complaint also alleges that the Company and North American aided
and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty.  It seeks an
injunction and/or rescission of North American's investment in the
Company and fees and expenses in an unspecified amount.

On July 26, 2011, the parties to the four North American
transaction-related class action lawsuits reached an agreement in
principle to resolve those four lawsuits on the basis of the
inclusion of certain additional disclosures regarding the North
American transaction in the proxy statement in connection with the
proposed North American transaction.  The proposed settlement is
subject to, among other things, court approval.  North American's
investment in the Company closed on September 7, 2011.

It is expected that settlement documents will be field with the
court the week of November 7, 2011.  The parties intend to seek
court approval of the proposed settlement including a proposed
notice to shareholders.  If approved, a settlement notice will be
mailed to shareholders and a subsequent final fairness hearing
will be set by the court, expected within sixty to ninety days. If
the court accepts settlement, the insurance carrier for the
Company and its directors will bear the cost of settlement.
The Company and the individual defendants collectively intend to
vigorously defend themselves against these class action
allegations.


GULF RESOURCES: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Lewy" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Resources, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action complaint in California, according to
the Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  That action,
which is now captioned Lewy, et al. v. Gulf Resources, Inc., et
al. , No. 11-cv-3722 ODW (MRWx), was filed on April 29, 2011 in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The lead plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of
all purchasers and acquirers of the Company's common stock between
March 16, 2009 and April 26, 2011 inclusive, filed an amended
complaint on September 12, 2011.  Lead plaintiff asserts claims
for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The amended complaint alleges
the defendants made false or misleading statements in the
Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years ended December
31, 2008, 2009, and 2010, and in interim quarterly reports by,
among other things, overstating revenue and net income and failing
to disclose material related party transactions and certain facts
about the CEO's prior employment at another company.  The amended
complaint also asserts claims against the Individual Defendants
for violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  On
November 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The Company intends to defend vigorously
against the lawsuit.  The Company currently cannot estimate the
amount or range of possible losses from this litigation.

Gulf Resources, Inc. -- http://www.gulfresourcesinc.cn/--
operates through two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Shouguang City
Haoyuan Chemical Company Limited and Shouguang Yuxin Chemical
Industry Co., Limited.  It is a large producer of bromine in
China.  Elemental Bromine is used to manufacture a wide variety of
compounds utilized in industry and agriculture.  Through SYCI, the
Company manufactures chemical products utilized in a variety of
applications, including oil & gas field explorations and as
papermaking chemical agents.


HSBC: Settles Madoff Class Action for $62.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------
Rob Langston, writing for fundweb, reports that HSBC has announced
its settlement with defendants invested in a fund exposed to ponzi
fraudster Bernard Madoff's wealth management business has been
capped at $62.5 million.

The bank had been the subject of a class action by investors in
the Irish-domiciled Ucits fund Thema International, whose assets
had been invested with Bernard L Madoff Securities.

The amended settlement will see HSBC pay from $52.5 million, up to
a maximum of $62.5 million.

HSBC had provided custodial, administration and other services to
Thema, which had a purported net asset value of Thema, as at
November 30, 2008, valued at $1.1 billion.  It estimated that
Thema's actual transfers to Madoff Securities minus its actual
withdrawals was approximately $312 million.

The amended settlement agreement will be subject to a number of
conditions, "including the court's certification of a settlement
class of investors worldwide, resolution of any objections that
may be filed, and approval of the settlement as fair and
reasonable."

The final amount will depend on the number of Thema shareholders
who choose to exclude themselves from the settlement.

Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison in 2011 after being
convicted over charges related to his giant ponzi scheme.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces IPO-related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------
Imperial Holdings, Inc., is facing two putative class action
lawsuits arising from its February 2011 initial public offering,
according to the Company's November 14, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On September 29, 2011, the Company, its chairman and chief
executive officer, president and chief operating officer, chief
financial officer, director of finance and accounting and an
independent director were each named as defendants in a putative
securities class action filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, entitled
Martin J. Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, Inc. et al.  Also named as
defendants were the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.  That complaint asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, alleging that the
Company should have but failed to disclose in the registration
statement for its initial public offering purported wrongful
conduct relating to its life finance business which gave rise to a
government investigation.  On October 21, 2011, an amended
complaint was filed that asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on similar allegations.
On October 25, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  On
October 31, 2011, another putative class action case was filed in
the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida, entitled City of Roseville Employees
Retirement System v. Imperial Holdings, et al, naming the same
defendants and also bringing claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on similar allegations.  In
addition, the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering have asserted that the Company is required by its
Underwriting Agreement to indemnify the underwriters' expenses and
potential liabilities in connection with the litigation.  The
Company said that while it intends to vigorously defend itself, it
is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate
the range or amount of possible loss, which could be material, and
no loss reserves have been recorded for this exposure.  However,
the Company said it is possible that these putative class actions
and similar actions could have a material adverse effect on its
business, results of operations and financial condition.


INX INC: Defends Class Suit Over Merger Deal With Presidio
----------------------------------------------------------
INX, Inc., is defending itself against a class action lawsuit
relating to its merger agreement with Presidio, Inc., according to
the Company's November 17, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On November 1, 2011, the Company announced that it had entered
into a Plan of Merger Agreement with Presidio, Inc., a Georgia
corporation and Indigo Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.  Upon the closing of the
Plan of Merger Agreement, INX common stock, excluding shares owned
by INX, Parent or Merger Sub and other than those shares with
respect to which appraisal rights are properly exercised and not
withdrawn but including shares issued pursuant to a restricted
stock award or a restricted stock unit award and otherwise subject
to a risk of forfeiture, will be cancelled and automatically
converted into the right to receive $8.75 in cash, without
interest.

On November 4, 2011, Jean Neustadt, III, on behalf of himself and
purportedly other stockholders, filed a class action suit in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jean
Neustadt, III v. INX, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7017.  The plaintiff
in the Neustadt Complaint alleges, among other things, that INX
and the members of the board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to INX's public stockholders by authorizing the merger for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process.
The Neustadt Complaint seeks, among other things, an order
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, an award
for compensatory damages and an award of fees, expenses and costs.

INX Inc. is a U.S. provider of IP communications and data center
solutions for enterprise organizations.  INX offers a suite of
advanced technology solutions focused around the entire lifecycle
of enterprise IP network communications and data center
infrastructure.


JONES FINANCIAL: Unit Reaches Settlement in Lehman-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, LLLP's subsidiary, Edward D. Jones
& Co., L.P., has reached a settlement agreement to resolve class
action claims related to Lehman Brothers, the Company disclosed in
its November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In 2008, certain putative class action suits were filed in state
and federal court under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against certain officers and directors of
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and various underwriters, including
Edward Jones, of Lehman bonds, alleging that the defendants made
material misrepresentations to purchasers of those bonds in the
relevant offering documents.  These suits were ultimately removed
and/or transferred to the Southern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with similar
actions pending in that court, and a single consolidated class
action complaint was filed by court-appointed lead plaintiffs.  On
July 27, 2011, Judge Kaplan granted in part and denied in part a
motion by the various defendants to dismiss the operative Third
Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Class Action.  Subsequently,
various underwriter defendants, including Edward Jones, settled in
principle the class action claims as against them.  A settlement
agreement will be submitted to the Court for approval.  The
pending settlement amount is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the
Partnership.

In addition to the Consolidated Class Action, several individual
proceedings related to Lehman securities have been pending in the
SDNY and have been coordinated for pre-trial proceedings with the
Consolidated Class Action.  Per order of the court, such
proceedings had been stayed until after Judge Kaplan's ruling on
the class action motions to dismiss. Although none of these
complaints had previously named Edward Jones, on October 7, 2011,
an individual plaintiff in one of these proceedings amended its
complaint to assert Section 11 claims for the first time as
against Edward Jones and certain other alleged underwriters
related to three offerings of Lehman Bonds in January and February
2008.  The plaintiff in this action seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.  The plaintiff's
total purchases in these offerings (one of which is also at issue
in the Consolidated Class Action) amount to $3 million, but the
plaintiff did not make any of these purchases through Edward
Jones.  Edward Jones has not yet been served with the amended
complaint.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., is a limited liability
limited partnership organized under the Uniform Limited
Partnership Law of the State of Missouri Revised Statutes.  The
Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward D. Jones &
Co., L.P., is comprised of two registered broker-dealers primarily
serving individual investors in the United States of America and
Canada.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari Petition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court rejected Lufkin Industries, Inc.'s
petition of certiorari to re-examine the Fifth Circuit's opinion
on appeals in an employee discrimination lawsuit in Texas, the
Company disclosed in its November 17, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against
Lufkin Industries, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of Lufkin
who alleged race discrimination in employment. Certification
hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in
Lufkin, Texas in August 1998.  In April 1999, the District Court
issued a decision that certified a class for this case, which
included all black employees employed by Lufkin from March 6,
1994, to the present.  The case was administratively closed from
2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation.
Trial for this case began in December 2003, and after the close of
plaintiff's evidence, the court adjourned and did not complete the
trial until October 2004.  Although plaintiff's class
certification encompassed a wide variety of employment practices,
plaintiffs presented only disparate impact claims relating to
discrimination in initial assignments and promotions at trial.

On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that Lufkin discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions.  The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that Lufkin
pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together
with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%.  On August 29,
2005, the District Court determined that the back pay award for
the class of affected employees was $3.4 million (including
interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for attorney
fees that Lufkin estimates will result in a total not to exceed
$2.5 million.  In addition to back pay with interest, the District
Court (i) enjoined and ordered Lufkin to cease and desist all
racially biased assignment and promotion practices and (ii)
ordered Lufkin to pay court costs and expenses.

Lufkin reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on
September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  On April 3, 2007, Lufkin appeared
before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral argument in
this case.  The appellate court subsequently issued a decision on
February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim
regarding the initial assignment of black employees into the
Foundry Division. The court also denied plaintiff's appeal for
class certification of a class disparate treatment claim.
Plaintiff's claim on the issue of Lufkin's promotional practices
was affirmed but the back pay award was vacated and remanded for
re-computation in accordance with the opinion.  The District
Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with instructions to
enter appropriate and specific injunctive relief.  Finally, the
issue of plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the District
Court for further consideration in accordance with prevailing
authority.

On December 5, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a
hearing in Beaumont, Texas, during which he reviewed the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit class action decision and
informed the parties that he intended to implement the decision in
order to conclude this litigation.  At the conclusion of the
hearing, Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions
regarding the issues of attorney fees, a damage award and
injunctive relief.  Subsequently, Lufkin reviewed the plaintiffs'
submissions which described the formula and underlying assumptions
that supported their positions on attorney fees and damages.
After careful review of the plaintiff's submission to the District
Court Lufkin continued to have significant differences regarding
legal issues that materially impacted the plaintiffs' requests.
As a result of these different results, the court requested
further evidence from the parties regarding their positions in
order to render a final decision.  The judge reviewed both parties
arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an
interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs original
request.  Lufkin and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority of the
differences and the damage calculations which also lowered the
originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters.
Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on damages
during the first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding the
plaintiffs an interim award of attorney fees and cost totaling
$5.8 million, Lufkin recorded an additional provision of $5.0
million in the first half of 2009 above the $6.0 million recorded
in the fourth quarter of 2008.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal of
the District Court's interim award of attorney fees with the Fifth
Circuit. The Fifth Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on
August 28, 2009 on the basis that an appealable final judgment in
this case had not been issued.  The court commented that this
issue can be reviewed with an appeal of final judgment.

On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas notified Lufkin that it had entered a final
judgment related to Lufkin's ongoing class-action lawsuit.  On
January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Circuit of the District Court's final judgment.  On January
21, 2010, Lufkin filed a notice of cross-appeal with the same
court.

On January 15, 2010, in its final judgment, the Court ordered
Lufkin to pay the plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million
in pre-judgment interest and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment
interest. Lufkin had previously estimated the total liability for
damages and interest to be approximately $5.2 million.  The Court
also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and
expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date of the final
judgment. The plaintiffs were required to submit this request
within 14 days of the final judgment. On January 21, 2010, Lufkin
filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of
damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending
the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties'
appeals. The District Court granted this motion to stay.

On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a
supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney fees, costs and
expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2010, as
allowed in the final judgment. In the fourth quarter of 2009,
Lufkin recorded a provision of $1.0 million for these legal
expenses and accrual adjustments for the final judgment award of
damages.  On September 28, 2010, the District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for supplemental attorney fees, costs and
expenses in the amount of $0.7 million for the period of January
1, 2009 through January 15, 2010.  In order to cover these costs,
Lufkin recorded an additional provision of $1.0 million in
September 2010 for anticipated costs through the end of 2010.

On February 2, 2011 the Fifth Circuit accepted the oral arguments
from the plaintiffs and Lufkin on their respective appeals to the
Court.

On July 7, 2011, in light of the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Lufkin moved to file
supplemental briefs in the pending Fifth Circuit appeal to address
two legal principles essential to plaintiffs' theory of liability,
which Lufkin believes are now foreclosed by the Supreme Court's
Wal-Mart decision.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion.
On July 14, 2011, the Fifth Circuit denied Lufkin's motion.

On August 8, 2011, the Fifth Circuit issued a final opinion on all
appeals before the Court.  Lufkin filed a petition for certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court on September 16, 2011.

On November 14, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied
Lufkin's petition for certiorari.  Lufkin anticipates that U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas will vacate the
stay that it previously entered with respect to the payment of
damages awarded in its final judgment on January 15, 2010 and that
Lufkin will be required to pay $3.3 million in back-pay damages,
$2.2 million in pre-judgment interest, $45,000 in post-judgment
interest, and $50,000 to an administrator who will be responsible
for calculating the individual awards.  Lufkin has fully accrued
the funds necessary to cover the final judgment award of damages.

The District Court has not yet determined the amount of attorneys
fees payable to plaintiffs' counsel for work performed since the
entry of the District Court's final judgment on January 15, 2010
or whether plaintiffs' counsel will be entitled to additional fees
for work performed prior to January 15, 2010, as a result of the
Fifth Circuit's August 8, 2011 decision.  Lufkin has previously
recorded provisions in the amount of approximately $900,000 for
work performed by plaintiffs' counsel since the entry of the
District Court's final judgment on January 15, 2010.  However, to
date, no amounts have been accrued for additional fees that may be
awarded for work performed by plaintiffs' counsel prior to January
15, 2010.

Lufkin Industries, Inc. -- http://www.lufkin.com/-- manufactures
and supplies oil field and power transmission products.  The
company operates in the United States, Europe, Canada, Latin
America, the Middle East, and North Africa.  Lufkin Industries,
Inc. was founded in 1902 and is based in Lufkin, Texas.


MERCEDES BENZ: Sued in Calif. Over Defective E-Class Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Mercedes Benz E-Class W-211 vehicles for 2003-09 are "highly prone
to water leaks and flooding," which damage the electrical system
and interior.

A copy of the Complaint in Lum, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Case No. 11-cv-09751 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/28/Mercedes.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene Williams, Esq.
          David M. Medby, Esq.
          Sue J. Kim, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: gwilliams@initiativelegal.com
                  dmedby@initiativelegal.com
                  skim@initiativelegal.com


MICHAEL FOODS: Continues to Defend Egg Products Anti-trust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Foods Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
consolidated class action lawsuit alleging anti-trust claims,
according to the Company's November 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2011.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
processed-egg products.  Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide
classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and allege that
defendants conspired to reduce the supply of eggs by participating
in animal husbandry, egg-export and other programs of various egg-
industry associations.  In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  In late 2010 and early 2011, a
number of companies, each of which would be part of the purported
class in the antitrust action, brought separate actions against
defendants.  These "tag-along" cases, brought primarily by various
grocery chains, assert essentially the same allegations as the
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in the main action.  All of
the tag-along cases were either filed in or transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania where they will be treated as
related to the main action.  On September 26, 2011, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the direct-purchaser
plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against Michael
Foods, Inc.; still pending is a motion to dismiss the indirect-
purchaser plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint
against Michael Foods, Inc. and subsidiary Papetti's Hygrade Egg
Products, Inc.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Discovery in "Bussey" Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by Walter
Bussey against Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., and other
"gaming" firms, according to the Company's November 17, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On March 8, 2010, a civil action captioned Walter Bussey, et al.,
v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Eastern Division against the Company, Macon County Greyhound Park,
Inc. (VictoryLand), as a corporation, International Gaming
Technologies, Cadillac Jack, Inc., Colossus, Inc., Rocket Gaming
Systems, LLC, Nova Gaming, LLC, and Bally Gaming, Inc.  The
plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand,
originally sought damages based on both Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A)
and RICO, and have requested that the court certify the action as
a class action.  On April 28, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the entire complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), (5) and
(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based, in part, on the
grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the
Company upon which relief could be granted.  After the Company
filed its motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their RICO claim, leaving only a claim for recovery of gambling
losses under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A).  On March 31, 2011, the
court entered an order declining to dismiss the 8-1-150(A) claim
at this stage of the litigation.  The court noted, however, that
"each Plaintiff has the burden of proving a wager between he or
she and each Defendant."  On April 28, 2011, the Company filed an
answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint.  The Company
proposed to the court a phased scheduling order that allows for an
initial phase involving discovery related only to gathering and
analysis of electronic data from player tracking and accounting
systems at VictoryLand during the relevant time frame.  The court
adopted and entered the proposed scheduling order on July 28,
2011.  The defendants currently are assessing the availability of
electronic data and the Company is currently engaged in written
discovery.  The Company, along with other gaming manufacturers,
continues to vigorously defend this matter.  Given the inherent
uncertainties in this litigation, the Company is unable to make
any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.

Austin-based Multimedia Games Inc. supplies interactive systems,
server-based gaming systems, interactive electronic games, player
terminals, stand-alone player terminals, video lottery terminals,
electronic scratch ticket systems, electronic instant lottery
systems, player tracking systems, casino cash management systems,
slot accounting systems, slot management systems, unified
currencies and electronic and paper bingo systems for Native
American, racetrack casino, casino, charity and commercial bingo,
sweepstakes, lottery and video lottery markets and provide support
and services and operations support for the Company's customers
and products.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Order on Class Cert. Bid in "Hardy" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., continues to await an
Alabama federal court's ruling on a class certification request in
a civil action captioned Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center,
LLC, et al., according to the Company's November 17, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The civil action was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC
(an entity that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach,
Inc., and Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of
Lowndes County, Alabama.  On June 3, 2010, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint adding the Company and other manufacturers.  The
plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of White Hall, seek
recovery of gambling losses based on Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A) and
have requested that the court certify the action as a class
action.  On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to
federal court.  On July 9, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), (5) and (6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based, in part, on the
grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the
Company upon which relief could be granted.  On September 7, 2010,
the court, without opinion, denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The court then entered a scheduling order that
bifurcates the case to allow for resolution of class certification
issues before consideration of the merits. Following several
months of discovery on the class certification issues, on March
15, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
On April 15, 2011, the Company filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The plaintiffs then
filed a reply, and the Company filed a surreply arguing that the
plaintiffs misstated the burden of proof in their reply.  The
court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The Company continues to vigorously defend this
matter.  Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, the
Company is unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate
outcome.

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

Austin-based Multimedia Games Inc. supplies interactive systems,
server-based gaming systems, interactive electronic games, player
terminals, stand-alone player terminals, video lottery terminals,
electronic scratch ticket systems, electronic instant lottery
systems, player tracking systems, casino cash management systems,
slot accounting systems, slot management systems, unified
currencies and electronic and paper bingo systems for Native
American, racetrack casino, casino, charity and commercial bingo,
sweepstakes, lottery and video lottery markets and provide support
and services and operations support for the Company's customers
and products.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Security Group, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit
for breach of insurance contract, according to the Company's
November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company has been sued in a putative class action in the state
of Alabama.  The Plaintiff alleges entitlement to, but did not
receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit
("GCO") in the proceeds received from the Company concerning the
repair of the Plaintiff's home.  Plaintiff alleges that said
failure to include GCOP is a material breach by the Company of the
terms of its contract of insurance with Plaintiff and seeks
monetary damages in the form of contractual damages.  A class
certification hearing was held on March 1, 2010 with the trial
court taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under
advisement.  On May 10, 2010, the trial court issued its ruling
granting Plaintiff's motion to certify the class.  The Company
filed its Appellant Brief on October 5, 2010.  The Company denies
Plaintiff's allegations and intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.

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

Founded in Elba, Alabama, in 19477, The National Security Group,
Inc., is a family of companies providing a diversified line of
insurance products and services.  The family of companies
includes: National Security Insurance Company, National Security
Fire and Casualty Company, and Omega One Insurance Company.  These
companies provide diversified insurance coverage to policyholders
in many states throughout the southeastern U.S.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Hurricane-Related Lawsuits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits in connection with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita remain
pending against The National Security Group, Inc., the Company
disclosed in its November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

The Company's property & casualty subsidiaries are defending a
number of matters filed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.  These actions include
individual lawsuits and purported statewide class action lawsuits,
although to date no class has been certified in any action.  These
actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of hurricane-
related claims, including allegations that the flood exclusion
found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in certain
actions other insurance companies' policies, is either ambiguous,
unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public policy, or
inapplicable to the damage sustained.

The various suits seek a variety of remedies, including actual
and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or declaratory
relief.  All of these matters are in various stages of development
and the Company's subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend them.
The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

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

Founded in Elba, Alabama, in 19477, The National Security Group,
Inc., is a family of companies providing a diversified line of
insurance products and services.  The family of companies
includes: National Security Insurance Company, National Security
Fire and Casualty Company, and Omega One Insurance Company.  These
companies provide diversified insurance coverage to policyholders
in many states throughout the southeastern U.S.


NETFLIX INC: Judge Dismisses Monopoly Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that Netflix has
convinced a federal judge to dismiss a class action claiming that
it conspired with Wal-Mart to illegally divide the market for
selling and renting DVDs.

The plaintiffs sued Netflix and Wal-Mart in 2009, saying the
companies' 2005 promotion agreement "had the effect of illegally
dividing the markets for sales and online rentals of DVDs in the
United States," according to court documents.

In September, an Oakland, Calif., judge granted preliminary
approval for a class action settlement with Wal-Mart, and Netflix
moved for summary judgment.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said last week she was not
persuaded that Netflix and Walmart reached their promotion
agreement to illegally remove Wal-Mart from the online DVD rental
market.

"Not only does the agreement expressly acknowledge the
'independent' nature of Walmart's decision to exit the market, but
it furthermore expressly states that Walmart is free to re-enter
the same market," Judge Hamilton wrote on Nov. 22.

"Under these circumstances, the court cannot agree that the
agreement on its face reflects a blatant agreement to eliminate
Walmart from the online DVD rental market as a form of market
allocation," the 29-page decision states.

Judge Hamilton also found that there was no evidence that Netflix
would have lowered its prices without the promotion agreement with
Wal-Mart.

"While the record is disputed with respect to whether Netflix
internally viewed Walmart as a strong competitor at various points
in time, there is simply no material dispute as to whether Walmart
in fact impacted Netflix's pricing decisions," the judge wrote.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment in In Re:
Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Calif.), Case No. 09-
md-02029 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/28/409-md-02029.pdf


NEVADA PROPERTY: Condominium Suit Opt In Participants Dismiss Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Nevada Property 1 LLC
filed by purchasers of The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas condominium
units was dismissed, according to the Company's November 14, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company was a named defendant in a number of lawsuits and
arbitrations concerning the purchase and sale of condominium units
located within the East and West Towers of the Property.  The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that delays in the
completion of the Property and changes to the design of the
Property constituted material breaches by the Company, thus
permitting the plaintiffs/purchasers to rescind their contract and
receive a full refund of their earnest money deposit, plus
interest thereon.  The Company was represented in each of these
matters by outside legal counsel.

In December 2009, the Company finalized a class action settlement
with 1,050 condominium purchasers in the West Tower of the
Property, with said purchasers receiving 74.4% of their principal
deposits, and the Company retaining 25.6% of same, plus all
interest thereon resulting in a net gain of approximately $34.5
million which the Company recognized as net settlement income
within the 2009 consolidated statement of operations.  The
remaining 270 purchasers in the West Tower of the Property elected
to opt out of and not participate in the settlement, thus
preserving their legal and contractual rights.  The Company said
that if all purchase contracts associated with these settlements
had closed pursuant to their terms, total net sales proceeds would
have been approximately $708.0 million.  The cancellation of these
contracts therefore, reduced expected net sales proceeds by $673.5
million.

In April 2010, the Company finalized a class action settlement
with 427 condominium purchasers in the East Tower of the Property,
with said purchasers receiving 68.0% of their principal deposits,
and the Company retaining 32.0% of same, plus all interest thereon
resulting in a net gain of approximately $18.0 million which the
Company recognized as net settlement income in the consolidated
statement of operations.  The remaining 63 purchasers in the East
Tower of the Property elected to opt out of and not participate in
the settlement, thus preserving their legal and contractual
rights.  The Company said that if all purchase contracts
associated with these settlements had closed pursuant to their
terms, total net sales proceeds would have been approximately
$345.2 million.  The cancellation of these contracts therefore,
reduced expected net sales proceeds by $327.2 million.

Since the time of the class action settlements, some of the
purchasers within the East and the West Towers who had previously
opted out of the settlement offers, have settled their claims with
the Company in individual transactions on terms identical to the
applicable class action settlement resulting in an additional $4.3
million in net settlement income in 2010.

In the three months ended March 31, 2011, 15 of the condominium
purchasers closed on their units pursuant to terms of the original
purchase contracts.  Net proceeds from the sale of these
condominium units were $14.5 million resulting in a gain of $7.3
million which has been recorded as gain on sale of fixed assets in
the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

In the three months ended June 30, 2011, an additional two of the
condominium purchasers closed on their respective units pursuant
to terms of the original purchase contracts.  Net proceeds from
the sale of these condominium units were $1.8 million resulting in
a gain of $0.9 million which has been recorded as gain on sale of
fixed assets in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations.  None of the condominium purchasers closed on their
respective units in the three months ended September 30, 2011.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
during March 2011 on behalf of all buyers who previously accepted
settlements from class action lawsuits concerning the purchase and
sale of condominium units located within the East and West Towers
of the Property.  The complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose material information about the Property to unit
purchasers prior to entering into the class action settlements.
The complaint asserts claims of fraud, unjust enrichment and money
had and received.  The plaintiffs are seeking an order compelling
the return of the balance of deposits forfeited in the class
settlements and additional damages in an unspecified amount.  The
Company had filed a motion to dismiss the case and on October 28,
2011, the counsel for the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
action.


RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Onko-Sure Suit Proceeding to Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint relating to Radient Pharmaceuticals
Corporation's test product, Onko-Sure(TM), is now proceeding to
discovery, according to the Company's November 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On March 11, 2011, a putative shareholder class action was filed
against the Company and two of its officers alleging that they
violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the
relationship between the Company and third parties involved in the
Company's clinical studies of the Onko-Sure(R) test kit.  The
trial court granted in part, and denied in part, the defendants'
motions to dismiss the complaint, and the case is now proceeding
to discovery.  The Company and defendant officers vehemently deny
the allegations in the complaint and are vigorously defending the
action.  Due to the uncertain nature of litigation and the early
stage of the lawsuit, the Company cannot calculate the potential
damages nor does the complaint seek any specific monetary amount
of damages.

Headquartered in Tustin, Calif., Radient Pharmaceuticals
Corporation -- http://www.Radient-Pharma.com/-- is engaged in the
research, development, manufacturing, sale and marketing of its
ONKO-SURE(TM) a proprietary IVD Cancer Test in the United States,
Canada, China, Chile, Europe, India, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and
other markets throughout the world.


SAFELITE: Former Technician Files Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
GlassBytes reports that a California auto glass technician who
worked for Safelite for approximately eight months in 2010 has
filed a class action suit against the company alleging that he is
owed overtime pay for hours not counted in his work day.  The suit
was filed on November 14 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Demetriot Lewis, who says he worked as a mobile windshield repair
technician from April 2010 to December 2010 in the San Francisco
Bay area, alleges that he was regularly scheduled to work eight
hours per day, but that the company "did not pay [him] wages for
all the hours [he] worked."

"Defendant required plaintiff to clock in for work at a specified
time, but regularly suffered or permitted [him] to work prior to
the specified time for clocking in," alleges Mr. Lewis.  "Tasks
that defendant knowingly allowed or required plaintiff to perform
prior to the specified time for clocking in included calling
customers; retrieving paperwork, supplies or equipment from
defendant's warehouse; attending meetings or taking tests at
defendant's warehouse; and driving to customer locations from
defendant's warehouse."

Mr. Lewis further alleges that he was not paid for all of the
hours he worked.  He says that though the company sometimes paid
him time and a half based on his $12 hourly rate of pay, the
company did not factor the repair incentives that he sometimes
received into the time-and-a-half rate.

The former technician also alleges that he often was not provided
"the opportunity to take a duty-free meal period of 30 minutes,"
and that his supervisors "would create or have [him] create false
records purporting to reflect that plaintiff had taken a 30-minute
meal period."

Mr. Lewis goes on to allege that Safelite also required him to
purchase a GPS unit for use in his work, but did not reimburse him
for the unit.

He says that his employment was terminated on January 7, 2010, but
does not note the reasoning for the termination.

Mr. Lewis says he's brought the suit against the company on behalf
of himself and "others similarly situated" in California.  He
suggests there are three potential classes involved -- a
California on-site technician class that includes all mobile
technicians who were employed by Safelite in California for the
four years prior to the filing of the complaint; a wage statement
subclass that includes all those employed by Safelite as mobile
technicians in California one year before the filing of the
complaint; and a final wages subclass that includes all mobile
technicians in California whose employment was terminated by the
company within the three years before the complaint was filed.

Mr. Lewis is seeking damages, restitution, pre-judgment interest,
civil penalties, and court costs and attorneys' fees.

A similar suit was filed earlier this year against the company by
another California technician, Joseph Perez.  While U.S. District
Court for Central California denied that a class should be
certified in Mr. Perez's suit in August, the court has scheduled a
jury trial to hear the case in May 2012.

Safelite officials declined to comment on the suit.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc.'s subsidiary, Sovereign Bank,
continues to defend against a class action complaint relating to
overdraft fees.

A putative class action litigation was filed against the Bank by
Diane Lewis, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
has been transferred to and consolidated for pre-trial proceedings
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation.  The complaint alleges violations of law in connection
with the Bank's overdraft/transaction ordering and fees practices.

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. ("SHUSA") headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts, provides customers with a broad range of financial
products and services through its two primary subsidiaries,
Sovereign Bank and Santander Consumer USA ("SCUSA").


SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Deal to Resolve Suits Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwall Technologies, Inc., has negotiated a tentative
settlement resolving lawsuits over its merger agreement with
Solutia, Inc., the Company disclosed in its November 14, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 6, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive
agreement and plan of merger with Solutia for the acquisition of
the Company by Solutia for approximately $113 million or $13.60
per share, without interest.

On October 31, 2011 and November 1, 2011, three purported class
action lawsuits were filed on behalf of the Company's stockholders
related to the sale of the Company to Solutia and Backbone
Acquisition Sub, Inc.  These suits name as defendants some
combination of the Company and members of the Company's Board of
Directors (collectively, the "Company Defendants"), Solutia and
Purchaser (together with Solutia, the "Parent Defendants"),
Dolphin Direct Equity Partners, L.P. and certain stockholders
affiliated with the Needham Funds (collectively, the "Stockholder
Defendants").

Two complaints were filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court of
California on October 31, 2011:  Geometric Trading Company v.
Capovilla, et al. (Case No. 111CV212244); and Beckett v. Capovilla
et al. (Case No. 111CV212260).  One complaint was filed in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware on November 1, 2011:
Parcell v. Southwall Technologies, Inc. et al. (C.A. No. 7003-
VCL).

The complaints generally allege that (i) the Company Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and good faith
by facilitating the sale of the Company to Solutia and Purchaser
through an unfair process at an unfair price; (ii) the Company
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by omitting
or misstating material information regarding the sale; (iii) the
transaction unfairly benefits certain members of the Company's
Board of Directors to the disadvantage of Company stockholders;
(iv) the Stockholder Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
minority stockholders by facilitating the sale of the Company to
Solutia and Purchaser; and (v) the Stockholder Defendants and
Parent Defendants aided and abetted the Company Defendants'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaints seek, among other relief, to enjoin the
transaction, a declaration that the Company Defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders or aided and
abetted those breaches, compensatory damages, or rescission of the
transaction in the event the transaction has been completed and an
award of costs, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees.

On November 1, 2011, plaintiff Parcell filed a motion to expedite
the proceedings in Delaware, seeking to expedite discovery and
schedule a preliminary injunction hearing.  The Delaware Court of
Chancery denied the motion on November 8, 2011.

On November 3, 2011, plaintiff Geometric Trading Company filed an
application for a temporary restraining order and expedited
discovery in the Santa Clara Superior Court of California.  A
hearing on the application has been set for November 21, 2011.

On November 14, 2011, the parties to the putative class actions
filed in California Superior Court and the Delaware Court of
Chancery reached an agreement in principle providing for the
settlement of the Actions on terms and conditions set forth in a
memorandum of understanding and subject to approval by the
California Superior Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Southwall Technologies Inc. provides energy conservation and
climate management thin-film glass solutions to more than 100
customers worldwide in the architectural and automotive
industries.  The Company makes windows and glass sun-proof, heat-
proof and cold-proof -- enabling customers to fine-tune the
insulating and solar control performance of glass, reducing the
energy consumption for cooling and heating by up to 30% and
delivering a comfortable indoor climate.


TMX FINANCE: Class Suits vs. Units Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits against two of TMX Finance LLC's
subsidiaries remain pending, according to the Company's
November 14, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

TitleMax of Tennessee, Inc. is a party to a class action lawsuit
certified in the state of Tennessee alleging that the entity
charged excessive interest rates between August 2003 and August
2004.  TitleMax of Missouri, Inc. is a party to a putative class
action lawsuit alleging that the entity failed to pay certain
employees overtime compensation as required by Missouri law.  In
the opinion of management, an appropriate accrual has been
established related to the legal matters.  Outcomes of those
proceedings are not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows, the Company said.


UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Travel Corp. continues to defend itself against a
securities class action complaint in New Jersey, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On April 15, 2011, plaintiff Albert Snellink commenced putative
class action in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey against Universal Travel Group, and Jiangping Jiang,
Yizhao Zhang and Jing Xie, officers of the Company.  In the
complaint, plaintiff alleges a claim for violations of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against all defendants, and a claim for a violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants in connection with purported misrepresentations
contained in the Company's public filings and press releases.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and his costs
incurred in the action.  The Company's time to answer or move with
respect to the complaint has not yet expired.  The Company
believes that the allegations of complaint are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


YTB INTERNATIONAL: 2 Consumer Lawsuits Remain Pending in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action consumer fraud lawsuits against YTB
International, Inc., are pending in Illinois, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On August 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class
action was filed against the Company, three Company subsidiaries,
and certain executive officers, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  On August 14, 2008, a
second, substantively similar, complaint was filed against the
same defendants in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.  The two cases have now been
consolidated and are proceeding together before the same judge.
The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint, seeking
damages of over $100 million.  On February 9, 2009, the Company
filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motions and
dismissed the class action complaint, but granted the plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint that conformed with the Court's
ruling.  On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that purported to conform to the Court's ruling.  The
amended complaint asserts claims similar to those contained in the
dismissed complaint.  On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its
own motion, struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its
entirety based on the Court's belief that the amended complaint
does not pass muster under the applicable federal pleading
standards.  On July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for
leave with the Court to amend their complaints.  The Court granted
their motions and a second amended complaint was filed on December
24, 2009.  On February 12, 2010, the Company filed motions to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  On April 19, 2010,
the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all the out-of-state
plaintiffs.  As a result, there is only one remaining plaintiff
who is a citizen of Illinois.  Consequently, the Court has
requested further briefing on the issue of whether the Court
retains jurisdiction to hear the matter when both plaintiffs and
defendants are citizens of the same state.  The additional
briefing was due on May 19, 2010.  On May 26, 2010, the Court
dismissed the last remaining Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs subsequently
filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit.  Oral argument for the
appeal occurred on February 25, 2011.  Additionally, on June 16,
2011, the Plaintiffs have filed a new class action complaint with
substantially the same allegations in Illinois state court.  This
state court complaint has been removed to Federal Court and
motions to dismiss the suit were recently denied.

On July 27, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overruled
the District Court's dismissal of the national class-action and
remanded the case for further proceedings.  Therefore, there are
currently two suits pending, essentially seeking forth similar
claims, and the District Court has ordered that they be
consolidated for further proceeding.

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

Based in Wood River, Illinois, YTB International, known as Your
Travel Biz or YTB, operates a multi-level marketing business under
the holding company YourTravelBiz.com, Inc. through owner-
affiliate websites offering travel, excursions, and lodging.  The
company was founded in 2001 by J. Lloyd "Coach" Tomer, Scott Tomer
and Kim Sorensen.


                           *********

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  * * *