CAR_Public/111202.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 2, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 239

                             Headlines

ALLIED WORLD: Merger-Related Class Suits Discontinued
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Four Suits Over Merger Still Stayed
B & A ASSOCIATES: Accused of Violating LLC Act of Illinois
BULGARIAN MOBILE OPERATORS: Face Class Action Over SMS TV Games
CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Class Suit

CHINA NORTH: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Filed
CHINA ORGANIC: Egleston & Rigrodsky File Class Action
CIGNA: Not Entitled to Indemnity for $140MM RICO Settlement
COOPER COMPANIES: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
DICK CLARK: AMAs Stagehand Files Class Action in California

DRUG STORES: W.Va Firm's Class Action Remanded to Minn. Court
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Unit Still Defends Fraud Class Suit in Pa.
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Defends Against Suit Over Overdraft Fees
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Class Suits Over Going Private Proposal Pending
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Securities Suit in Tennessee Remains Pending

GAMESTOP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Labor & Wage Violations
GENON ENERGY: Appeals From Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending
GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit in New York
GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit in California
GENTIVA HEALTH: Settlement in Odyssey Merger Suit Still Pending

GENTIVA HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Due by Jan. 2
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action in Vermont
HORIZON LINES: Enters Into Settlement Agreement with Opt Outs
INSMED CORP: Gets Court Nod of Transave Merger-Related Suit Deal
INTERSECTIONS INC: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending

INTERSECTIONS INC: No Claims Pending in California Class Suit
INTERSECTION INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Death Program
KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Await Order on Suit Settlements
KID BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Rahman" Securities Class Suit
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT: Sued Over Marijuana Case Index

MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued for Falsely Advertising Chicken as Halal
MOHAVE COUNTY, AZ: Residents to Pursue Chemtrail Class Action
NABOR INDUSTRIES: Court Okays Settlement in "Denney" Class Suit
NARA BANCORP: Still Awaits Court Okay of Merger Suit Settlement
NATIONAL PENN: Continues to Await Order on Plea to Dismiss Suit

NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Defend RICO Class Suit in Calif.
NBT BANCORP: Defends Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
NEKTER JUICE: Sued in Calif. Over False Claims on Juice Drinks
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Still Defends RESPA Suits in Pa. & Texas
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Still Defends Price-Fixing Suits in Calif.

OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Still Defends Suits in California & Alabama
PENSON WORLDWIDE: Defends Against Securities Suit in Texas
POPULAR INC: Gets Final Court Okay on "Hoff" Suit Settlement
POPULAR INC: Still Awaits Final Ruling on ERISA Suit Settlement
POPULAR INC: Unit's Motions to Dismiss Two Lawsuits Still Pending

PRINCETON REVIEW: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Mass.
PUBLISHERS CIRCULATION: Sued in Mass. for Misclassifying Drivers
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Calif. Over Defective TV Capacitors
SONOMA VALLEY: Consolidated Suit vs. Firm's Execs Remain Pending
SUSQUEHANNA BANCHARES: Court OKs Abington-Related Suit Settlement

SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Signs MOU to Settle Tower-Related Suit
TALEO CORP: Employee Class Suit Remains Pending
VERTRO INC: Seeks Rehearing on Appeals in Florida Class Suit
WILLIS GROUP: Still Awaits Final Order on Class Suit Settlement
WILLIS GROUP: Discrimination Suit Settlement to be Heard Dec. 12

WILLIS GROUP: Court Junks Claims in "Troice" Lawsuit
YRC WORLDWIDE: Enters Into Deal to Settle 401(k) Class Suit
YRC WORLDWIDE: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Securities Lawsuit
ZIONS BANCORP: Faces Lawsuit Over Credit Card Overdraft Fees

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Subject to Potential Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Corp. Still Named in Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corporation Subject to Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Facing 1,000 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Prager Subsidiary Still Has 2 Injury Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Facing 200 Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Zurn Unit Has 7T Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 230 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Units Still Face Pending Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper, Subsidiaries Named in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation Still Named in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Facing 520 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Facing 19,056 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faces 22 Exposure Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corporation Faces 50,120 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Issues Split Decision in Evans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Issues Split Ruling in Harper Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies USF & G's Bid in Turner Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Still Facing Lawsuits in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Facing 996 Lawsuits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Has 15 Injury Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Maintains $10MM-$20MM Coverage for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Named in Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Still Named "Premises Defendant"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,095 Open Cases at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence, Hoke Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Bankruptcy Case Closed Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco Subject to Potential Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alliant Records $7MM Revisions in 3rd Qtr. 2011
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sept. 30 Cases v. General Cable Totaled 29,039

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ratcliff Case v. Texaco, Chevron Filed in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln University Penalized for Safety Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Engineering Settles Lopez Action for $10MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hall's Claim v. 28 Firms Filed Oct. 27 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ozen's Case v. Chevron, Texaco Filed on Nov. 10

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP100,000 Lawsuit v. Royal Scots Club Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie's Appeal on AU$2MM Verdict Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meyer Case v. ExxonMobil Filed Nov. 14 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $783MM for Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Accrues $1.9MM Obligations at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc, Units Still Named in Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Named in Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Flips Abbay Case Dismissal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court OKs Warren Pumps Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Flips Ruling in Farrow Case





                          *********

ALLIED WORLD: Merger-Related Class Suits Discontinued
-----------------------------------------------------
Certain class action lawsuits against Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, AG, relating to the Company's merger agreement
with Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., have been discontinued, the
Company disclosed in its November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Several stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company, Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., and the members of the
Transatlantic board of directors challenging the proposed merger
of the Company and Transatlantic, which merger was mutually
terminated by the parties on September 15, 2011.

In the lawsuits Clark v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al.;
Sutton v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al.; and Jaroslawicz v.
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. Actions: On October 19, 2011,
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
entered stipulations discontinuing the Clark, Sutton and
Jaroslawicz actions.

In re Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. Shareholders Litigation: On
October 10, 2011, the Delaware plaintiffs filed the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint,
alleging that Transatlantic's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by entering into, inter alia, the agreement terminating the
transaction, Holdings and/or its subsidiaries aided and abetted
the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and Holdings and/or its
subsidiaries were unjustly enriched by the fees paid pursuant to
the agreement terminating the transaction.  On October 24, 2011,
the defendants moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Class
Action and Derivative Complaint.

In addition, on August 10, 2011, Validus Holdings, Ltd. filed a
complaint against Transatlantic, the members of the Transatlantic
board of directors, Holdings and GO Sub, LLC (a newly formed
Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary
of Holdings) in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Validus alleges
that the members of the Transatlantic board of directors breached
their fiduciary duty and that Holdings and/or its subsidiaries
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
Validus seeks, among other things, an order enjoining
Transatlantic and Holdings from consummating the proposed merger
unless and until the defendants' allegedly false and misleading
statements are corrected; compelling the Transatlantic board of
directors to engage in good faith discussions with Validus; and
declaring that the merger agreement and the confidentiality
agreement between Holdings and Transatlantic do not require that a
confidentiality agreement between Transatlantic and Validus
contain a standstill provision.  On August 16, 2011, Validus filed
a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Motion for Expedited
Proceedings.  Validus' Motion for Expedited Proceedings was heard
by the court on August 22, 2011 and granted in part and denied in
part.  Thereafter, on September 6, 2011, the defendants moved to
dismiss Validus' complaint, which motions were pending before the
court at the time that the transaction was terminated.

The Company believes that certain of the relief sought in the
lawsuits is no longer relevant due to the termination of the
merger.  The Company further believes that the lawsuits filed
against them are without merit and intends to defend them
vigorously.

Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG --
http://www.awac.com/-- operates as a specialty insurance and
reinsurance company in Bermuda, Hong Kong, Ireland, Singapore,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Four Suits Over Merger Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Four of the remaining lawsuits against AllScripts Healthcare
Solutions, Inc., relating to its merger agreement with Eclipsys
Corporation remain stayed, according to the Company's November 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On or about June 15, 2010, Rajesh Nama, on behalf of himself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a purported class
action complaint in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of
Georgia, captioned Nama v. Pead, et al. The lawsuit names
Allscripts, Arsenal Merger Corp., Eclipsys, and each of the
directors of Eclipsys as defendants.  On or about June 17, 2010,
John Scoggins, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of
Eclipsys, filed a second purported class action complaint in the
same court and against the same defendants (except not Arsenal)
captioned Scoggins v. Eclipsys Corp., et al.  On or about June 18,
2010, Colleen Witmer, on behalf of herself and the public
stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a third purported class action
complaint in the same court and against the same defendants as the
first case and captioned Witmer v. Casey, et al.  On or about June
22, 2010, Michael Hiers, on behalf of himself and the public
stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fourth purported class action
complaint in the same court and against the same parties as the
first case and captioned Hiers v. Casey, et al.  On or about June
22, 2010, the Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan,
on behalf of itself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed
a fifth purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, State of Georgia, and against the same defendants
as the first case (except not Allscripts or Arsenal) and captioned
Iron Workers of W. Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Pead, et al.

On or about June 30, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case
dismissed its complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia and refiled its complaint in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia.  On or about July 9, 2010,
the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case filed an Amended Complaint.
On or about July 9, 2010, Jody Madala, individually and on behalf
of the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a sixth purported
class action complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
State of Georgia against the same defendants as the first case
(except not Allscripts or Arsenal) captioned Madala v. Pead et al.
The cases in the Superior Court of DeKalb County were subsequently
transferred to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Business
Case Division.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Eclipsys
directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Eclipsys aided
and abetted those breaches.  Five of the complaints (excepting the
first) also allege facts concerning the proposed secondary public
offering of certain Allscripts shares owned by Misys and the buy
back by Allscripts of certain shares owned by Misys. Certain
lawsuits also contain allegations that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus/information statement on Form S-4 is
materially misleading in certain respects including the omission
of information concerning certain financial projections and
whether or how the parties and their financial advisors have
accounted for certain proceeds to be paid to Misys in the stock
buy back.  Certain lawsuits also allege that Allscripts aided and
abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors
of Eclipsys.  Based on these allegations, the lawsuits seek, among
other relief, rescission of the merger or damages. They also
purport to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

On or about July 27, 2010, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
Business Case Division, granted the Eclipsys defendants' motion to
dismiss the Iron Workers' Amended Complaint.  On or about August
5, 2010, the Georgia Court of Appeals denied Iron Workers'
emergency request for an injunction pending appeal.  The appeal
was then briefed in the ordinary course.  On November 12, 2010,
Iron Workers moved to dismiss its appeal, which the Georgia Court
of Appeals granted, rendering conclusive the Superior Court's
dismissal with prejudice of the Iron Workers lawsuit.

Also on November 12, 2010, the plaintiff in the Madala case filed
a motion to amend her complaint and to lift the litigation stay
that had been entered by the Superior Court in the other five
cases pending the Iron Workers appeal.  Defendants opposed
Madala's motion.  On January 19, 2011, the parties filed a
stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to which the Superior Court
dismissed Madala's claims with prejudice.  The remaining four
lawsuits remain stayed by the Superior Court.

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

The outcome of any of the foregoing litigation is inherently
uncertain, and no reasonable estimate of potential damages is
possible.  Each company may incur substantial defense costs and
expenses.  An unfavorable outcome may adversely affect the
combined company's business, financial condition or results of
operations.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  Its
businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide physicians
and other healthcare professionals with just-right, just-in-time
information, connect them to each other and to the entire
community of care, and transform healthcare by improving the
quality and efficiency of patient care.


B & A ASSOCIATES: Accused of Violating LLC Act of Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Barreiro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. B & A Associates, LLC, Associates, Case No. 2011-CH-
40650 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., November 28, 2011) alleges that
the Defendant has violated the Illinois Limited Liability Company
Act by bringing civil actions against the Plaintiff and others
without being admitted to transact business in the state of
Illinois.

The Defendant, through its attorneys, has obtained judgments for
monies, court costs, possession orders and has executed upon them
as well, Mr. Barreiro alleges.  Because the people against whom
the Defendant has brought claims without being admitted to
transact business in Illinois have suffered damages as a result of
the Defendant's violations of the Act, the Plaintiff contends that
he is entitled to recover damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.

Mr. Barreiro is a resident of Illinois, and at all times relevant
to the action, was a tenant at a residential property owned and
managed by B & A.  He is also the plaintiff and counterdefendant
in the lawsuit styled Barreiro v. B & A Associates, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 11M1014903.

B & A is a Colorado limited liability company, being deemed a
Foreign LLC.  B & A has acted as the manager and agent for
residential apartment buildings located in Illinois.  B & A is
also a defendant and counterplaintiff in the "First Case."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Berton N. Ring, Esq.
          BERTON N. RING, P.C.
          123 W. Madison St., 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 781-0290
          E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com


BULGARIAN MOBILE OPERATORS: Face Class Action Over SMS TV Games
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novinite.com reports that Bulgaria's Commission for Consumer
Protection (KZP) will file a class action lawsuit against the
three mobile operators, M-tel, Globul and Vivacom over an
aggressive SMS-based campaign promoting the interactive TV game
"Turn Millionaire", KZP's office said in a statement.

A check conducted by KZP has shown that the violations have
recurred after a similar scenario unfolded in the beginning of
2011 with the "SMS for Millions" gambling game.

The "SMS for Millions" game, held in the period September 20, 2010
- January 31, 2011, also involved text-message spam distributed by
the three telecom operators, an aggressive commercial practice
banned by orders issued by the KZP Chair.

According to KZP's Nov. 29 statement, the organizer of the game,
New Games OOD, engages in misleading conduct by failing to
disclose essential information about the game's terms of
participation and withdrawal.

KZP informs that this is a second offense for New Games OOD which
will be countered by a class action lawsuit.

KZP's check into "Turn Millionaire" has shown that the consumers
get tricked into believing that their participation is free of
charge while their answers to the questions are being charged.

The deception is also spread through inviting short text messages
which create the impression that the consumers have already been
singled out for the distribution of awards and all they need to do
is call or send an sms.

Up until now, KZP has received 260-plus complaints of consumers,
most of them concerning the sms attacks and the hoax that taking
part in the game is free of charge.

According to accounts of fraud victims, they received text
messages or calls from numbers 145 and 1455 of the three mobile
operators with invitations to take part in the interactive TV
game.

The operator offered them to respond to a series of questions with
assurances that it would not cost them any money.

Each response required pressing "1" or "2", which was charged BGN
2.40 each, of which the consumers had not been warned.


CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CardioNet, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities
class action lawsuit in a California state court, according to the
Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On March 5, 2010, West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed a
putative class action complaint in California Superior Court, San
Diego County asserting claims for violations of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the
Company, nine current and former officers and directors of the
Company and six underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering consummated March 25, 2008 and/or Secondary Offering on
August 6, 2008.  The plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of
all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and/or
Secondary Offering.  The claims are based on purported
misrepresentations and omissions in the Registration Statements
for the Offerings relating to alleged business decisions made by
the Company that were supposedly not disclosed to investors and
alleged misstatements concerning the Company's business.  On
May 12, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the
action for failure to state a cause of action.  The Court
scheduled argument on the demurrer on September 2, 2011.  In
addition, on May 10, 2011, plaintiff served discovery requests on
defendants.  Defendants served timely responses to the discovery
requests and objected to them on various grounds.  In conjunction
with those objections, on May 25, 2011, defendants filed a motion
for a protective order seeking a stay of discovery until the Court
decided defendants' demurrer as provided for under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On September 2, 2011, the Court
denied Defendants' demurrer, thereby mooting a decision on the
motion for a protective order.  Consistent with the accounting for
contingent liabilities, no accrual has been recorded in the
financial statements.  The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation that provides continuous, real-time ambulatory
outpatient management solutions for monitoring relevant and timely
clinical information regarding an individual's health.


CHINA NORTH: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit against China North East Petroleum Holdings
Limited has been filed, according to the Company's November 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company is involved in six legal actions, three of which are
securities class actions and three of which are shareholder
derivative actions, all pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  In addition to naming the Company,
these actions name as defendants certain of its officers and
directors.  The three class actions assert claims under the
federal securities laws and the three derivative actions assert
common law claims based on alleged breach of duty.

The six actions are entitled: (1) Rosado v. China North East
Petroleum Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 4577 (MGC), filed June
11, 2010; (2) Weissmann v. China North East Petroleum Holdings
Limited, et al., 10 CV 4775 (MGC), filed June 18, 2010; (3) Moore
v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 5263
(MGC), filed July 9, 2010; (4) Strickland v. Hongjun, et al., 10
CV 5445 (MGC), filed July 19, 2010; (5) Drobner v. Hongjun, et
al., 10 CV 6193 (MGC), filed August 23, 2010; and (6) Nicoln v.
Hongjun, et al., 10 CV 6344 (MGC), filed August 24, 2010.

The Court consolidated the three securities class actions as In re
China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited Securities Litigation,
10 CV 4577 (MGC).  On March 22, 2011, the Company
and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss.  On
October 6, 2011, the Court issued an order granting the motions to
dismiss.  On October 11, 2011, as directed by the Court, the Court
Clerk entered a judgment of dismissal of the actions in favor all
defendants and closed the case.  Plaintiffs recently filed a
notice of appeal.  No further activity has occurred at this
juncture on the appeal.

Plaintiffs in the three shareholder derivatives filed an amended
complaint on February 22, 2011.  On April 20, 2011, the Company
and defendant Robert Bruce, the only defendants served in the
action, filed motions to dismiss.  After oral argument, the Court
ordered dismissal of the consolidated actions and the Clerk
entered judgment dismissing the action on May 27, 2011.
Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion to alter the judgment on June
1, 2011 in an attempt to re-open the action.  The Court denied
this motion too, on July 8, 2011, without oral argument.  On
August 5, 2011, Plaintiffs in each of the three shareholder
derivative actions filed notices of appeal.  No further activity
has occurred in connection with these appeals.

China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited --
http://www.cnepetroleum.com/-- engages in the exploration and
production of crude oil in northern China.  The company, through
its subsidiary, Song Yuan Tiancheng Drilling Engineering Co.,
Ltd., provides contract land drilling and other oilfield services
for state-owned and non-state-owned oil companies.


CHINA ORGANIC: Egleston & Rigrodsky File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Egleston Law Firm and Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Nov. 29
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of China Organic Agriculture, Inc. between November 12, 2008
through March 24, 2010, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Nov. 29.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Gregory M.
Egleston of the Egleston Law Firm at (212) 683-3400, or via e-mail
at egleston@gme-law.com or Timothy J. MacFall at (516) 683-3516,
or via e-mail at tjm@rigrodskylong.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
knew, or recklessly disregarded, that despite the Company's public
representation that the sale of Jilin Songyuan City ErMaPao Green
Rice Limited had been completed in September 2008, China Organic
had received no payments from the purchaser, Bothven Investments
Limited, at the time the sale was announced.  Indeed, it was not
until March 18, 2009 that Bothven signed the extension payment
agreement with the Company pursuant to which Bothven agreed to pay
the purchase price of $8,700,000 in 3 installments (30% in July
2009, 30% in September 2009 and 40% in October 2009).  In
addition, Defendants, who had reported the sale of ErMaPao, knew
or recklessly disregarded that Company improperly reported results
from ErMaPao as part of China Organic's ongoing operations
subsequent to September 2008, despite the fact that the Company
had purportedly been sold at that time.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
China Organic common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff
is represented by the Egleston Law Firm -- http://www.gme-law.com
-- and Rigrodsky & Long -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com/-- whose
attorneys have decades of experience in prosecuting securities
class actions and investor class actions throughout the United
States.

        CONTACT: Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
                 Egleston Law Firm
                 Telephone: (212) 683-3400
                 E-mail: egleston@gme-law.com

                 Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
                 Telephone: (516) 683-3516
                 E-mail: tjm@rigrodskylong.com


CIGNA: Not Entitled to Indemnity for $140MM RICO Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
Philadelphia judge has ruled that Cigna is not entitled to
indemnity for any of the $140 million it agreed to pay to settle a
class action eight years ago because it intentionally failed to
apportion the payments between RICO claims, which were covered by
its professional liability insurance policy, and breach of
contract claims, which were not.


COOPER COMPANIES: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
On November 28, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action
complaint against The Cooper Companies, Inc. and certain of the
Company's senior officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  The action for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on
behalf of those purchasing the common stock of Cooper between
March 4, 2011 and November 15, 2011, inclusive.

If you purchased the common stock of Cooper during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you
must move the Court no later than 60 days from November 28, 2011.
Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact Scott+Scott at (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-
5537 or visit the Scott+Scott Web site
http://www.scott-scott.com/cases/coopercos.htmlfor more
information.  There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint filed in the action alleges that, during the Class
Period, Cooper issued false and misleading statements concealing
known quality control problems and process defects at the
Company's new overseas contact lens manufacturing facilities.

The complaint alleges that following the announcement of a small
voluntary recall, the significance of which Cooper and its senior
executives intentionally downplayed, on November 15, 2011, Cooper
was forced to disclose a much larger product recall and to finally
disclose the seriousness of the potential injuries.  As the market
learned the true extent of the Company's production issues,
product safety defects and the harm to Cooper's reputation and
product marketability, the Company's stock price declined
precipitously.  The class action seeks recovery under the federal
securities laws for those who purchased Cooper's common stock
between March 4, 2011 and November 15, 2011.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.

CONTACT: Scott+Scott LLP
                 Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                            (860) 537-5537
                 E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


DICK CLARK: AMAs Stagehand Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Kenneally, writing for TheWrap, reports that Dick Clark
Productions' legal woes continue to mount.

The production company was hit with a class-action lawsuit in Los
Angeles Superior Court on Nov. 28.  It was filed by a stagehand at
the American Music Awards who claims that his paycheck was delayed
for more than two months.

In the suit, Charles Griffin claims that he was hired for the 36th
Annual AMAs to work the ceremony on Nov. 22, 2008 -- but didn't
receive payment for his services until Feb. 5, 2009.

And Mr. Griffin figures he's far from the only one to receive such
allegedly shabby treatment.

"DCP routinely fails to devote sufficient resources to the payroll
accounting function, with the result that such late payment of
wages is customary rather than exceptional," the complaint reads.

The suit includes all crew members who've worked for Dick Clark
Productions in the past three years -- a number that the suit
estimates to be "more than 50 but fewer than 1,000."

Meanwhile, DCP's legal entanglement with the Hollywood Foreign
Press Association continues.

In August, a federal judge ruled that the HFPA's case against Dick
Clark Productions will go forward to trial.  The HFPA, which puts
on the Golden Globe Awards, filed suit against Dick Clark
Productions last November, alleging that DCP improperly negotiated
a new contract with NBC to air the awards for seven more years,
despite the fact that DCP's contract with the HFPA was set to
expire after the 2011 AMAs.

TheWrap is awaiting response from a Dick Clark Productions
spokesperson.


DRUG STORES: W.Va Firm's Class Action Remanded to Minn. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed by a West Virginia law firm will be remanded
to a Minnesota state court.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis on Nov. 18 adopted Magistrate
Judge Janie Mayeron's recommendation that the case, filed against
a group of drug stores, be remanded to Hennepin County District
Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled earlier
this year that the court should decide if a motion to remand filed
by Bailey & Glasser of Charleston, W.Va., was done so in a timely
manner.  It was submitted more than 100 days after the drug stores
removed the case to federal court and after a judge had harshly
dismissed the original complaint.

It was also filed after a Michigan federal court remanded three
similar lawsuits brought by the firm.  That was done on Dec. 1,
2009, and eventually the cases were dismissed.

"(T)he court is satisfied that plaintiffs and their counsel did
not know that they had a reasonable basis for pursuing a remand
until after the Michigan court issued its remand decision on
Dec. 1, 2009," Judge Mayeron wrote in October.

"In fact, the evidence before this court establishes that
plaintiffs did not believe that the (Class Action Fairness Act)
local controversy exception applied to this case, even after the
Michigan court raised the issue at the pretrial conference."

The drug stores -- which include CVS, Target and Wal-Mart -- are
alleged to have not passed savings on generic drugs to consumers.
They argue that the plaintiffs continued to litigate the case
after it was removed and only asked for remand after former U.S.
District Judge James Rosenbaum dismissed the complaint.

Judge Rosenbaum allowed the plaintiffs to amend the complaint then
granted remand.  When the drug stores appealed, the Eighth Circuit
said the district court should rule on the timeliness issue.
Judge Michael Davis was assigned the case after Judge Rosenbaum
retired.

In November 2009, Judge Rosenbaum was annoyed that the complaint,
filed against 13 defendants on behalf of unions that provide
health care for their members, contained specific pricing
information about only 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.

"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.

"There's not a lawsuit here.  There is not a claim.  There is not
an allegation.  I've got words on a page."

The lawsuits in Michigan were dismissed by a state judge because
the only specific pricing information was obtained by a West
Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger.

The firm is also representing West Virginia Attorney General
Darrell McGraw's office in a suit filed in the Mountain State.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 28 decided not to hear the stores'
appeal of a Fourth Circuit ruling that remanded the case.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Unit Still Defends Fraud Class Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation's unit continues to
defend a fraud class action complaint in Pennsylvania, according
to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank is a class action that was
filed on January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  The action alleges that First
Commonwealth Bank promised class members a minimum interest rate
of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as long as the
class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA account.  The
class asserts that First Commonwealth committed fraud, breached
its modified contract with the class members, and violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market Rate Savings
Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a roll-over IRA
account with a 3.5% interest rate.  At that time, aggregate
balances in the IRA Market Rate Savings accounts totaled
approximately $11.5 million.  The class members seek monetary
damages for the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for
the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law violations, and attorney's fees. On
July 27, 2011, the court granted class certification as to breach
of contract claim and denied class certification as to the fraud
and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
claims.  The amount of liability, if any, will depend upon
information which is not presently known to the Bank, including
the Court's interpretation of the IRA contract and each class
member's life expectancy and pace of distributions from the IRA
account.  Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate the
amount or range of a reasonably possible loss.

Headquartered in Indiana, Pennsylvania, First Commonwealth
Financial Corporation -- http://www.fcbanking.com/-- operates as
the holding company for First Commonwealth Bank that provides
consumer and commercial banking services to individuals and small
and mid-sized businesses in central and western Pennsylvania.  It
operates 115 community banking offices in western Pennsylvania and
2 loan production offices in downtown Pittsburgh and State
College, Pennsylvania.


FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Defends Against Suit Over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc., is defending itself against a
class action complaint relating to overdraft fees, according to
the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On October 20, 2011, a lawsuit captioned Deanna Williamson, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. First Mid-
Illinois Bancshares, Inc. and First Mid Bank & Trust, N.A., Case
No. 11-L-1079), was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois.  The lawsuit is styled as a class action lawsuit.  The
suit alleges that the Company and First Mid Bank unfairly assess
and collect overdraft fees and seeks restitution of the overdraft
fees, an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages,
prejudgment interest and additional relief.  The Company intends
to defend itself vigorously.

First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. -- http://www.firstmid.com/
-- operates as the holding company for First Mid-Illinois Bank &
Trust, N.A. that offers community banking and wealth management
services to commercial, retail, and agricultural customers in
Illinois.  The company serves 25 communities with 38 locations in
the towns of Altamont, Arcola, Bartonville, Bloomington,
Champaign, Charleston, Decatur, Effingham, Galesburg, Highland,
Knoxville, Mansfield, Mahomet, Maryville, Mattoon, Monticello,
Neoga, Peoria, Pocahontas, Quincy, Sullivan, Taylorville, Tuscola,
Urbana, and Weldon.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Class Suits Over Going Private Proposal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits in Nevada and Tennessee remain pending
against Fushi Copperweld, Inc., with respect to a "going private"
proposal, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Twelve shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against
the Company, members of its Board of Directors, and/or others in
connection with the November 3, 2010 non-binding proposal made by
the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Li Fu, and
Abax Global Capital (Hong Kong) Limited to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company's Common Stock not currently
owned by Mr. Fu and his affiliates for $11.50 per share in cash,
as further described in the Schedule 13D/A and exhibits filed on
November 4, 2010.  Nine actions were filed in Nevada state court
(Carson City, Clark County, or Washoe County); two actions were
filed in Nevada federal district court; and one action was filed
in Tennessee state court.  All of the actions assert claims
against the Company and/or members of the Board for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposal.

On or about November 5, 2010, the Company became aware that the
first of the shareholder class actions had been filed against the
Company and the Board in connection with the Proposal.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the proposed buyout price and the
process of evaluating the Proposal are unfair and inadequate.
Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, to enjoin defendants from
consummating the Proposal and to direct defendants to exercise
their fiduciary duties to negotiate a transaction that is in the
best interests of the Company's shareholders.

The Company has moved, or will move, to dismiss each of the
complaints because, among other reasons, Plaintiffs' claims are
not ripe for adjudication and fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.  The Company has reviewed the allegations
contained in the complaints and believes they are without merit.
The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

To date, the two actions pending in Nevada federal district court
have been dismissed.  The Nevada state court actions have been
consolidated into a single action.  The motion to dismiss the
Tennessee state court action remains pending.

The updated actions are captioned:

   * Arthur I. Murphy, Jr. IRA v. Fushi Copperweld Inc., Li Fu,
Joseph J. Longever, Wenbing Christopher Wang, Barry L. Raeburn,
Bai Feng, Jiping Hua, and John Francis Perkowski, Case No.
10OC00512, filed on November 4, 2010, in the First Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Carson City.  On
August 1, 2011, Plaintiff Murphy voluntarily dismissed his
complaint, filed prior to consolidation of the Nevada state court
actions.

   * Dean Victor v. Li Fu, Case No. 10-OC-00534 1B, filed on
November 24, 2010, in the First Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada in and for Carson City.  On August 1, 2011,
Plaintiff Victor voluntarily dismissed his complaint, filed prior
to consolidation of the Nevada state court actions.

   * Brian Levy v. Fushi Copperweld, Inc., Li Fu, Joseph J.
Longever, Craig H. Studwell, Wenbing Christopher Wang, John F.
Perkowski, Feng Bai, Jiping Hua, Barry L. Raeburn, and Abax Global
Capital (Hong Kong) Ltd., Case No. 10OC00555-1B, filed on December
7, 2010, in the First Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada in and for Carson City.  Plaintiff Levy voluntarily
dismissed this action on April 29, 2011.

   * NVEST AB v. Fushi Copperweld, Inc., Case No. 10OC005591B,
filed on December 8, 2010, in the First Judicial District Court of
the State of Nevada in and for Carson City.  On August 1, 2011,
Plaintiff NVEST AB voluntarily dismissed its complaint, filed
prior to consolidation of the Nevada state court actions.

   * John Wilcoxon v. Fushi Copperweld, Inc., Li Fu, Joseph J.
Longever, Wenbing Christopher Wang, John Francis Perkowski, Feng
Bai, Jiping Hua, and Barry L. Raeburn, Case No. A-10-628936-C,
filed on November 8, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial District Court
of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County.  On March 7, 2011,
the Eighth Judicial District Court consolidated the Wilcoxon,
Gober, Antler, and Tejeda actions under the Wilcoxon case number.

   * James D. Kennedy v. Fushi Copperweld, Inc., Li Fu, Joseph J.
Longever, Wenbing Christopher Wang, Barry L. Raeburn, Feng Bai,
Jiping Hua, and John Francis Perkowski, Case No. 10-03518, filed
on November 23, 2010, in the Second Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada in and for Washoe County.  On August 1, 2011,
Plaintiff Kennedy voluntarily dismissed his complaint, filed prior
to consolidation of the Nevada state court actions.

   * Mohamed Hussien vs. Fushi Copperweld, Inc., Li Fu, Joseph J.
Longever, Wenbing Christopher Wang, Barry L. Raeburn, Feng Bai,
Jiping Hua, and John Francis Perkowski, Case No. 3:10-CV-00699-
LRH-RAM, filed on November 8, 2010, in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada.  The Court dismissed the Hussien
action on April 7, 2011.

   * Thomas Turner vs. Fushi Copperweld, Inc., Li Fu, Joseph J.
Longever, Wenbing Christopher Wang, Barry L. Raeburn, Feng Bai,
Jiping Hua, John Francis Perkowski, Case No. 3-10-CV-00711-RCJ-
VPC, filed on November 15, 2010, in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada.  The Court dismissed the Turner
action on May 9, 2011.

   * Seth Korber vs. Li Fu, Joseph Longever, Wenbing Chris Wang,
Barry Raeburn, Feng Bai, Jiping Hua, John Perkowski, and Fushi
Copperweld, Inc., Case No. 13510, filed on December 30, 2010, in
the Chancery Court for Lincoln County, Tennessee, Seventeenth
Judicial District at Fayetteville.  The Company and Mr. Wang have
moved to dismiss this action, which motion remains pending before
the Court.

Fushi Copperweld, Inc., is a producer and innovator of bimetallic
wire products, principally copper-clad aluminum, or CCA, and
copper-clad steel, or CCS, products. CCA and CCS conductors are
generally used as a substitute for solid copper conductors in
applications for which either cost savings or specific electrical
or physical attributes are necessary.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Securities Suit in Tennessee Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit against Fushi Copperweld, Inc.,
remains pending in Tennessee, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Three federal securities class action suits were commenced against
the Company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors during the period from May 16, 2011 to June 20, 2011.
Two actions were commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, and one action was commenced in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.  Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the New York
actions, and the Tennessee action remains pending.

On or about May 17, 2011, the Company became aware that the first
of the federal securities class actions had been filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in connection
with the Company's restatement of its financials.  Plaintiffs
assert claims against the Company and the other named defendants
for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs seek damages and other relief
on behalf of a purported class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period between August 14, 2007
and March 29, 2011.  Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading when made during the class period.

The actions are captioned:

(1) Brian Levy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
    situated v. Fushi Copperweld, Inc. Li Fu, Wenbing Christopher
    Wang, Beihong Linda Zhang, and Joseph J. Longever, No. 1:11-
    CV-03104-PGG (S.D.N.Y).  The Levy action was filed on May 16,
    2011.  Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action on
    September 20, 2011.

(2) Robert Wiener, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
    situated v. Fushi Copperweld, Inc., Joseph J. Longever, Craig
    H. Studwell, Wenbing Christopher Wang, and Beihong Linda
    Zhang, No. 11-CV-3772 (S.D.N.Y).  The Wiener action was filed
    on June 2, 2011.  Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
    action on September 8, 2011.

(3) North Port Firefighters' Pension - Local Option Plan,
    individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
    v. Fushi Copperweld, Inc., Li Fu, Joseph J. Longever, Craig
    H. Studwell, Wenbing Christopher Wang, and Beihong Linda
    Zhang, No. 3:11-CV-0595 (M.D. Tenn.).  The North Port
    Firefighters action was filed on June 20, 2011.  Plaintiffs
    are scheduled to file a consolidated amended complaint in
    this action on November 14, 2011.

Fushi Copperweld, Inc., is a producer and innovator of bimetallic
wire products, principally copper-clad aluminum, or CCA, and
copper-clad steel, or CCS, products. CCA and CCS conductors are
generally used as a substitute for solid copper conductors in
applications for which either cost savings or specific electrical
or physical attributes are necessary.


GAMESTOP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Labor & Wage Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class claims Gamestop
failed to provide meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in Philo v. Gamestop Corp., et al., Case
No. 11-at-01719 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/29/gamestop.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan E. Gertler, Esq.
          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          E-mail: jon@chavezgertler.com
                  christian@chavezgertler.com


GENON ENERGY: Appeals From Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging the dismissal of four antitrust lawsuits
against GenOn Energy, Inc., remain pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the Company's November
9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company is party to five lawsuits, several of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin.  These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath
of the California energy crisis and the resulting Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission investigations and relate to alleged conduct
to increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and
similar laws.  The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages,
restitution and/or expenses.  The lawsuits also name a number of
unaffiliated energy companies as parties.  In July 2011, the judge
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
handling four of the five cases granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment dismissing all claims against the Company in
those cases.  The plaintiffs have appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The fifth case is pending
in the State of Nevada Supreme Court on plaintiff's appeal of the
dismissal of all its claims by the Eighth Judicial District Court
for Clark County, Nevada.  The Company has agreed to indemnify
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., against certain losses relating to these
lawsuits.

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

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc. --
http://www.genon.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provides
energy, capacity, ancillary, and other energy services to
wholesale customers in the energy market in the United States.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a wage-and-hour lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against the Company in which five former employees allege
wage and hour law violations.  The former employees claim they
were paid pursuant to "an unlawful hybrid" compensation plan that
paid them on both a per visit and an hourly basis, thereby voiding
their exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay.  The
plaintiffs allege continuing violations of federal and state law
and seek damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as
well as under the New York Labor Law and North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act.  On October 8, 2010, the Court granted the Company's
motion to transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  On April 13,
2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of the FLSA claims as a collective action.
Plaintiffs seek class certification of allegedly similar employees
and seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going
back three years under the FLSA, six years under the New York
statute and two years under the North Carolina statute.

Given the preliminary stage of the Rindfleisch lawsuit, the
Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential
liability, if any, arising from these proceedings on the business,
financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital
resources of the Company.  The Company does not believe that an
estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be
made for these lawsuits at this time. The Company intends to
defend itself vigorously in the lawsuit.

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

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -
- http://www.gentiva.com-- provides home health services and
hospice care in the United States.  The company offers skilled
nursing and therapy services, paraprofessional nursing services,
and homemaker services primarily to adult and elderly patients
through licensed and Medicare-certified agencies. It also provides
its services through specialty programs comprising of Gentiva
Orthopedics, which offers individualized home orthopedic
rehabilitation services to patients recovering from joint
replacement or other major orthopedic surgery; Gentiva Safe
Strides that provides therapies for patients with balance issues;
and Gentiva Cardiopulmonary, which helps patients and their
physicians manage heart and lung health in a home-based
environment.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a wage-and-hour lawsuit in California, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California against the Company in which a former employee alleges
wage and hour violations under the FLSA and California law.  The
complaint alleges that the Company paid some of its employees on
both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt
status and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint further
alleges that California employees were subject to violations of
state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, accurate wage
statements and timely payment of wages.  The plaintiff seeks class
certification, attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties, and damages
going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the
state wage and hour claims.

Given the preliminary stage of the Willkie lawsuit, the Company is
unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if
any, arising from these proceedings on the business, financial
condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources
of the Company.  The Company does not believe that an estimate of
a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for these
lawsuits at this time. The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in the lawsuit.

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

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -
- http://www.gentiva.com-- provides home health services and
hospice care in the United States.  The company offers skilled
nursing and therapy services, paraprofessional nursing services,
and homemaker services primarily to adult and elderly patients
through licensed and Medicare-certified agencies. It also provides
its services through specialty programs comprising of Gentiva
Orthopedics, which offers individualized home orthopedic
rehabilitation services to patients recovering from joint
replacement or other major orthopedic surgery; Gentiva Safe
Strides that provides therapies for patients with balance issues;
and Gentiva Cardiopulmonary, which helps patients and their
physicians manage heart and lung health in a home-based
environment.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Settlement in Odyssey Merger Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., continues to await a state court
decision on the settlement resolving a consolidated lawsuit over
the Company's merger agreement with Odyssey Healthcare, Inc.,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Company's acquisition of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc.  The
first, entitled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al., was filed on May 27,
2010 in the County Court, Dallas County, Texas.  The second,
entitled Eric Hemminger et al. v. Richard Burnham et al., was
filed on June 9, 2010 in the District Court, Dallas, Texas. The
third, entitled John O. Hansen v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al.,
was filed on July 2, 2010 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.  All three lawsuits name the
Company, GTO Acquisition Corp., Odyssey and the members of
Odyssey's board of directors as defendants.  All three lawsuits
are brought by purported stockholders of Odyssey, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of stockholders,
alleging that Odyssey's board of directors breached its fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger by failing to maximize
shareholder value and that the Company and Odyssey aided and
abetted the alleged breaches.  On September 28, 2010, plaintiff in
the Hemminger action filed a motion for consolidation in the
District Court, seeking to consolidate the Hemminger action with
the Pompano Beach action.  On October 8, 2010, the District Court
granted plaintiff's motion to consolidate and transferred the
Hemminger action to County Court No. 5 in Dallas County, Texas. On
October 12, 2010, Gentiva entered a general denial with respect to
the material allegations in both the Pompano Beach and Hemminger
complaints.  On December 16, 2010, defendants in the actions
executed a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs Pompano
Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System, Eric Hemminger and
John O. Hansen reflecting an agreement in principle to settle each
of the actions for additional disclosures which were included in
Odyssey's Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, filed on
July 9, 2010.  Defendants also agreed not to contest an
application for attorneys' fees to be made by plaintiffs, which
application shall not exceed $675,000.  The settlement remains
subject to notice to the putative class and court approval.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -
- http://www.gentiva.com-- provides home health services and
hospice care in the United States.  The company offers skilled
nursing and therapy services, paraprofessional nursing services,
and homemaker services primarily to adult and elderly patients
through licensed and Medicare-certified agencies. It also provides
its services through specialty programs comprising of Gentiva
Orthopedics, which offers individualized home orthopedic
rehabilitation services to patients recovering from joint
replacement or other major orthopedic surgery; Gentiva Safe
Strides that provides therapies for patients with balance issues;
and Gentiva Cardiopulmonary, which helps patients and their
physicians manage heart and lung health in a home-based
environment.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Due by Jan. 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class members in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit against Gentiva Health Services, Inc., have until
January 2, 2012, to file a motion to appoint a lead plaintiff in
the case, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On November 2, 2010, a putative shareholder class action
complaint, captioned Endress v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The action,
which names Gentiva and certain current and former officers as
defendants, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment
System ("HH PPS").  The complaint alleges that the Company's
public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the
Company improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits
to patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement
rates under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in
the price of Gentiva's common stock during the period between July
31, 2008 and July 20, 2010.  On January 21, 2011, the Minneapolis
Police Relief Association (the "MPRA") moved to intervene as a
named plaintiff in the action and further requested that, to the
extent its motion was granted, the Court appoint it lead
plaintiff.  On February 7, 2011, the defendants filed a limited
objection to the motion to intervene and, on February 17, 2011,
the MPRA responded.  On July 19, 2011, the Court granted the
MPRA's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, but denied,
without prejudice, its request to be appointed lead plaintiff.  On
July 25, 2011, plaintiff Endress filed a motion seeking to
withdraw as plaintiff, and the MPRA renewed its motion seeking to
be appointed lead plaintiff.

On September 14, October 11, October 20 and October 25, 2011, four
additional putative shareholder class action complaints, captioned
Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Gentiva Health
Services, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 11-CV-4433, International
Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania
and Delaware v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. et al., Civil Action
No. 11-CV-4906, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Gentiva
Health Services, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 11-CV-5126, and
Douglas Dahlgard v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 11-CV-5199, respectively, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Like
the Endress action, the Cement Masons, International Union,
Arkansas Teacher, and Dahlgard actions name Gentiva and certain
current and former officers as defendants, and assert claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Company's participation in the Medicare HH
PPS.  The complaints allege that the Company's public disclosures
misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly
increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the
purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the HH
PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of
Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31, 2008 and
July 20, 2010 (Cement Masons), July 31, 2008 and September 30,
2011 (International Union and Arkansas Teacher), and July 31, 2008
and October 4, 2011 (Dahlgard).

On October 5, 2011, the Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension
Trust requested that the Court consolidate the Cement Masons
action with the Endress action and further requested that the
Court appoint Cement Masons lead plaintiff.  On October 11, 2011,
the International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of
Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware requested consolidation of the
Cement Masons action and the International Union action with the
Endress action and further requested that the Court appoint
International Union lead plaintiff.  On October 20, 2011, the
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System requested consolidation of the
Cement Masons, International Union and Arkansas Teacher actions
with the Endress action and further requested that the Court
appoint Arkansas Teacher lead plaintiff.  On October 27, 2011,
Douglas Dahlgard requested consolidation of the Cement Masons,
International Union, Arkansas Teacher and Dahlgard actions with
the Endress action and further requested that the Court appoint
Dahlgard lead plaintiff.

On November 2, 2011, the Court (i) granted plaintiff Endress'
motion to withdraw as plaintiff; (ii) ordered the consolidation of
the Endress, Cement Masons, International Union, Arkansas Teacher
and Dahlgard actions under the caption In re Gentiva Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064; and (iii) set a deadline
of January 2, 2012 for all motions by any putative class member
seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff.

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.  Given
the preliminary stage of the actions, the Company is unable to
assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any,
arising from these actions on the business, financial condition,
results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the
Company.  The Company does not believe that an estimate of a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for these
actions at this time.  The defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously in these actions.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -
- http://www.gentiva.com-- provides home health services and
hospice care in the United States.  The company offers skilled
nursing and therapy services, paraprofessional nursing services,
and homemaker services primarily to adult and elderly patients
through licensed and Medicare-certified agencies. It also provides
its services through specialty programs comprising of Gentiva
Orthopedics, which offers individualized home orthopedic
rehabilitation services to patients recovering from joint
replacement or other major orthopedic surgery; Gentiva Safe
Strides that provides therapies for patients with balance issues;
and Gentiva Cardiopulmonary, which helps patients and their
physicians manage heart and lung health in a home-based
environment.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action in Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Nov. 29 disclosed
that it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Vermont on behalf of purchasers of the
publicly traded common stock of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
Inc. between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011, inclusive, and
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired GMCR's common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to a registered public offering
conducted on or about May 5, 2011.  The case is captioned
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Green
Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-289 (D. Vt.).

The Action asserts claims against GMCR, certain of its executives
and directors, and the underwriters of the 2011 Offering, arising
under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

GMCR is a Vermont-based leader in the specialty coffee and coffee
maker businesses.  The Company has achieved significant growth in
recent years, driven by sales from its popular Keurig single-cup
brewing system, which uses "K-Cup" portion packs to brew single
servings of coffee and other beverages.  Throughout the Class
Period, GMCR was portrayed to the investing public as a healthy
and growing business, with rapidly increasing revenues and K-Cup
sales.  This portrayal of the Company was false.

The Action alleges that, during the Class Period, certain of the
defendants systematically manipulated and strategically managed
the Company's revenues.  To do so, these defendants used GMCR's
key fulfillment vendor, M.Block & Sons, as a captive warehouse to
harbor excessively manufactured, expired, or otherwise unsold
product.  The fraudulent scheme at GMCR involved materially
overstating the Company's revenues based on falsified sales orders
-- including through sham inventory shipments -- for hundreds of
millions of dollars in K-Cup and Keurig brewer products.  GMCR
booked "revenues" associated with these false sales orders and
shipments as though they were real.  These acts caused a ripple
effect throughout the Company's financial statements, resulting in
the material overstatement of multiple metrics on which investors
and analysts relied, including the Company's profits, and
inventory and product demand levels.  Throughout the Class Period,
GMCR also fraudulently overstated the Company's assets in
proportion to its fictitious revenues by carrying the proceeds of
dummy sales as assets on the Company's balance sheet.

On October 17, 2011, David Einhorn, a prominent activist investor,
issued a comprehensive report, including witness testimonials by
former GMCR and MBlock employees, disclosing GMCR's misconduct and
questionable relationship with MBlock.  As a result of revelations
in Einhorn's presentation leaking into the market, the price of
GMCR's shares fell approximately 10%, from a closing price of
$92.09 on (Friday) October 14 to a close of $82.50 on October 17,
on unusually heavy trading volume.  On October 19, 2011, when
Einhorn's presentation was more widely distributed, the price of
GMCR common stock declined another 15%, from a closing price of
$82.11 on October 18 to a closing price of $69.80 on October 19,
on unusually heavy trading volume.  Then, on November 9, 2011,
GMCR shocked investors when it announced disappointing earnings
results and skyrocketing inventory.  On this news, GMCR's shares
plummeted 40%, from a close of $67.02 on November 9 to a close of
$40.89 on November 10, on extremely heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from November
29, 2011.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System is
represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 50 attorneys with offices in
New York, California, and Louisiana.  If you wish to discuss this
Acion or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact:

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of Americas, 38th Floor
          Telephone: (212) 554-1493
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com

Founded in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- specializes in
securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination and civil rights litigation, among other
practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions on
behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.


HORIZON LINES: Enters Into Settlement Agreement with Opt Outs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. on Nov. 29 disclosed that it has entered into
a settlement agreement with all of the remaining significant
shippers who opted out of the Puerto Rico direct purchaser
antitrust class action settlement.

Horizon Lines agreed to settle with these shippers at a total cost
to the company of $13.75 million in exchange for full release of
all antitrust claims.  Under the terms of the settlement
agreement, Horizon Lines will make a payment of $5.75 million
within 10 business days of the November 23, 2011, effective date,
a payment of $4.0 million by June 30, 2012, and a final payment of
$4.0 million by December 24, 2012.

"We are very pleased with this settlement, which brings to closure
our last known major financial exposure relating to antitrust
claims involving the Puerto Rico tradelane," said Michael T.
Avara, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.  "It
also eliminates the potential for protracted and costly
litigation."

The agreement effectively resolves claims related to class action
lawsuits that were filed against Horizon Lines in 2008 on behalf
of customers who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from
the company and other ocean carriers in the Puerto Rico tradelane
between May 2002 and April 2008.  Horizon Lines entered into a
settlement agreement with the class in June 2009, which received
final court approval in September 2011.  Some shippers opted out
of the class settlement, and Horizon has previously announced
settlement with a number of them.  The Nov. 29 announcement
resolves claims of all the remaining significant opt outs.

                        About Horizon Lines

Horizon Lines, Inc. is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The
company also provides integrated, reliable and cost competitive
logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in Charlotte,
NC, and trades on the OTCQB Marketplace under symbol HRZL.


INSMED CORP: Gets Court Nod of Transave Merger-Related Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement resolving a class action lawsuit against Insmed
Corporation over the Company's merger agreement with Transave LLC
was approved in October, according to the November 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On February 24, 2011, an action was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against the Company, its subsidiary
Transave, LLC, directors and the former directors of Transave,
captioned Mackinson et al. v. Insmed Incorporated et al., C.A. No.
6216, as a purported class action seeking a quasi-appraisal remedy
for alleged violations of Delaware's appraisal statute and the
fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with the merger
consummated pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of December 1, 2010, by and among Insmed Incorporated,
River Acquisition Co., Transave, LLC, Transave and TVM V Life
Science Ventures GmbH & Co. KG, in its capacity as stockholders'
agent.  The parties to this action agreed to a settlement, which
was approved by the Court on October 6, 2011.   As part of the
settlement, the Company mailed a revised notice of appraisal
rights to the former Transave stockholders who did not consent to
the Business Combination.  In addition, pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, the Company agreed to pay plaintiff's legal fees
and expenses.

Based in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey, Insmed Incorporated --
http://www.insmed.com-- a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development of inhaled pharmaceuticals for the site-specific
treatment of serious lung diseases.  The company primarily focuses
on the development of inhaled antibiotic therapy delivered via
proprietary advanced pulmonary liposome technology in areas of
high unmet need in lung diseases.  Its lead product candidate
includes ARIKACE, an inhaled antibiotic supported by positive
phase 2 results for treating serious lung infections due to
susceptible bacteria.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging a district court's dismissal of a
telemarketing-related class action lawsuit against Intersection,
Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2011.

On September 11, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections, Inc., Intersections Insurance Services
Inc., Loeb Holding Corp., Bank of America, NA, Banc of America
Insurance Services, Inc., BA Insurance Services, Inc., American
International Group, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, PA, and Global Contact Services, LLC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The complaint
alleges various claims based on telemarketing of an accidental
death and disability program.  On February 22, 2011, the U.S.
District Court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims against the
Company and the other defendants.  The plaintiff has appealed the
District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  The parties have filed their briefs with the Court of
Appeals and a decision is pending.  The information available to
the Company at this time does not indicate that a loss is probable
and is not sufficient to reasonably estimate a range of possible
losses in this case.  Therefore, the Company has not accrued a
liability in its condensed consolidated financial statements.
However, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation it is
reasonably possible that such a loss could exist if future events
unfold which are adverse to the Company current legal position.

Founded in 1996 and headquartered in Chantilly, Virginia,
Intersections Inc. provides subscription based consumer protection
services and other consumer products and services primarily in the
United States. The company operates in three segments: Consumer
Products and Services, Online Brand Protection, and Bail Bonds
Industry Solutions.


INTERSECTIONS INC: No Claims Pending in California Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
There currently are no more pending claims against Intersections,
Inc., in a class action lawsuit filed in California, according to
the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On February 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, and FIA
Card Services, N.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges various claims
based on the provision of identity protection services to the
named plaintiff.  Defendants filed answers to the complaint on May
24, 2010.  On April 19, 2011, an amended complaint was filed. In
the amended complaint, the original named plaintiff was withdrawn
from the case, and three new plaintiffs were added.  On June 10,
2011, Intersections filed a motion to stay the litigation pursuant
to arbitration agreements with each of the Plaintiffs.  The U.S.
District Court granted the Company's motion as to two of the three
named plaintiffs, and took the motion under advisement as to the
third plaintiff pending a hearing scheduled for January 2012.  On
October 27, 2011, the third plaintiff dismissed his claims against
the Company without prejudice.  As a result, there are no claims
in this case currently pending against the Company.

Founded in 1996 and headquartered in Chantilly, Virginia,
Intersections Inc. provides subscription based consumer protection
services and other consumer products and services primarily in the
United States. The company operates in three segments: Consumer
Products and Services, Online Brand Protection, and Bail Bonds
Industry Solutions.


INTERSECTION INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Death Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Inc. continues to defend itself against a lawsuit
relating to its accidental death and disability program in
California, the Company disclosed in its November 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On July 19, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections Inc., Intersections Insurance Services Inc.
and Bank of America Corporation in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleging various claims based on the sale of an accidental death
and disability program.  The case has been removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  On or
about October 19, 2011, the plaintiffs served the Company with an
amended complaint.  The Company currently is investigating the
claims.  The information available to the Company at this time
does not indicate that a loss is probable and is not sufficient to
reasonably estimate a range of possible losses in this case.
Therefore, the Company has not accrued a liability in its
condensed consolidated financial statements. However, due to the
inherent uncertainty of litigation, it is reasonably possible that
such a loss could exist if future events unfold which are adverse
to the Company's current legal position.

Founded in 1996 and headquartered in Chantilly, Virginia,
Intersections Inc. provides subscription based consumer protection
services and other consumer products and services primarily in the
United States. The company operates in three segments: Consumer
Products and Services, Online Brand Protection, and Bail Bonds
Industry Solutions.


KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Await Order on Suit Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc., continues to await a court decision on the
settlements resolving two class action complaints in California,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

The Company is the subject of two pending class action lawsuits.
The two lawsuits, Fuller v. Kelly Services, Inc., and Kelly Home
Care Services, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles, and Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., pending in the
U.S. District Court Southern District of California, both involve
claims for monetary damages by current and former temporary
employees working in the State of California.

The Fuller matter involves claims relating to alleged
misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and not
entitled to overtime compensation under state law and alleged
technical violations of a state law governing the content of
employee pay stubs.  The Sullivan matter relates to claims by
temporary workers for compensation while interviewing for
assignments. Tentative settlements have been reached in both
matters and are awaiting final court approval.  A $1.2 million
after-tax charge related to the Fuller matter was recognized in
discontinued operations during the second quarter of 2011.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- provides
workforce solutions.  Kelly(R) offers a comprehensive array of
outsourcing and consulting services as well as world-class
staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire and direct-hire basis.
Serving clients around the globe, Kelly provides employment to
more than 530,000 employees annually.  Revenue in 2010 was
$5 billion.


KID BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Rahman" Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kid Brands, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities
class action lawsuit in New Jersey, the Company disclosed in its
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On March 22, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey encaptioned Shah
Rahman v. Kid Brands, et al.  The Putative Class Action was
brought by one plaintiff on behalf of a putative class of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the
Company between March 26, 2010 and March 15, 2011.  In addition to
KID, Bruce G. Crain, KID's then President, Chief Executive Officer
and a member of KID's board of directors, Guy A. Paglinco, KID's
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Raphael Benaroya,
Mario Ciampi, Frederick J. Horowitz, Salvatore Salibello and
Michael Zimmerman, each members of KID's board of directors, as
well as Lauren Krueger and John Schaefer, each a former member of
KID's board of directors, were named as defendants.

The Putative Class Action alleges one claim for relief pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a second claim pursuant
to the Exchange Act, claiming generally that the Company and/or
the other defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements during the relevant time period regarding compliance
with customs laws, the Company's financial reports and internal
controls.  The Putative Class Action does not state the size of
the putative class.  The Putative Class Action seeks compensatory
damages but does not quantify the amount of damages sought.  The
Putative Class Action also seeks unspecified extraordinary and
injunctive relief, the costs and disbursements of the lawsuit,
including attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and such
equitable relief as the court deems just and proper.  By order
dated July 26, 2011, Shah Rahman was appointed lead plaintiff
pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act.

On September 26, 2011, an amended complaint was filed by the lead
plaintiff to expand the allegations under the claims for relief
made in the original complaint, to extend the putative class to
all those who purchased or otherwise acquired KID's common stock
between March 26, 2010 and August 16, 2011 and to eliminate all of
the named defendants other than KID, Bruce G. Crain, Guy A.
Paglinco and Raphael Benaroya.  The amended complaint was
dismissed without prejudice against Raphael Benaroya by a Notice
of Voluntary Dismissal filed by the lead plaintiff on October 21,
2011 and so ordered by the Court on October 25, 2011.  Defendants
had until November 10, 2011 to respond to the amended complaint.

The Company intends to defend the Putative Class Action
vigorously, and has notified its insurance carriers of the
existence of the action; however, no amounts have been accrued in
connection therewith, although legal costs are being expensed as
incurred.

Kid Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a designer,
importer, marketer and distributor of infant and juvenile consumer
products.  The Company's operations currently consist of Kids
Line, LLC, Sassy, Inc., LaJobi, Inc., and CoCaLo, Inc.


LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT: Sued Over Marijuana Case Index
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles
Superior Court failed to destroy information on more than 35,000
marijuana-related offenses, and publishes it in an online index of
criminal cases that lists the charges but not the dispositions,
which hurts people looking for work, a class action claims in
Superior Court.

Two Doe plaintiffs say the court has maintained "a purported
'index' of criminal cases for Los Angeles County . . . that can be
name searched by anyone by remote electronic access."

The index, which includes misdemeanor cases from about 1979 to
today and felony cases from about 1973 to the present, returns
information that "does not summarize every proceeding in a
substantial number of cases, that lists the charges filed against
a named defendant but not the dispositions in more than 380,000
cases despite the fact that dispositions, many favorable to the
listed defendant and protective of employment and other rights,
have been rendered by the Los Angeles courts several decades in
the past, that does not list any specific charge or disposition
information in at least 100,000 cases, and that reports
information on instances in which no complaint was filed in other
cases," according to the complaint.

The class claims on Oct. 30 "a name search of the index was
conducted for a common last and first name for the two year period
from Jan. 1, 1988 to Jan. 1, 1990.  The response to the index
search indicated there were 119 records for that time period.
Thirty records or 25% of the 119 records listed a charge filed
between 1988 and Jan. 1, 1990, without providing any disposition
information.  Forty records or 33% of the 119 records did not list
charge or disposition information.  Three records or 2.5% of the
119 records listed a charge filed in the above time period with a
disposition of 'pending.'"

More than 30% of the records in the index pertain to cases where
the defendant was released, not convicted, or the charges were
dismissed, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs say the court is required to destroy records of
marijuana-related offenses when 2 years have passed from the date
of conviction or arrest, and when the defendant has reached 18
years old.

Lead plaintiff John Doe, who was convicted of a misdemeanor
violation of the California Health and Safety Code in 1998 that
was later dismissed, says he "wishes to seek employment and other
benefits" but is "discouraged from applying for employment and his
ability to obtain employment and other benefits is lessened as a
result of defendants' unlawful references to the above charge on
the index and the broad access to the index."

The class claims the index also uses a date of birth confirmation
search that "discloses whether the date of birth associated with a
name in the index matches the name and date of birth submitted by
a searcher of the index," but California law does not allow
confirmation of date of birth information.

Plaintiff Ronald Roe applied for a job with Los Angeles County in
July 2009, and claims a background report using the name and date
of birth search through the index showed that he "had failed a
'County Criminal' check pertaining to records in the county of Los
Angeles and that Roe had been found guilty of 'possess [sic] not
more than 28.5 grams of marijuana.'"

The court's "release of index information in response to name
searches constitutes the release of criminal offender record
information . . . and such information may be lawfully released
only if authorized by California law," according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, and an injunction to stop
defendants from "failing to promptly submit to the court for
approval and adopt and implement a schedule for timely destruction
of post-1976 marijuana offenses," from "disseminating incomplete
and incorrect index" information, and from providing birth date
searches of index information.

The defendants are the Los Angeles County Superior Court and its
Executive Officer John Clarke.

The class is represented by:

           Peter Sheehan, Esq.
           SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW PROJECT
           510 16th Street, Suite 200
           Oakland, CA 94612
           Telephone: (510) 893-1146


MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued for Falsely Advertising Chicken as Halal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
McDonald's advertises halal McChicken and McNuggets, which are not
actually prepared according to Muslim dietary laws.

A copy of the Complaint in Ahmed v. McDonald's Corporation, et
al., Case No. 11-014559 (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/29/McD.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kassem M. Dakhlallah, Esq.
          JAAFAR & MAHDI LAW GROUP, P.C.
          23400 Michigan Ave., Suite 110
          Dearborn, MI 48124
          Telephone: (313) 846-6400


MOHAVE COUNTY, AZ: Residents to Pursue Chemtrail Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohave Daily News reports that in the wake of a number of Mohave
County residents testing positive for heavy metal toxicity, a
group has formed on Facebook to pursue a class-action lawsuit.

Called "Chemtrail Geo-Engineering Lawsuit," the approximately 300-
member group is seeking more members who have tested positive for
heavy metals in their blood and hair follicles, and those who have
had tests conducted on rainwater and soil samples.

The group posted that a Bullhead City woman had just received test
results showing the levels of barium in her blood were 28 times
normal levels.

"It has become painfully apparent that our federal government,
state government and environmental agencies remain unwilling to
properly investigate what is going on with the health of people,"
said Al DiCicco, of Golden Valley, who has been among those
spearheading efforts to get answers as to why he and at least a
couple dozen others have tested positive for high levels of the
elements barium, aluminum, strontium and uranium.

The group discusses geo-engineering, which is a process used to
manipulate the climate to counteract the effects of global warming
from greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. DiCicco also has been in contact with documentary filmmaker
Michael J. Murphy, whose film "What in the World are They
Spraying?" explores the phenomenon of chemtrails.  The film
proposes that chemtrails are part of a geo-engineering program
that uses jet planes to spray a solution into the atmosphere.  The
solution is said to contain barium, aluminum strontium and other
elements, which are supposed to reflect sunlight and cool the
planet.

The group is seeking a law firm to represent it in a class-action
lawsuit.  The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the
Mohave County Department of Health, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, the
Federal Aviation Administration, the Environmental Protection
Agency and President Obama could be among the defendants.

The Facebook group can be found at
http://www.facebook.com/groups/131756470228822/


NABOR INDUSTRIES: Court Okays Settlement in "Denney" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement resolving a remaining class action lawsuit against
Nabors Industries Ltd. relating to its acquisition of Superior
Well Services, Inc., in September 2010 has been granted court
approval, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In August 2010, Nabors and its wholly owned subsidiary, Diamond
Acquisition Corp., were sued in three putative shareholder class
actions relating to the Superior acquisition.  The complaints
sought injunctive relief, including an injunction against the
consummation of the Superior acquisition, monetary damages, and
attorney's fees and costs.  Two of the cases were dismissed.  The
remaining case, Jordan Denney, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. David E. Wallace, et al., Civil
Action No. 10-1154, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, was settled, and the Court
approved the settlement in September 2011.  Superior's insurers
paid $475,000 in attorneys' fees in full settlement.

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, Nabors Industries Ltd. --
http://www.nabors.com/-- formerly known as Anglo Company Ltd.,
operates as a land drilling contractor worldwide.  It markets
approximately 550 land drilling rigs for oil and gas land drilling
operations in the United States Lower 48 states, Alaska, Canada,
South America, Mexico, the Caribbean, the Middle East, the Far
East, Russia, and Africa.  The company also markets approximately
555 rigs for land well-servicing and workover work in the United
States and approximately 172 rigs for land well-servicing and
workover work in Canada.  The Company also invests in oil and gas
exploration, development, and production activities in the United
States, Canada, and Colombia.


NARA BANCORP: Still Awaits Court Okay of Merger Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nara Bancorp, Inc., continues to await a court decision on a
settlement resolving a class action lawsuit over its merger deal
with Center Financial Corporation, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On May 2, 2011, a purported shareholder class action was filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court against 1) the directors of Center
Financial Corporation, 2) Center, and 3) Nara Bancorp, Inc.
(Rational Strategies Fund vs. Jin Chul Jhung, et, al, Center
Financial Corporation, and Nara Bancorp, Inc., Case #BC460783).
The Complaint alleges the directors of Center breached their
fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty, in approving the
proposed merger of Center and Nara Bancorp, and that all
defendants failed to properly disclose material information in the
registration statement relating to the merger that has been filed
with the SEC. In addition, it alleges that Nara Bancorp, Inc.
aided and abetted the Center directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, attorneys fees, interest and costs. The parties to the
class action signed a Memorandum of Understanding to settle this
lawsuit, subject to court approval, by making certain additional
disclosures, all of which appear in the amended Registration
Statement filed by the Company on Form S-4 on July 15, 2011.
Center further agreed to pay, following consummation of the
merger, up to $400,000 in plaintiff's attorneys' fees, if and to
the extent awarded by the court.  Any such payment would not
become due until the merger is consummated and would be payable by
the combined company.  The parties signed a stipulation, dated as
of October 28, 2011, formalizing the settlement reflected in the
MOU.  On October 31, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking
the court's preliminary approval of the settlement.

Nara Bancorp, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware in 2000, is a bank holding company, headquartered in Los
Angeles, California, offering a full range of commercial banking
and certain consumer financial services through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Nara Bank.  The Bank has branches in California, New
York and New Jersey as well as a Loan Production Office in Texas.


NATIONAL PENN: Continues to Await Order on Plea to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Penn Bancshares, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to await a
court decision on its motion to dismiss a class action complaint
relating to an alleged fraudulent telemarketing scheme, the
Company disclosed in its November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a putative
class action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. - 1961,
et seq., in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against multiple defendants, including
National Penn Bank (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345).  The complaint
essentially alleges that the defendants were part of a fraudulent
telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully withdrawn from
Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers, deposited into the
telemarketers' accounts with the bank defendants (including
National Penn Bank) via payment processors, and then transferred
to offshore accounts.  Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on
behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class.  National Penn
is vigorously defending this lawsuit. Each of the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint. In late March
2011, the Court dismissed all defendants' motions without
prejudice and ordered the Plaintiff to file a "RICO Statement" and
set forth in detail the factual basis for Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff's RICO Statement was filed in April 2011.  National Penn
renewed its motion to dismiss in May 2011 and briefing on the
motion was completed at the end of July 2011.  National Penn
expects that a decision will be issued by the end of 2011.  If
National Penn's renewed motion to dismiss is denied, the parties
will take discovery and the Court will establish a schedule for a
class certification motion and related briefing.  To date, a class
has not been certified.

Headquartered in Boyertown, Pennsylvania, National Penn
Bancshares, Inc. --http://www.nationalpennbancshares.com/--
operates as the bank holding company for National Penn Bank that
provides commercial banking products and services to residents and
businesses primarily in eastern and central Pennsylvania.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Defend RICO Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against a lawsuit over alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in California, according
to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

The Company is currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit
pending as of June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.  The case is titled In Re
National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation. The
complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder
Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq,
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the
Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and
Imposition of Constructive Trust.  On July 12, 2010 the Court
certified a nationwide class of policyholders under the RICO
allegation and a California class under all of the remaining
causes of action except breach of fiduciary duty.  The Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses in this cause and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted claims.
Therefore, no amounts have been provided in the consolidated
financial statements of the Company as of September 30, 2011 for
this matter.

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

National Western Life Insurance Company --
http://www.nationalwesternlife.com/-- provides life insurance
products for the savings and protection needs of policyholders and
annuity contracts for the asset accumulation and retirement needs
of contract holders. Its life products include universal life
insurance and interest-sensitive whole life, as well as
traditional products, such as term insurance coverage; and annuity
products comprise flexible premium and single premium deferred
annuities, fixed indexed annuities, and single premium immediate
annuities. The company offers its insurance products to residents
of various countries in Central and South America, the Caribbean,
the Pacific Rim, eastern Europe, and Asia. It markets and
distributes its products primarily through independent national
marketing organizations. The company also engages in small real
estate, nursing home, and other investment operations. National
Western Life Insurance Company was founded in 1956 and is based in
Austin, Texas.


NBT BANCORP: Defends Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------
NBT Bancorp Inc. is defending itself against a purported class
action lawsuit relating to its overdraft fees, according to the
Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

The Bank has been named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit arising from its assessment and collection of overdraft
fees on its checking account customers.  The complaint was filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Delaware,
on September 12, 2011, and alleges that the Bank engaged in
certain unfair practices and failed to make adequate disclosure to
customers concerning its overdraft fee assessment practices.  The
complaint seeks certification of a class of national checking
account holders who have incurred overdraft fees and a subclass of
such customers who reside in New York.  In addition, the complaint
seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, interest and
costs including attorneys' fees.  The Company believes the claims
to be without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously.

Headquartered in Norwich, New York, NBT Bancorp Inc. --
http://www.nbtbancorp.com/-- a financial holding company,
provides commercial banking and financial services to individuals,
corporations, and municipalities in central and upstate New York,
northeastern Pennsylvania, and the greater Burlington, Vermont
area.


NEKTER JUICE: Sued in Calif. Over False Claims on Juice Drinks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Nekter
Juice Bar advertises its stuff as 100% organic, but its "juice
drinks contain very little or no organic ingredients."

A copy of the Complaint in Ramberg v. Nekter Juice Bar Inc., et
al., Case No. 30-2011-00525297 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/29/Booshwah.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Thompson, Esq.
          CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP
          2601 Main Street, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 261-2872
          E-mail: rthompson@ctsclaw.com


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Still Defends RESPA Suits in Pa. & Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's subsidiary continues to
defend itself from class action lawsuits pending in a Pennsylvania
and Texas courts, according to the Company's November 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states --
(1) Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and (2) Texas
(Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District,
Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008).  The plaintiffs
allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or
refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance
covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate
schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the
state insurance regulatory authorities.  The Pennsylvania suit
also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA").  The Court in the Texas suit dismissed
similar RESPA allegations.  Classes have been certified in both
actions, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted ORNTIC's
motion appealing the Texas class certification.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Old Republic International Corporation
-- http://www.oldrepublic.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
provides various insurance and mortgage guaranty products in North
America. The company operates in three segments: General
Insurance, Mortgage Guaranty, and Title Insurance.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Still Defends Price-Fixing Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's subsidiary, Old Republic
National Title Insurance Company, continues to defend itself from
lawsuits in California alleging illegal price-fixing agreements,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Beginning in early February 2008, some 80 purported consumer class
action lawsuits were filed against the title industry's principal
title insurance companies, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
title insurance rating bureaus or associations in at least 10
states.  Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC")
was a named defendant in actions filed in 5 of the states.  The
suits were substantially identical in alleging that the defendant
title insurers engaged in illegal price-fixing agreements to set
artificially high premium rates and conspired to create premium
rates which the state insurance regulatory authorities could not
evaluate and therefore, could not adequately regulate.  Most of
the suits have since been dismissed, and the dismissals are
currently being appealed.  Of those remaining, ORNTIC is currently
among the named defendants in only one of these actions, in
California.  The anti-trust allegations in the California action
have been dismissed and only the allegations of improper business
practices under state law remain.  On June 28, 2011 the Federal
District Court for the Northern District of California granted a
motion to stay the litigation and compel arbitration of individual
claims, thus precluding the certification of a class action.  The
other suits in which ORNTIC was a named defendant have all been
dismissed at the trial court level.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Old Republic International Corporation
-- http://www.oldrepublic.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
provides various insurance and mortgage guaranty products in North
America. The company operates in three segments: General
Insurance, Mortgage Guaranty, and Title Insurance.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Still Defends Suits in California & Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's subsidiary continues to
defend itself from lawsuits in California and Alabama alleging
violations of consumer laws, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

National class action suits have been filed against the Company's
subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection Company ("ORHP") in the
California Superior Court, San Diego, and the U.S. District Court
in Birmingham, Alabama.  The California suit has been filed on
behalf of all persons who made a claim under an ORHP home warranty
contract from March 6, 2003 to the present.  The suit alleges
breach of contract, breach of the implicit covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, violations of certain California consumer
protection laws and misrepresentation arising out of ORHP's
alleged failure to adopt and implement reasonable standards for
the prompt investigation and processing of claims under its home
warranty contracts.  The suit seeks unspecified damages consisting
of the rescission of the class members' contracts, restitution of
all sums paid by the class members, punitive damages, and
declaratory and injunctive relief. ORHP removed the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and
on January 6, 2011 the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The Alabama suit alleges that ORHP pays fees to
the real estate brokers who market its home warranty contracts and
that the payment of such fees is in violation of Section 8(a) of
RESPA.  The suit seeks unspecified damages, including treble
damages under RESPA.  No class has been certified in the Alabama
action.  Neither action is expected to result in any material
liability to the Company.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Old Republic International Corporation
-- http://www.oldrepublic.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
provides various insurance and mortgage guaranty products in North
America. The company operates in three segments: General
Insurance, Mortgage Guaranty, and Title Insurance.


PENSON WORLDWIDE: Defends Against Securities Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Penson Worldwide, Inc., is defending itself against a securities
class action lawsuit in Texas, according to the Company's November
9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On August 23, 2011, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the
Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, Philip A. Pendergraft and Kevin W. McAleer, by Reid
Friedman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.
Plaintiff contends, among other things, that "Penson concealed
from investors that by at least the end of 2010, 1) that the
Company had approximately $96-97 million in receivables of which
approximately $43 million were collateralized by illiquid
securities and therefore unlikely to be collected; 2) the
Company's assets (Nonaccrual Receivables) were materially
overstated and should have been written down at least by the end
of 2010; 3) as a result, the Company's reported income and EBITDA
(earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and
stock-based compensation, and excluding certain non-operating
expenses) were materially overstated; and 4) the Company's
financial statements were not prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of damages, including interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable/injunctive relief as the
Court may deem proper.  The Company has not yet filed an Answer or
responsive motion.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself against these claims.

Penson has retained experienced securities litigation counsel to
vigorously represent itself and its officers and directors.
Management cannot currently estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.

Penson Worldwide, Inc. -- http://penson.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides a range of critical securities and futures
processing infrastructure products and services to the financial
services industry.  The Company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


POPULAR INC: Gets Final Court Okay on "Hoff" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A Puerto Rican court entered a final written order approving an
agreement to resolve a consolidated securities lawsuit against
Popular, Inc., according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Between May 14, 2009 and September 9, 2009, five putative class
actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico
Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and
certain of its directors and officers, among others. The five
class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a
securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al.
(consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re
Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated
cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Monta¤ez v. Popular,
Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.).

On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in the Hoff case filed a
consolidated class action complaint which included as defendants
the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred
Stock, among others.  The consolidated action purported to be on
behalf of purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24,
2008 and February 19, 2009 and alleged that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing a series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make
statements made by the Corporation not false and misleading.  The
consolidated action also alleged that the defendants violated
Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act
by making allegedly untrue statements and/or omitting to disclose
material facts necessary to make statements made by the
Corporation not false and misleading in connection with the May
2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock.  The consolidated
securities class action complaint sought class certification, an
award of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel fees.  On January 11, 2010, the defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint.  On
August 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico granted the motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter
defendants on statute of limitations grounds.  The Court also
dismissed the Section 11 claim brought against Popular's directors
on statute of limitations grounds and the Section 12(a)(2) claim
brought against Popular because plaintiffs lacked standing.  The
Court declined to dismiss the claims brought against Popular and
certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements with the requisite
state of mind.

The derivative actions (Garcia v. Carrion, et al. and Diaz v.
Carrion, et al.) were brought purportedly for the benefit of
nominal defendant Popular, Inc. against certain executive officers
and directors and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of
assets and abuse of control in connection with Popular's issuance
of allegedly false and misleading financial statements and
financial reports and the offering of the Series B Preferred
Stock.  The derivative complaints sought a judgment that the
action was a proper derivative action, an award of damages,
restitution, costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.  On October 9, 2009, the
Court coordinated for purposes of discovery the Garcia action and
the consolidated securities class action.  On October 15, 2009,
Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia
complaint for failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors
prior to initiating litigation.  On November 20, 2009, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, and on December 21, 2009, Popular and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia amended
complaint.  At a scheduling conference held on January 14, 2010,
the Court stayed discovery in both the Hoff and Garcia matters
pending resolution of their respective motions to dismiss. On
August 11, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss the Garcia action. The Court dismissed the gross
mismanagement and corporate waste claims, but declined to dismiss
the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Diaz case, filed in the
Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan, was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.  On October
13, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to
consolidate the Garcia and Diaz actions.  On October 26, 2009,
plaintiff moved to remand the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court
of First Instance and to stay defendants' consolidation motion
pending the outcome of the remand proceedings.  On September 30,
2010, the Court issued an order without opinion remanding the Diaz
case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance.  On October 13,
2010, the Court issued a Statement of Reasons In Support of Remand
Order.  On October 28, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants
moved for reconsideration of the remand order.  The court denied
Popular's request for reconsideration shortly thereafter.

On April 13, 2010, the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance in San
Juan granted summary judgment dismissing a separate complaint
brought by plaintiff in the Garcia action that sought to enforce
an alleged right to inspect the books and records of the
Corporation in support of the pending derivative action.  The
Court held that plaintiff had not propounded a "proper purpose"
under Puerto Rico law for such inspection.  On April 28, 2010,
plaintiff in that action moved for reconsideration of the Court's
dismissal.  On May 4, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's request
for reconsideration.  On June 7, 2010, plaintiff filed an appeal
before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals.  On June 11, 2010,
Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the appeal.
On June 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.  On
July 6, 2010, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's
dismissal.  On July 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied
plaintiff's request for reconsideration.

At the Court's request, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases
discussed the prospect of mediation and agreed to nonbinding
mediation in an attempt to determine whether the cases could be
settled.  On January 18 and 19, 2011, the parties to the Hoff and
Garcia cases engaged in nonbinding mediation before the Honorable
Nicholas Politan.  As a result of the mediation, the Corporation
and the other named defendants to the Hoff matter entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle this matter.  Under the
terms of the memorandum of understanding, subject to certain
customary conditions including court approval of a final
settlement agreement in consideration for the full settlement and
release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount of
$37.5 million would be paid by or on behalf of defendants.  On
June 17, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and a
joint motion for preliminary approval of such settlement, which
the Court granted on June 20, 2011.  On or about July 5, 2011, the
amount of $37.5 million was paid to the settlement fund by or on
behalf of defendants.  Specifically, the amount of $26 million was
paid by insurers and the amount of $11.5 million was paid by
Popular (after which approximately $4.7 million was reimbursed by
insurers per the terms of the relevant insurance agreement).

On January 18, 2011, certain individual shareholders filed a suit
captioned Montilla Rojo et al. v. Popular, Inc., et al., against
the Corporation and certain officers asserting claims under the
federal securities laws similar or identical to those remaining in
the Hoff action.  On February 25, 2011, those shareholders filed
an amended complaint asserting additional legal theories. On June
19, 2011, certain of those shareholders sought leave to intervene
in the securities class action.  On June 28, 2011, the Court
denied their motion to intervene as untimely.  On or about October
11, 2011, certain individual shareholders, including shareholders
represented by counsel in the Montilla-Rojo action, filed requests
to opt-out of the proposed settlement in the Hoff securities class
action.  Other purported shareholders represented by the same
counsel, filed an objection to the settlement.  On November 2,
2011, the plaintiffs in the Montilla-Rojo action moved to add
additional, unspecified claims.

On November 2, 2011, the Court in the Hoff securities class action
announced at a hearing on the proposed settlement that it would
overrule the objection to the settlement and grant final approval
in a written order to follow, which order and final judgment were
issued on even date.

In April 2011, the parties to the Garcia and Diaz actions entered
into a separate memorandum of understanding.  Under the terms of
this memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary
conditions, including court approval of a final settlement
agreement, and in consideration for the full and final settlement
and release of all defendants, Popular agreed, for a period of
three years, to maintain or implement certain corporate governance
practices, measures and policies, as set forth in the memorandum
of understanding.  Aside from the payment by or on behalf of
Popular of approximately $2.1 million of attorneys' fees and
expenses of counsel for the plaintiffs, all of which will be
covered by insurance), the settlement does not require any cash
payments by or on behalf of Popular or the defendants. On June 14,
2011, a motion for preliminary approval of settlement was filed.
On July 8, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of such
settlement and set the final approval hearing date for September
12, 2011.  On that same date, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement.  On September 23, 2011, the court in Diaz entered
a separate judgment approving the final settlement as well.

Popular does not expect to record any material gain or loss as a
result of the settlements. Popular has made no admission of
liability in connection with these settlements.

At this point, the settlement agreements in the Hoff class action
is not final and are subject to a number of future events.  The
settlement in the derivative actions has been finally approved and
the period for any appeal has expired without any appeal having
been filed.

Founded in 1917, Popular, Inc. -- http://www.popular.com/home--
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of retail and
commercial banking products and services primarily to corporate
clients, small and middle size businesses, and retail clients in
Puerto Rico and Mainland United States.


POPULAR INC: Still Awaits Final Ruling on ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., continues to await final court approval of a
settlement of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act class
action, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Between May 14, 2009 and September 9, 2009, five putative class
actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico
Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and
certain of its directors and officers, among others. The five
class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a
securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al.
(consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re
Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated
cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Monta¤ez v. Popular,
Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.).

On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  The consolidated complaint
purported to be on behalf of employees participating in the
Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the
Popular, Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan from January
24, 2008 to the date of the Complaint to recover losses pursuant
to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA against Popular, certain
directors, officers and members of plan committees, each of whom
was alleged to be a plan fiduciary.  The consolidated complaint
alleged that defendants breached their alleged fiduciary
obligations by, among other things, failing to eliminate Popular
stock as an investment alternative in the plans.  The complaint
sought to recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable
relief, including injunctive relief and a constructive trust,
along with costs and attorneys' fees. On December 21, 2009, and in
compliance with a scheduling order issued by the Court, Popular
and the individual defendants submitted an answer to the amended
complaint.  Shortly thereafter, on December 31, 2009, Popular and
the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint or, in the alternative, for
judgment on the pleadings.  On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that
the motion to dismiss be denied except with respect to Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, as to which he recommended that the motion
be granted.  On May 19, 2010, Popular filed objections to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation.  On September 30,
2010, the Court issued an order without opinion granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss and providing that the
Court would issue an opinion and order explaining its decision.
No opinion was, however, issued prior to the settlement in
principle.

Prior to the "Hoff" securities lawsuit and derivative action
mediation, the parties to the ERISA class action entered into a
separate memorandum of understanding to settle that action.  Under
the terms of the ERISA memorandum of understanding, subject to
certain customary conditions including court approval of a final
settlement agreement and in consideration for the full settlement
and release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount
of $8.2 million would be paid by or on behalf of the defendants.
The parties filed a joint request to approve the settlement on
April 13, 2011.  On June 8, 2011, the Court held a preliminary
approval hearing, and on June 23, 2011, the Court preliminarily
approved such settlement.  On June 30, 2011, the amount of $8.2
million was transferred to the settlement fund by insurers on
behalf of the defendants.  A final fairness hearing was set for
August 26, 2011.  On that date, the Court stated that it would
approve the settlement but requested that plaintiffs' counsel
submit certain supporting documentation prior to issuing its final
approval.  Such final approval is still pending.

Popular does not expect to record any material gain or loss as a
result of the settlements. Popular has made no admission of
liability in connection with these settlements.

At this point, the settlement agreement in the ERISA class action
is not final and are subject to a number of future events,
including the issuance of the final approval order in the case of
the ERISA class action and/or the expiration of the time to appeal
such orders.

Founded in 1917, Popular, Inc. -- http://www.popular.com/home--
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of retail and
commercial banking products and services primarily to corporate
clients, small and middle size businesses, and retail clients in
Puerto Rico and Mainland United States.


POPULAR INC: Unit's Motions to Dismiss Two Lawsuits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Court rulings have yet to be entered on motions to dismiss filed
by Popular Inc.'s subsidiary, Banco Popular, two class action
lawsuits arising from its consumer banking and trust-related
activities, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 7, 2010, a putative class action for breach of contract
and damages captioned Almeyda-Santiago v. Banco Popular de Puerto
Rico, was filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance against
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico.  The complaint essentially asserts
that plaintiff has suffered damages because of Banco Popular's
allegedly fraudulent overdraft fee practices in connection with
debit card transactions.  Such practices allegedly consist of: (a)
the reorganization of electronic debit transactions in high-to-low
order so as to multiply the number of overdraft fees assessed on
its customers; (b) the assessment of overdraft fees even when
clients have not overdrawn their accounts; (c) the failure to
disclose, or to adequately disclose, its overdraft policy to its
customers; and (d) the provision of false and fraudulent
information regarding its clients' account balances at point of
sale transactions and on its website.  Plaintiff seeks damages,
restitution and provisional remedies against Banco Popular for
breach of contract, abuse of trust, illegal conversion and unjust
enrichment.  On January 13, 2011, Banco Popular submitted a motion
to dismiss the complaint, which is still pending resolution.

On December 13, 2010, Popular was served with a class action
complaint captioned Garcia Lamadrid, et al. v. Banco Popular, et
al. which was filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance.
The complaint generally seeks damages against Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, other defendants and their respective insurance
companies for their alleged breach of certain fiduciary duties,
breach of contract, and alleged violations of local tort law.
Plaintiffs seek in excess of $600 million in damages, plus costs
and attorneys fees.

More specifically, plaintiffs Guillermo Garcia Lamadrid and Benito
del Cueto Figueras are suing Defendant Banco Popular de Puerto
Rico or BPPR for the losses they (and others) experienced through
their investment in the RG Financial Corporation-backed
Conservation Trust Fund securities.  Plaintiffs essentially claim
that Banco Popular allegedly breached its fiduciary duties to them
by failing to keep all relevant parties informed of any
developments that could affect the Conservation Trust notes or
that could become an event of default under the relevant trust
agreements; and that in so doing, it acted imprudently,
unreasonably and grossly negligently.  Popular and the other
defendants submitted separate motions to dismiss on or about
February 28, 2011.  Plaintiffs submitted a consolidated opposition
thereto on April 15, 2011.  The parties were allowed to submit
replies and surreplies to such motions, and the motion has now
been deemed submitted by the Court and is pending resolution.

Founded in 1917, Popular, Inc. -- http://www.popular.com/home--
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of retail and
commercial banking products and services primarily to corporate
clients, small and middle size businesses, and retail clients in
Puerto Rico and Mainland United States.


PRINCETON REVIEW: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit against The Princeton Review,
Inc., remains pending in Massachusetts, according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On July 29, 2011, Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System
filed a securities class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters in the Company's April 2010 public offering,
Civil Action 1:11-cv-11359.  The complaint alleges material
misstatements and omissions in the Company's April 2010 public
offering materials and other public filings and statements made
during the period from March 12, 2009 through March 11, 2011.
Additionally, on August 10, 2011, Eric J. Golden filed a
shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against certain of the
Company's current and former directors, Eric J. Golden v.
Lowenstein, et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-11429.  The complaint
alleges, among other theories, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to make
material misstatements and omissions in connection with its public
filings and statements during the period from March 12, 2009
through March 11, 2011.  On September 27, 2011, the parties in the
Golden action jointly moved to stay that litigation pending a
final decision on any motion to dismiss the Washtenaw action.  On
September 28, 2011, the Court granted the motion to stay the
Golden action.  The Company believes that these complaints are
without merit and plans to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  The
Company currently is not able to make a reasonable estimate of any
liability related to this matter because of the uncertainties
related to the outcome and/or the amount or range of loss.

Framingham, Mass.-based The Princeton Review, Inc. (Nasdaq: REVU)
-- http://www.PrincetonReview.com/-- is a provider of
classroom-based and online education products and services
targeting the high school and post-secondary markets.  The Company
was founded in 1981 to provide SAT preparation courses.  On
December 7, 2009, the Company acquired Penn Foster Education
Group, one of the oldest and largest online education companies in
the United States.  The Company currently operates through its
Test Preparation Services, Supplemental Educational Services and
Penn Foster divisions.


PUBLISHERS CIRCULATION: Sued in Mass. for Misclassifying Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that newspaper delivery drivers
say in a class action that Publishers Circulation Fulfillment
misclassifies them as independent contractors to duck labor laws,
and violates settlement terms of a previous class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Morrell, et al. v. Publishers
Circulation Fulfillment, Inc., Case No. 11-1145 (Mass. Super Ct.,
Middlesex Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/29/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Claret Vargas, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: HLichten@llrlaw.com
                  sliss@llrlaw.com
                  CVargas@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Lydia Edwards, Esq.
          BRAZILIAN IMMIGRANT CENTER
          14 Harvard Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Allston, MA 02134
          Telephone: (617) 783-8001 ext. 113


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Calif. Over Defective TV Capacitors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Samsung plasma, liquid
crystal display and digital TVs have defective capacitors which
make the TVs fail, a class action claims in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Keeley v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2011-00101584 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/29/Samsung.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 794-1441
          E-mail: kah@weiserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brett D. Stecker, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 North Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 225-2616
          E-mail: bds@weiserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  jfs@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON COLE
          320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1705
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 588-3400
          E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com


SONOMA VALLEY: Consolidated Suit vs. Firm's Execs Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated lawsuit against Sonoma Valley Bancorp's officers
and directors remains pending, according to the Company's November
9, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

There have been several derivative litigation lawsuits filed
against the members of the board of directors and certain officers
of Sonoma Valley Bancorp in the Superior Court of California,
County of Sonoma.

On June 29, 2011, a shareholder of Sonoma Valley Bancorp filed a
putative class action lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty against
the Sonoma Valley Bancorp's present and former directors and
officers.  Newton Dal Poggetto v. Mel Switzer, et al., Case No.
SCV-249917, Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma.

On August 17, 2011, two shareholders of Sonoma Valley Bancorp.
filed a derivative breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control
action on behalf of Sonoma Valley Bancorp against Sonoma Valley
Bancorp's present and former directors and officers. Douglas R.
Ghiselin v. Mel Switzer, et al., Case No. SCV-250193, Superior
Court of California, County of Sonoma.

On August 26, 2011, counsel and plaintiffs for the two prior
lawsuits combined their lawsuits into one and filed an amended
complaint in the action entitled Newton Dal Poggetto v. Mel
Switzer, et al., Case No. SCV-249917, Superior Court of
California, County of Sonoma.  The Amended Complaint alleges that
the directors and officers breached their duties of good faith,
fair dealing, loyalty and care to Sonoma Valley Bancorp with
respect to various loans made by Sonoma Valley Bancorp's
subsidiary, Sonoma Valley Bank.  The Amended Complaint further
alleges that the directors and officers breached their duties to
Sonoma Valley Bancorp by making alleged misrepresentations of
and/or omitting to state material facts in the public reports
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of
Sonoma Valley Bancorp, and failing to inform the Board about the
alleged mismanagement of Sonoma Valley Bank or responding to such
alleged mismanagement.  These breaches allegedly damaged Sonoma
Valley Bancorp in the amounts according to proof.

Sonoma Valley Bancorp does not have significant operations.  On
August 20, 2010, the Company's subsidiary, Sonoma Valley Bank, was
closed by the California Department of Financial Institutions.
Subsequently, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was named
Receiver.  All deposit accounts have been transferred to
Westamerica Bank, San Rafael, California. Previously, Sonoma
Valley Bancorp operated as the holding company for Sonoma Valley
Bank that provided banking services to small to medium-sized
commercial businesses, professionals, and upper middle to high
income individuals and families primarily in Sonoma, California.
The company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Sonoma,
California.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCHARES: Court OKs Abington-Related Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc., won court approval of a settlement
resolving a class action complaint relating to the Company's
acquisition of Abington Bancorp, Inc., according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 1, 2011, Susquehanna completed the acquisition of
Abington Bancorp in a stock-for-stock transaction.  The
transaction, in which Abington shareholders received 1.32 shares
of Susquehanna common stock for each share of Abington common
stock, had an approximate total value of $145,908,000 compared to
a book value of $205,866,000.

On March 17, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
against the directors of Abington and Susquehanna, RSD Capital vs.
Robert W. White, et al., C.A. No. 2011-06590.  The lawsuit in
Montgomery County alleged that the named Abington directors, in
approving the Merger Agreement, tortiously interfered with a
contractual relationship between Abington and its shareholders and
interfered with a prospective economic advantage of the Abington
shareholders.  The Complaint also purported to allege that
Susquehanna also tortiously interfered with the same contract and
alleged prospective economic advantage.  Plaintiffs in the
Montgomery County lawsuit, among other things, requested an
unspecified amount of monetary damages as well as a temporary
restraining order with respect to consummation of the merger.  The
defendants filed Preliminary Objection seeking the dismissal of
the complaint.  On April 13, 2011, the court sustained defendants'
Preliminary Objections to the complaint, and entered an order
dismissing the action against all defendants with prejudice.

On March 25, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
separate plaintiffs in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania, against Abington, Abington's directors
(other than Jack J. Sandoski) and Susquehanna, Exum, et al. vs.
Robert W. White, et al., C.A. No. 110302814.  These Plaintiffs had
previously made a demand on Abington's Board of Directors to
initiate suit on behalf of Abington and the demand was denied by a
committee of Abington's Board of Directors.  The lawsuit in
Philadelphia County, which was also brought as a shareholders'
derivative suit on behalf of Abington, alleged, among other
things, that the Abington Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with its approval of the Merger
Agreement in that the consideration offered to Abington's
shareholders in the Merger was alleged to be inadequate and the
process used to negotiate the Merger Agreement was alleged to be
unfair, and that such breaches of fiduciary duty were exacerbated
by preclusive transaction protection devices.  The lawsuit also
alleged that the disclosure provided in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus of Susquehanna and Abington, dated March 18,
2011 and included in the registration statement on Form S-4 filed
by Susquehanna with the Securities and Exchange Commission (File
No. 333-172626), failed to provide required material information
necessary for Abington's shareholders to make a fully informed
decision concerning the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby.  The Philadelphia County complaint also
alleged that Susquehanna aided and abetted the Abington Board of
Directors in breaching its fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs in
Philadelphia County requested, among other things, an unspecified
amount of monetary damages and injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2011, the Plaintiffs in the Philadelphia County
lawsuit filed a Stipulation of Dismissal to dismiss Susquehanna
from the action.  On April 25, 2011, solely to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without
admitting any of the allegations in the Complaint, Abington and
the other named defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia County
lawsuit.  Susquehanna was also a party to the MOU.  Under the
terms of the MOU, Abington, the other named defendants,
Susquehanna and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuit
subject to court approval.  On October 24, 2011, the court issued
an order in which it granted final approval of the settlement,
awarded $250,000 in attorney's fees and expenses, and dismissed
the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. -- http://www/susquehanna.net/--
through its subsidiaries, provides retail and commercial banking,
and financial services in the mid-Atlantic region.  The company
operates 221 branches and 26 free-standing automated teller
machines.  It was founded in 1982 and is based in Lititz,
Pennsylvania.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Signs MOU to Settle Tower-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve a class action complaint relating to its
acquisition of Tower Bancorp, Inc., according to the Company's
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On June 20, 2011, the Company announced the signing of a
definitive agreement under which it agreed to acquire all
outstanding shares of Tower Bancorp common stock in a stock and
cash transaction.  The transaction, with an approximate total
value of $343,000 is expected to be completed on or around
February 17, 2012.

On September 26, 2011, a class action and derivative complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania against Tower and the members of its board of
directors.  The complaint in the lawsuit, Edgar L. Johnson, Jr. v.
Andrew S. Samuel, et al., Case No. 11-1777, asserts that the
members of Tower's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties by causing the Tower to enter into the Tower Merger and
further asserts that Tower aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of duties.  The lawsuit also alleges that the disclosure
provided in the joint proxy statement/prospectus of Susquehanna
and Tower included in the registration statement on Form S-4 filed
by Susquehanna with the SEC (File No. 333-176367), failed to
provide required material information necessary for Tower's
shareholders to make a fully informed decision concerning the
Tower Merger in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order declaring that
the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and that
the Tower Joint Proxy/Prospectus is materially misleading in
violation of the Exchange Act, accounting for and awarding damages
on behalf of Tower for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by
the Individual Defendants (including punitive and actual damages,
plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees) and enjoining the
Tower Merger or rescinding the Tower Merger (if consummated).

On September 28, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any of
the allegations in the complaint, Susquehanna, Tower and the other
named defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding.
Under the terms of the Johnson MOU, Tower, the other named
defendants, Susquehanna and all plaintiffs agreed to settle the
Tower Federal Action and Tower State Action, subject to court
approval.  If the court approves the settlement contemplated in
the memorandum, the lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice.  In
connection with the settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $332,500 subject to
court approval, and Tower and Susquehanna have agreed not to
oppose plaintiffs' application. The amount of the fee award to
class counsel will ultimately be determined by the court.  This
payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be
paid in the Tower Merger.  If the settlement is finally approved
by the court, it is anticipated that it will resolve and release
all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the Tower Merger, the Tower Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith.  There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter in to a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the Johnson MOU may be terminated.

Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. -- http://www/susquehanna.net/--
through its subsidiaries, provides retail and commercial banking,
and financial services in the mid-Atlantic region.  The company
operates 221 branches and 26 free-standing automated teller
machines.  It was founded in 1982 and is based in Lititz,
Pennsylvania.


TALEO CORP: Employee Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------
An employee class action lawsuit against Taleo Corporation remains
pending, the Company disclosed in its November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In August 2010, the Company was notified of a potential collective
and/or class action claim under federal and state wage and hour
laws with respect to a small portion of its employee population.
On November 3, 2011, the claimants filed a class arbitration
complaint for arbitration to be held in Atlanta, Georgia.  Based
upon the Company's understanding of the asserted claims, its
anticipated litigation defenses, and discussions to date with the
claimant, the Company does not believe that the amount of any loss
incurred as a result of this claim would be material.

Headquartered in Dublin, California, Taleo Corp. --
http://www.taleo.com/-- provides on-demand talent management
software solutions. The company serves organizations in the
consumer goods, business services, energy, financial services,
healthcare, manufacturing, technology, transportation, government,
and retail sectors. It offers its software applications primarily
on a subscription basis through strategic partners, as well as
directly in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia.  The
company was formerly known as Recruitsoft, Inc. and changed its
name to Taleo Corporation in March 2004.


VERTRO INC: Seeks Rehearing on Appeals in Florida Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Vertro, Inc., is requesting a rehearing with the U.S. Court for
the Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on appeals lodged in a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit in Florida,
according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint alleged that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section
20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of the Company.  Plaintiffs
sought unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during
the putative class period, the Company made certain misleading
statements and omitted material information.

The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor
of all Defendants on December 7, 2009.  Plaintiffs appealed the
summary judgment ruling and the court's prior orders dismissing
certain claims.  On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 9 of the 11 alleged
misstatements and reversed the court's prior order on summary
judgment.  On October 21, 2011, the Company filed a petition for
panel rehearing or rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.

Regardless of the outcome, this litigation could have a material
adverse impact on the Company's results because of defense costs,
including costs related to its indemnification obligations,
diversion of management's attention and resources, and other
factors.

Vertro, Inc. -- http://www.vertro.com/-- is a software and
technology company that owns and operates the ALOT product
portfolio.  ALOT's products are designed to 'Make the Internet
Easy' by enhancing the way consumers engage with content online.
Through ALOT, Internet users can discover best-of-the-web third
party content and display that content through customizable
toolbar, homepage and desktop products.  ALOT has millions of live
users across its product portfolio.  Together these users conduct
high-volumes of type-in search queries, which are monetized
through third-party search and content agreements.


WILLIS GROUP: Still Awaits Final Order on Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company continues to await a
court decision on a settlement resolving a consolidated class
action lawsuit over contingent compensation, according to the
Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

Since August 2004, the Company and Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company,
along with various other brokers and insurers, have been named as
defendants in purported class actions in various courts across the
United States.  All of these actions have been consolidated into a
single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  These actions allege that the brokers breached their
duties to their clients by entering into contingent compensation
agreements with either no disclosure or limited disclosure to
clients and participated in other improper activities.  Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, and certain
equitable relief.  In May 2011, the majority of defendants,
including the Company and HRH, entered into a written settlement
agreement with plaintiffs.  On June 28, 2011, the Judge entered an
Order granting preliminary approval to the settlement agreement.
Notice of the settlement will be sent to all members of the class
and each member will have the opportunity to opt out of the
settlement and pursue its own individual claim against any
defendant.  A Fairness Hearing to decide if the settlement should
be given final approval took place on September 14, 2011, but the
Judge has not yet issued his decision on approval of the
settlement.  A total of 84 members of the class have opted out of
the settlement.  The amount of the proposed settlement to be paid
by the Company and HRH is immaterial and was previously reserved.

Headquartered in London, Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company -- http://www.willis.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide
a range of insurance and reinsurance broking, and risk management
consulting services to clients in various industries, including
aerospace, marine, construction, and energy.  The company was
formerly known as Willis Group Holdings Limited and changed its
name to Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company in January
2010.


WILLIS GROUP: Discrimination Suit Settlement to be Heard Dec. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal court will convene a hearing on December 12,
2011, to consider final approval of the settlement resolving a
gender discrimination lawsuit against Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form
10-filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In December 2006, a purported class action was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging that the Company discriminated
against female officers and officer equivalent employees on the
basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  In January 2011, the
Company reached a monetary settlement with plaintiffs that
resolves all individual and class claims.  The amount of this
settlement is not material.  However, this matter cannot be
formally and finally settled until the Court approves the
settlement and until members of the class are given an opportunity
to object to the terms of the settlement.  The Court has given
preliminary approval to the settlement.  Notice of the settlement
has been provided to the class members and the Court will hold a
Fairness Hearing on December 12, 2011, to decide if final approval
should be given to the settlement.

Headquartered in London, Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company -- http://www.willis.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide
a range of insurance and reinsurance broking, and risk management
consulting services to clients in various industries, including
aerospace, marine, construction, and energy.  The company was
formerly known as Willis Group Holdings Limited and changed its
name to Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company in January
2010.


WILLIS GROUP: Court Junks Claims in "Troice" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
A Texas federal court dismissed both class and individual claims
in the Stanford Financial-related lawsuit commenced against Willis
Group Holdings Public Limited Company, the Company disclosed in
its November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in six similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, for
which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on
certain lines of insurance.  The complaints in those actions
generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided
Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain
letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help
retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors.
The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain
statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the
defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted
material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford
promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

One of the six actions is Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-CV-01274-N, which was filed on
July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado,
Inc. and a Willis associate, among others.  On April 1, 2010,
plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action
Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide
class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant
and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs.  On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia,
that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

On October 26, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal without prejudice with respect to those claims
asserted in their Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an
individual (i.e., non-class) basis.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity,
Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N, and
(ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis.  Also
on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the
action.

Headquartered in London, Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company -- http://www.willis.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide
a range of insurance and reinsurance broking, and risk management
consulting services to clients in various industries, including
aerospace, marine, construction, and energy.  The company was
formerly known as Willis Group Holdings Limited and changed its
name to Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company in January
2010.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Enters Into Deal to Settle 401(k) Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide, Inc., has entered into an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit relating to its 401(k) program, according to
the Company's November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

Four class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, based on
similar allegations and causes of action.  On
November 17, 2009, Eva L. Hanna and Shelley F. Whitson, former
participants in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement Savings
Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from April 6, 2009 to the present; on December 7, 2009, Daniel J.
Cambra, a participant in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement
Savings Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain
persons participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the
plan) from October 25, 2007 to the present; on January 15, 2010,
Patrick M. Couch, a participant in one of the merged 401(k) plans,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from March 23, 2006 to the present; and on April 21, 2010, Tawana
Franklin, a participant in the YRC Worldwide 401(k) Plan, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of certain persons participating
in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan) from October 25,
2007 to the present.

In general, the complaints allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing participants
Company common stock as part of their matching contributions and
by not removing the stock fund as an investment option in the
plans in light of the Company's financial condition.  Although
some Company matching contributions were made in Company common
stock, participants were not permitted to invest their own
contributions in the Company stock fund.  The complaints allege
that the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the
plans and assets of the plans; imprudently invested in Company
common stock; failed to monitor fiduciaries and provide them with
accurate information; breached the duty to properly appoint,
monitor, and inform the Benefits Administrative Committee;
misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse financial
information; breached the duty to avoid conflict of interest; and
are subject to co-fiduciary liability.  Each of the complaints
seeks, among other things, an order compelling defendants to make
good to the plan all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty, attorneys' fees, and other injunctive and
equitable relief.  Based on the four separate complaints
previously filed, the Company believes the allegations are without
merit and intends to vigorously contest the claims.

On March 3, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating three
of the four cases and, on April 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint.  The consolidated complaint asserts the
same claims as the previously-filed complaints but names as
defendants certain former officers of the Company in addition to
those current and former officers and directors that have already
been named.  The fourth case (Franklin) was consolidated with the
first three cases on May 12, 2010.  On April 6, 2011, the court
certified a class consisting of all 401(k) Plan participants or
beneficiaries who held YRCW stock in their accounts between
October 25, 2007 and the present.

On October 31, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement.  They agreed to settlement amount of $6.5 million will
be paid entirely by the Company's insurer.  Because the case was
certified as a class action, the Court must approve the settlement
after providing notice to members of the class and an opportunity
to be object. However, because this is a "mandatory class," class
members cannot "opt out" of the settlement.  The Company has every
reason to believe the Court will approve the settlement.  If
approved, the settlement will be binding on all class members and
will provide a complete release of claims as to all of the named
defendants.  The named defendants and their immediate family
members are excluded from the class and will not share in the
settlement.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, YRC Worldwide Inc. --
http://www.yrcw.com/-- is a holding company that through
wholly owned operating subsidiaries offers its customers a wide
range of transportation services.  These services include global,
national and regional transportation as well as logistics.


YRC WORLDWIDE: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide, Inc., will be filing a motion to dismiss an amended
securities class action complaint, the Company disclosed in its
November 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
the Company and certain of its current and former officers failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true
financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading because they misrepresented and overstated
the financial condition of the Company and caused shares of the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels
throughout the Class Period.  Bryant Holdings LLC seeks to recover
damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
during the Class Period.  The Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims.  On
April 8, 2011, an individual (Stan Better) and a group of
investors (including Bryant Holdings LLC) filed competing motions
seeking to be named the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.  The Court
appointed them as co-lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on August 22,
2011.  Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 21,
2011, which contains allegations consistent with the original
complaint.  The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, briefing of which will continue through March
2012.  The ultimate outcome of this case is not determinable.
Therefore, the Company has not recorded any liability for this
matter.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, YRC Worldwide Inc. --
http://www.yrcw.com/-- is a holding company that through
wholly owned operating subsidiaries offers its customers a wide
range of transportation services.  These services include global,
national and regional transportation as well as logistics.


ZIONS BANCORP: Faces Lawsuit Over Credit Card Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation is facing a class action lawsuit related to
overdraft fees, according to the Company's November 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On October 5, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of certain customers of Zions Bank relating to the
processing of overdraft fees on debit card transactions.  Zions
Bank was only recently served with the complaint and is still in
the process of assessing the merits of the claims, the defenses
available to the bank, and the amounts at issue.

Zions Bancorporation -- http://www.zionsbancorporation.com-- a
multi-bank holding company, provides various banking and related
products and services in the United States.  The company offers
community banking services.  It also provides personal banking
services to individuals.  In addition, the company offers small
business administration lending services; secondary market
agricultural real estate mortgage loans; municipal finance
advisory and underwriting services; and wealth management and
online brokerage services.  The company was founded in 1873 and is
headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Subject to Potential Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various claims and other legal proceedings incidental to the
normal course of business are pending or threatened against
General Dynamics Corporation, including asbestos-related claims.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2011.

Falls Church, Va.-based General Dynamics Corporation operates in
four business groups: Aerospace, Combat Systems, Marine Systems
and Information Systems and Technology.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Corp. Still Named in Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos
exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy Corp.'s normal
business operations pending against the Company and its
subsidiaries.

No other significant asbestos matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2011.

Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide
electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
New Jersey.  The Company's domestic power plants have a total
generating capacity of more than 14,170 MW, most generated by
coal-fired plants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corporation Subject to Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation continues to be subject to claims and
litigation relating to product liability claims, including claims
related to its current products and asbestos-related claims
concerning premises and historic products of its corporate
affiliates and predecessors.

The Company said it believes the claims relating to the period
before the filing of the Chapter 11 cases are subject to discharge
under the Plan and will be satisfied, to the extent allowed by the
Bankruptcy Court, solely from the Disputed Claims Reserve.

Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corporation is dedicated delivers
innovative, application-focused specialty chemical and consumer
product offerings.  It operates in various end-use industries
including agriculture, automotive, construction, electronics,
lubricants, packaging, plastics for durable and non-durable goods,
pool and spa chemicals, and transportation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Facing 1,000 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple lawsuits with about 1,000 claimants are pending in state
or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged
personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in
certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by RBS Global,
Inc.'s Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2011.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is comprised of two strategic
platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management, with
about 7,400 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Prager Subsidiary Still Has 2 Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending
multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due
to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager.

Additionally, there are about 4,000 individuals who have filed
asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these claims are
currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.
The ultimate outcome of these asbestos matters cannot presently be
determined.

To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the
costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.  The Company said it
believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of
these matters.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is comprised of two strategic
platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management, with
about 7,400 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Facing 200 Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk unit, through its successor entity, is a
defendant in about 200 lawsuits pending in state or federal court
in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries
due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and
drives previously manufactured by Falk.

There are about 600 claimants in these suits.  The ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined.

Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits
under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to
date.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is comprised of two strategic
platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management, with
about 7,400 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Zurn Unit Has 7T Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Zurn unit and about 80 other unrelated
companies, as of Oct. 1, 2011, were defendants in about 7,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing about 27,000 claims.

The Company said that, as of July 2, 2011, its Zurn unit and an
average of about 80 other unrelated companies were defendants in
about 7,100 asbestos related lawsuits representing about 27,500
claims.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2011)

Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn.

Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.  These claims are
being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.

As of Oct. 1, 2011, the Company estimates the potential liability
for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well as the
claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years to be about US$65
million of which Zurn expects to pay about US$53 million in the
next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated
liability being paid in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of Oct. 1, 2011, is about US$259
million, and believes that all current claims are covered by this
insurance.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is comprised of two strategic
platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management, with
about 7,400 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 230 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 230 asbestos cases for which Midwest Generation,
LLC was potentially liable that had not been settled and dismissed
at Sept. 30, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2,
2011.

There were about 222 asbestos cases for which the Company was
potentially liable that had not been settled and dismissed at
June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 2, 2011)

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on Feb. 20,
2003, to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of the
Company's reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to reimburse
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50% of specific
asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related expenses
less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing
arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future
asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement.  The
obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum
liability.

The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms (subject
to the right of either party to terminate); pursuant to the
automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until February
2012.

The Company had recorded a liability of US$55 million at Sept. 30,
2011, related to this contractual indemnity, included in benefit
plans and other long-term liabilities on its consolidated balance
sheets.

Bolingbrook, Ill.-based Midwest Generation LLC sells wholesale
electricity to markets in the Midwest.  The independent power
producer has a generating capacity of more than 5,770 MW,
primarily from its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois (5,740
MW); it also oversees the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-
site generating plants which have 305 MW of capacity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Units Still Face Pending Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries have been
subject in recent years to asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2011.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components
sold in the past by the Company's subsidiaries.  Management
believes that the majority of the claimants were vehicle
mechanics.

Most of these claims name numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.  Management
said it believes that, to the extent any of the products sold by
the Company's subsidiaries and at issue in these cases contained
asbestos, the asbestos was encapsulated.

Based upon several years of experience with such claims,
Management said it believes that a small proportion of the
claimants has or will ever develop any asbestos-related illness.

Livonia, Mich.-based TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies
automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and related aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper, Subsidiaries Named in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries have been named
defendants in some asbestos-related litigation filed in certain
U.S. states.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2011.

Sarasota, Fla.-based Roper Industries, Inc. is a diversified
growth company that designs, manufactures and distributes energy
systems and controls, medical and scientific imaging products and
software, industrial technology products and radio frequency
products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation Still Named in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like hundreds of other industrial companies, FMC Corporation has
been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation.

Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from
exposure to asbestos in premises of the Company or to asbestos-
containing components installed in machinery or equipment
manufactured or sold by discontinued operations.

Philadelphia-based FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical
company serving agricultural, consumer and industrial markets
globally with innovative solutions, applications and market-
leading products.  The Company operates in three distinct business
segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and
Industrial Chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Facing 520 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2011, faced about 520
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 2, 2011.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company faced about 530 asbestos-related
lawsuits.  (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 2, 2011)

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation.  Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants.  To date, the costs resulting from the litigation,
including settlement costs, have not been significant.

At Sept. 30, 2011, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities
of about US$34 million, a significant portion of which relates to
asbestos.

Richmond, Va.-based MeadWestvaco Corporation is a global packaging
company that provides packaging solutions to many of the world's
brands in the food, beverage, tobacco, healthcare, beauty and
personal care, and home and garden industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Facing 19,056 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are 19,056 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against Harsco Corporation at Sept. 30, 2011, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2011.

At June 30, 2011, the Company faced 19,212 pending asbestos
personal injury claims.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2011)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or
more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from
exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In
their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have
been filed in New York.  Almost all of the New York complaints
contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25
million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the individual
plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without specifically
identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's
asbestos exposure.

Of these cases, 18,567 are pending in the New York Supreme Court
for New York County in New York State.  The other claims, totaling
489, are filed in various counties in a number of state courts,
and in certain Federal District Courts (including New York), and
those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of damages than
the New York State court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of Sept. 30, 2011, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial in 25,634 cases.

At Sept. 30, 2011, the Company has been listed as a defendant in
994 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corporation is a diversified,
multinational provider of industrial services and engineered
products.  The Company's operations fall into four reportable
segments: Harsco Infrastructure, Harsco Metals & Minerals, Harsco
Rail and Harsco Industrial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faces 22 Exposure Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation says that, at Sept. 30, 2011, there were 22
asbestos-related lawsuits in which it is one of many defendants,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2011.

The Company said that, at June 30, 2011, there were about 21
asbestos-related lawsuits in which it is one of many Defendants.
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 9, 2011)

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states
of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Baar, Switzerland-based Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling
contractor for the oil and gas industry.  At Sept. 30, 2011, its
fleet consisted of 79 mobile offshore drilling units located
worldwide as follows: 14 semisubmersibles, 14 drillships, 49
jackups and two submersibles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corporation Faces 50,120 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had pending about 50,120 asbestos claims as of
Sept. 30, 2011, as compared with about 52,220 as of Dec. 31, 2010
and 56,960 as of Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 3, 2011.

The Company had pending about 50,390 asbestos claims as of
June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2011)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.

The Company is typically named as one of a large number of
defendants in both state and federal cases.  In the majority of
asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the
Company's products is the basis of a claim.

Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified
principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships.

During the third quarter of 2011, the Company received about 1,030
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 1,300
claims.

The Company's total costs for the years 2010 and 2009 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax benefits were about US$14 million and
US$18 million, respectively.

New York-based CBS Corporation is comprised of these segments:
Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and
Outdoor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Issues Split Decision in Evans
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued split rulings
in a case involving asbestos styled James I. Evans, Appellant v.
Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judges Moorman, Lance, and Schoelen entered judgment in Case No.
08-2133 on Aug. 4, 2011.  Judge Lance filed a dissenting opinion.

James I. Evans appealed an April 17, 2008 Board of Veterans'
Appeals decision that denied his claim of entitlement to service
connection for the residuals of a collapsed lung, remanded his
claims of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder
and to a compensable evaluation for residuals of a fractured
distal left fibular shaft, and effectively dismissed his claims
for asbestos exposure, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C.

On Jan. 28, 2011, this panel issued a decision reversing in part
the April 17, 2008, decision and remanding for further
proceedings.  On Feb. 16, 2011, the Secretary filed a motion for
partial reconsideration of the Jan. 28, 2011 decision.  At the
Court's invitation, on March 31, 2011, Mr. Evans filed a response
in opposition to partial reconsideration.

Mr. Evans served on active duty in the U.S. Army from August 1968
until August 1970.  In July 2003, he filed a claim with the St.
Petersburg, Fla., regional office (RO), seeking entitlement to
service connection for a back condition, bilateral wrist
conditions, hepatitis C, carpel tunnel syndrome, a collapsed lung,
drug addiction, and a lung condition due to asbestos exposure.

Mr. Evans also sought a compensable rating for his service-
connected distal left fibular shaft fracture and the reopening of
a previously denied claim for a forehead injury.  At a later date,
he added claims for an eye condition, hepatitis B, a stab wound to
the chest, and a heart condition.

In February 2004, the RO issued a rating decision that disposed of
16 separate claims.  Within that decision, the RO continued Mr.
Evans' non-compensable rating for his fibular shaft fracture,
denied entitlement to a non-service-connected pension, and also
denied reopening of Mr. Evans' claim for the residuals of a
forehead injury.

The decision further denied entitlement to service connection for
an eye condition, the residuals of a stab wound to the chest, the
residuals of a collapsed lung, asbestos exposure, heart trouble,
drug and alcohol addiction, hepatitis B and C, a back disability,
carpal tunnel syndrome, a scar on the left wrist, and bilateral
plantar fasciitis.

Mr. Evans timely filed a Notice of Disagreement to the RO's
decision with respect to his claims for asbestos exposure, a back
disability, a collapsed lung, hepatitis B and C, and his distal
left fibular shaft fracture.  He also raised new claims for a neck
condition, migraines, and memory loss.  However, he did not
express any disagreement with the other 10 claims decided by the
RO in the February 2004 decision.

In September 2004, the RO issued an SOC with respect to the six
claims referenced in Mr. Evans' NOD.  The RO also issued a rating
decision with respect to Mr. Evans' newly filed claims for a neck
condition, migraines, and memory loss.

Mr. Evans filed a Substantive Appeal to the Board in November 2004
concerning the "issues" outlined in the September 2004 SOC.

Mr. Evans' and the Secretary's briefs, and a review of the record
on appeal, the Secretary's motion for partial reconsideration was
granted.  The Court's Jan. 28, 2011 opinion was withdrawn; and
this opinion was issued in its stead.  The Board's April 17, 2008
decision was vacated with respect to the Board's dismissal of the
issues of asbestos exposure, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, and the
matters were remanded to the Board for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

The appeal as to Mr. Evans' claim for service connection for
memory loss, migraines, and plantar fasciitis was dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.

Kenneth L. La Van, Esq., with whom Dianne E. Olson, Esq., both of
Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was on the pleadings for Mr. Evans.

Will A. Gunn, General Counsel; R. Randall Campbell, Assistant
General Counsel; Edward V. Cassidy, Jr., Deputy Assistant General
Counsel, and Christopher O. Adeloye, all of Washington, D.C.,
represented the appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Issues Split Ruling in Harper Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Harper Insurance
Limited, River Thames Insurance Company Limited, and Guildhall
Insurance Company Limited, Petitioners v. Century Indemnity
Company, Respondent.

District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered judgment in Case No.
10 Civ. 7866(NRB) on July 28, 2011.

Petitioners Harper Insurance Limited, River Thames Insurance
Company Limited, and Guildhall Insurance Company Limited are
London market companies.  They brought this action seeking to
vacate an arbitration award granted in favor of Century Indemnity
Company.

LMCs' petition was denied, and Century's cross-petition to confirm
the award was granted.

Petitioners are a subset of a larger group of London Market
Reinsurers, which were parties to a reinsurance contract, Treaty
101, with Century.  The Agreement was effective from Jan. 1, 1965
through Dec. 31, 1967.

The Agreement obligated LMRs to indemnify Century for certain
levels of liability arising out of asbestos bodily-injury
lawsuits.  The Agreement did not include a Reports and Remittances
clause dictating when claims must be compensated by petitioners.

Eight separate arbitration panels were formed.  Since each panel
would be addressing nearly identical issues and contractual terms,
one panel, known as the "Hunter Panel," held an evidentiary
hearing and invited the other panels to attend and participate.
The arbitration panel which issued the award contested here, known
as the "Powers Panel," attended the proceedings but reserved the
right to hold future hearings and issue its own award.

The Hunter Panel divided the arbitration proceeding into three
phases.  Phase 1A, the outcome of which is at issue here,
addressed Century's claims for declaratory relief and allegations
concerning a breach of contract arising out of the RDRs.  The
parties engaged in discovery and submitted memoranda of law on
these issues, and an evidentiary hearing was held in October 2006.

On Dec. 10, 2006, the Powers Panel issued an Interim Order, over
the protestations of a dissent, which adapted the relief granted
by the Hunter Panel on Oct. 24, 2006.

On May 10, 2010, about three-and-one-half years following the
issuance of the Interim Order, one of the arbitrators emailed
counsel for LMR and Century and, noting that "none of the parties
have needed guidance from the Panel in a considerable time," asked
whether "it is necessary or appropriate for the Panel to continue
further jurisdiction in this matter."  The Panel requested the
parties' views by June 1, 2010.

On June 1, 2010, LMCs submitted a letter in which they agreed that
jurisdiction should be terminated, but requested that the Panel
eliminate the provision requiring prepayment of 75% of disputed
claims.  The response was submitted on June 8, 2010, and LMCs
replied on June 15, 2010.

The arbitrators reviewed the matter, and on July 15, 2010, issued
a Final Order denying the relief requested by the LMCs.  The Final
Order terminated jurisdiction and incorporated the Interim Order,
modified only to reflect that since the Panel no longer had
jurisdiction, either party could initiate arbitration within 10
days of a failure to agree on payments.  On Oct. 14, 2010, LMCs
brought this petition seeking to vacate the Panel's Final Order.

The petition to vacate was denied.  Respondent's cross-petition to
confirm was granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies USF & G's Bid in Turner Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, denied
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company's motion for protective
order in an asbestos-related case styled Turner Industries Group,
LLC v. The Travelers Companies, Inc.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Docia L. Dalby entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 09-834-BAJ-DLD on Aug. 1, 2011.

This matter was before the court on a referral from the district
court of defendants Fidelity & Guaranty Underwriters, Inc. and
USF & G's motion for protective order with regard to the proposed
deposition of Marsharee Wilcox.

Turner Industries Group, LLC is an industrial contractor located
in Baton Rouge, La., and is the successor entity to Nichols
Construction Company and National Maintenance Company, among other
entities (TIG Predecessors).  TIG and/or its predecessors have
been named as defendants in thousands of asbestos-related
lawsuits, lawsuits which allege bodily injury claims as a result
of exposure to asbestos.

Additionally, other defendants in these lawsuits have brought
claims against TIG and or its predecessors under alleged
indemnification contracts.  TIG referred to all these claims as
the "Underlying Asbestos Claims, and asserted that it reasonably
anticipates that more claims such as these will be filed in the
future.

USF & G issued comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies for
the time period between March 1, 1976 to March 1, 1989 to TIG
predecessors, policies which contained defense and indemnity
provisions.  Travelers is the parent corporation of USF & G.
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company issued comprehensive general
liability policies for the time period between March 1, 1967, to
March 1, 1976, to TIG predecessors, policies which also defense
and indemnity provisions.

The injuries for which TIG and its predecessors are allegedly
responsible occurred during the periods of time covered by these
policies (occurrence policies).  TIG contended that USF & G and/or
Travelers defended TIG regarding the underlying asbestos claims,
hiring, supervising, and paying counsel directly, and FFIC
contributed to the defense costs.

In addition to paying all defense costs, defendants also paid all
indemnity costs for the underlying asbestos claims until
November 2007.  In November 2007, Travelers and/or USF & G began
denying defense and indemnity coverage to TIG on the underlying
asbestos claims, either in whole or in part.

TIG contended that these denials occurred after the Special
Liability Group (SLG) began handling the managing of the
underlying asbestos claims and that SLG is a "unit under the
control" of Travelers.  TIG filed suit in October 2009, seeking
declaratory judgment relating to the defense and indemnity
coverage, coverage it contended USF & G/Travelers never denied or
for which a reservation of rights was ever asserted until about
November 2007.  TIG also alleged a breach of contract for these
same denials of coverage.

On April 6, 2011, upon the joint motion of plaintiff and
defendants, TIG's claims against USF & G, The Travelers Indemnity
Company, FFIC, Associated Indemnity Corporation, and The Travelers
Companies were dismissed with prejudice, leaving only a cross
claim filed by FFIC on March 29, 2010 against the other original
defendants.

FFIC's cross claim alleges that the other defendants had
contributed on a pro rata basis to TIG's defense and/or settlement
in the underlying asbestos claims for many years, until USF &
G/Travelers began denying their obligations to defend and
indemnify TIG with regard to those claims.

On May 1, 2011, USF & G filed this motion for protective order,
seeking to prohibit Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and
Associated Indemnity Corporation from deposing Marsharee Wilcox, a
former employee of USF & G.

USF & G stated that Wilcox left USF & G in May 2007, and "has no
knowledge concerning USF & G's handling of asbestos claims after
2007" or any information "concerning any coverage decisions that
occurred after June 23, 2007, and that are the subject of FFIC's
cross claim."  USF & G argued that FFIC's cross claim sought
contribution only for asbestos claims for which a defense was
denied, and those declinations were issued "long after" Wilcox
left USF & G; thus, her deposition is not relevant to FFIC's
claim, and good cause exists for the issuance of a protective
order.

In response, FFIC contended that USF & G had waived its right to
assert coverage defenses, and that Wilcox, as the claims handler
for the TIG files until May 2007, had personal knowledge regarding
the decisions made, rationale for, and information considered
during the time of her employment when USF & G was defending and
indemnifying TIG without any assertion of coverage defenses.

FFIC asserted that Wilcox's potential testimony was relevant to
the question of whether USF & G's knowledge and or actions could
constitute a waiver of its right to assert any coverage defenses.

USF & G replied, contending that FFIC was attempting to conduct
discovery for a companion suit, and that any discovery allowed
should be limited to asking Wilcox whether or not she was aware of
any reservations of rights being issued while she was a claims
handler.

Finally, that Wilcox's testimony may be relevant to issues in
another lawsuit did not make that testimony irrelevant in the
instant lawsuit.  FFIC sought reimbursement for its payment of
obligations allegedly owed by the other insurers.  Any information
that Wilcox had which concerns those obligations was relevant.
The court therefore was not persuaded by USF & G's arguments.

It was ordered that USF & G's motion for protective order was
denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Still Facing Lawsuits in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries are still subject to
asbestos complaints filed in Mississippi courts.

In 2004, several of the Company's subsidiaries were named in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out
of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986.

A Special Master, appointed to administer these cases pre-trial,
subsequently required that each individual plaintiff file a
separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints
were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts.

The amended complaints resulted in one of the Company's
subsidiaries being named as a direct defendant in seven cases.
The Company has or may have an indirect interest in an additional
12 cases.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or
manufactured asbestos-containing products in connection with
drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence,
products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the
Jones Act and general maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

In each of these cases, the complaints have named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos.

Vernier, Switzerland-based Transocean Ltd. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.  At Sept. 30,
2011, the Company owned or had partial ownership interests in and
operated 133 mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Facing 996 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2011, one of its
subsidiaries was a defendant in about 996 asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2011.

As of June 30, 2011, one of the Company's subsidiaries was a
defendant in about 977 asbestos-related lawsuits.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 26, 2011)

One of the Company's subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction
and refurbishment of major industrial complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its
litigation and, either directly or indirectly as the beneficiary
of a qualified settlement fund, funding from settlements with
insurers, assigned rights from insurers and "coverage-in-place"
settlement agreements with insurers, and funds received from the
commutation of certain insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous
other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the Company
estimates that there are about 2,117 plaintiffs in these lawsuits.
For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided with
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether
all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary,
the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged
injuries.

The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against this
subsidiary in 1990.  Through Sept. 30, 2011, the amounts expended
to resolve claims, including both defense fees and expenses and
settlement costs, have not been material, all known deductibles
have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's
defense fees and expenses and costs of settlement have been met by
insurance made available to the subsidiary.

Vernier, Switzerland-based Transocean Ltd. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.  At Sept. 30,
2011, the Company owned or had partial ownership interests in and
operated 133 mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Has 15 Injury Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 15 asbestos-related lawsuits in which Parker
Drilling Company is one of many defendants at Sept. 30, 2011,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 4, 2011.

The Company is, from time to time, a party to various lawsuits
that are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek
an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos
on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the State
of Mississippi.  No amounts were accrued at Sept. 30, 2011.

Houston-based Parker Drilling Company provides rental tools,
drilling services, and project management services.  Its rental
tools subsidiary specializes in oil and gas drilling rental tools
providing high-quality, reliable equipment, such as drill pipe,
heavy-weight drill pipe, tubing, high-torque connections, blow out
preventers and drill collars used for drilling, workover and
production applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Maintains $10MM-$20MM Coverage for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Company has coverage for certain environmental claims up to
US$10 million per occurrence and up to US$20 million in the
aggregate, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2011.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
its properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials.

The Company has, in the past, performed remediation of such
environmental matters, and it is not aware of any significant
remaining potential liability relating to these environmental
matters.

The Company may be required in the future to perform testing
relating to these matters.

Philadelphia-based Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has a
primary investment focus on retail shopping malls located in the
eastern half of the United States, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic
region.  As of Sept. 30, 2011, its portfolio consisted of 49
properties in 13 states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Named in Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. or its subsidiaries have been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a
number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2011.

Some facilities owned by the Company contain or have contained
asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials.

Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously
owned by the Company's subsidiaries.  The Company anticipates that
additional claims like those received may be asserted in the
future.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as
NRG Texas LP.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to NRG Texas LP,
ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims
relating to the generating business has been assumed by NRG Texas
LP, but the Company has agreed to continue to defend such claims
to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by the
Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such defense
from NRG Texas LP.

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding
company.  Its operating subsidiaries own and operate electric
transmission and distribution facilities, natural gas distribution
facilities, interstate pipelines and natural gas gathering,
processing and treating facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Still Named "Premises Defendant"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation has been named as a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by
nonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2011.

In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple
plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims
against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries
occurred or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.  These facts,
which would be central to any estimate of probable loss, generally
have been learned only through discovery.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners
generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and
to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.

Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, the Company
tenders it to the prior owner.  Rarely do the complaints in these
cases state the amount of damages being sought.  The prior owner
accepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases
and payment of any amounts due to the claimants.

In its 17-year experience with tendering these cases, the Company
has not made any payment with respect to any tendered asbestos
cases.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, the Company recorded
10 cases tendered during period, 43 cases resolved during period
and 1,083 cases unresolved at the end of period.  During the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 23 cases
tendered during period, 21 cases resolved during period and 1,140
unresolved cases at end of period.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases.  As of Sept. 30, 2011, the Company had an accrued liability
of US$13 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$13 million relating to its indemnity protection
with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
Cases include all cases for which service has been received by the
Company.  Certain prior cases that were filed in error against the
Company have been dismissed.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011, the Company recorded
nine cases filed during the period, eight cases resolved during
period and 38 cases unresolved at the end of period.  During the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded three cases
filed during the period, two cases resolved during period and 40
unresolved at the end of period.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$442,000 during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2011 and US$200,000 during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.  As of Sept. 30, 2011, the
Company had an accrual of US$458,000 relating to these cases.

Salt Lake City, Utah-based Huntsman Corporation is a chemical
manufacturer that supplies products through five operating
segments.  Its products include MDI, amines, surfactants, and
epoxy-based polymers, as well as polyurethanes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,095 Open Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 2,095 asbestos cases at Sept. 30, 2011 were outstanding for
which Standard Motor Products, Inc. may be responsible for any
related liabilities, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3,
2011.

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation.  When it originally acquired this brake
business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after September 2001.

In the second quarter of 2011, the Company increased the number of
outstanding cases to unbundle previously outstanding consolidated
cases.  Since inception in September 2001 through Sept. 30, 2011,
the amounts paid for settled claims are about US$11.9 million.

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc. is a
manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for motor
vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with an
increasing focus on the original equipment service market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence, Hoke Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says smaller numbers of asbestos-
related claims have also been filed against two of its other
subsidiaries -- Spence Engineering Company, Inc. and Hoke
Handelsgesellschaft GmbH.

The Company acquired Spence in 1984 and Hoke in 1998.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. designs,
manufactures and markets valves and other highly engineered
products for the industrial, aerospace and energy markets.  With
more than 7,000 customers in over 100 countries, the Company has a
diversified product portfolio with recognized, market-leading
brands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Bankruptcy Case Closed Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that, on Sept. 30, 2011, the U.S.
Federal District Court for the District of Delaware entered an
order for the final decree closing the Chapter 11 case of the
Company's Leslie Controls, Inc. subsidiary, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2011.

On July 12, 2010, Leslie filed a voluntary petition under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware and, simultaneously, filed a pre-
negotiated plan of reorganization in an effort to permanently
resolve Leslie's exposure to asbestos-related product liability
actions.

On Feb. 7, 2011, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy
Court's earlier order confirming Leslie's Reorganization Plan,
thus clearing the way for Leslie to emerge from bankruptcy.  On
April 28, 2011, under the terms of the Reorganization Plan, Leslie
and the Company contributed US$76.6 million in cash and a US$1
million promissory note to fund the Leslie Controls Asbestos
Trust, and Leslie emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Under the terms of the Plan, all current and future asbestos
related claims against Leslie, as well as all current and future
derivative claims against CIRCOR, will now be permanently
channeled to the Trust, and the only remaining financial
obligation of Leslie and CIRCOR is payment of the Note.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. designs,
manufactures and markets valves and other highly engineered
products for the industrial, aerospace and energy markets.  With
more than 7,000 customers in over 100 countries, the Company has a
diversified product portfolio with recognized, market-leading
brands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco Subject to Potential Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Many other legal and administrative proceedings are pending or may
be brought against Sunoco, Inc. arising out of its current and
past operations, including matters related to allegations of
exposures of third parties to toxic substances (such as benzene or
asbestos).

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2011.

Philadelphia-based Sunoco, Inc. operates three refineries with a
total processing capacity of 675,000 barrels of crude oil a day,
and it has 5,400 miles of oil and 2,200 miles of refined products
pipelines and more than 40 product terminals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alliant Records $7MM Revisions in 3rd Qtr. 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliant Energy Corporation's Interstate Power and Light Company
subsidiary, in the third quarter of 2011, recorded revisions in
estimated cash flows of US$7 million based on revised remediation
timing and cost information for asbestos remediation at its Sixth
Street Generating Station.

No further asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2011 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Madison, Wis.-based Alliant Energy Corporation delivers regulated
electric and natural gas services to homes, businesses, and
industries across the Midwest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sept. 30 Cases v. General Cable Totaled 29,039
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2011, faced 29,039
asbestos cases (of which 601 were non-maritime cases and 28,438
were maritime cases) brought in various jurisdictions throughout
the United States.

As of July 1, 2011, the Company was a defendant in a total of
about 29,082 asbestos cases (of which 590 were non-maritime cases
and 28,438 were maritime cases) brought in various jurisdictions
throughout the United States.

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company.

The Company had accrued, on a gross basis, about US$4.8 million as
of Sept. 30, 2011 and US$5.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and had
recovered about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these
lawsuits.

Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corporation develops,
designs, manufactures, installs, markets and distributes copper,
aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products.  Its operations
are divided into three reportable segments: North America, Europe
and Mediterranean and Rest of World.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ratcliff Case v. Texaco, Chevron Filed in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billie Ratcliff, the widow of William Ratcliff, on Nov. 16, 2011,
filed a benzene suit against Texaco and Chevron USA in Jefferson
County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Ratcliff was employed by Texaco,
where was exposed to benzene. No dates of employment are given.
The suit says, "As a result of such exposure, William Ratcliff
developed multiple myeloma from which he died a painful and
terrible death on April 12, 2011."

The suit also alleges the defendant knew for decades that benzene
exposure caused blood disorders but still allowed employees to
work with asbestos products.  Mrs. Ratcliff is suing for exemplary
damages.

Keith Hyde, Esq., of the Beaumont law firm Provost Umphrey
represents Mrs. Ratcliff.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, is assigned to Case No.
B191-359


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln University Penalized for Safety Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln University has been fined for putting staff, students and
contractors at risk of exposure to asbestos, according to a Health
and Safety Executive press release dated Nov. 16, 2011

The failings came to light on Feb. 24, 2010 when a lecturer became
trapped in a room after a door lock broke.  She enlisted the help
of a colleague to release her and once freed, they noticed debris
around the door handle.

They notified the university's health and safety department which
examined the door and others in the area, and discovered most were
lined with asbestos insulating board (AIB), and that some were
damaged.

The university notified the HSE, which carried out its own
investigation.  It was found that a number of areas across the
university's estate had been subject to asbestos surveys over a
number of years and many areas were found to contain asbestos-
containing materials or even asbestos debris, yet no remedial
action had been taken.

Lincoln University Higher Education Corporation, of Brayford Pool,
Lincoln, pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching Regulation 5(1)
of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 at
Lincoln Magistrates' Court on Nov. 16, 2011.  The university was
fined GBP10,000 and ordered to pay GBP12,759 costs.

After the hearing at Lincoln Magistrates' Court HSE inspector
Edward Walker said, "Exposure to asbestos fibers is a well known
health hazard that results in approximately 4,000 deaths a year.

"The university had an asbestos management plan but had failed to
follow it and failed to take appropriate steps to manage the risks
associated with asbestos over a number of years, putting staff,
students and contractors at risk of potential exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Engineering Settles Lopez Action for $10MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City, Mo.-based U.S. Engineering Co. agreed to settle over
US$10 million in a lawsuit regarding asbestos removal issues at
the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas City, The Kansas City Star
reports.

The family of Nancy R. Lopez, a longtime courthouse employee who
died in 2010 after contracting mesothelioma, reached the
settlement with the County and U.S. Engineering.

Lou Accurso, the Kansas City attorney who filed the suit, said it
was believed to be the largest settlement in an asbestos case in
Missouri.

Under terms of the settlement approved on Nov. 18, 2011 by
Buchanan County Circuit Judge Patrick Robb, U.S. Engineering will
pay US$10 million and Jackson County will pay US$400,000.  Two
companies that were counter-sued by U.S. Engineering agreed to pay
US$20,000 each.

The settlement does not apply to a separate class-action suit
filed on behalf of courthouse employees, their families and
courthouse visitors.  That case is pending.

On March 2010, the suits were filed and alleged that dust
containing asbestos fibers was released inside the building at 415
E. 12th St. during a 1983 renovation project, and that it has
continued to be a problem there for a number of years.

Although the suits were filed in Jackson County, Judge Robb was
assigned by the Missouri Supreme Court to preside over the Lopez
case.  Another Missouri judge is handling the class-action suit.

Ms. Lopez started working at the courthouse in 1975.  In April
2009, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, according to her
attorney.  She was 56 when she died in October 2010.

U.S. Engineering had done demolition, maintenance and renovation
projects at the courthouse for many years, including the projects
in 1983 and 1984, according to the suits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hall's Claim v. 28 Firms Filed Oct. 27 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Hall and his wife, Suzanna Hall, on Oct. 27, 2011, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 28 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the case, on Nov. 10, 2009, Mr. Hall was diagnosed
with lung cancer.  He claims during his employment with Pennzoil
and Pennzenergy from 1974 until 1999, he was exposed to asbestos
fibers.

The Halls seek compensatory and punitive damages. They are being
represented by Brian Alan Prim, Esq.  Kanawha Circuit Court Case
No. 11-C-1925 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ozen's Case v. Chevron, Texaco Filed on Nov. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of the late Samuel Ozen Sr., on Nov. 10, 2011, has
filed an asbestos suit against Chevron USA and Texaco in Jefferson
County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the lawsuit filed by Mildren Ozen and her children,
Mr. Ozen was previously employed by Texaco in Port Arthur, Tex.,
where was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers.  The suit does not
give dates of employment.

The suit states, "As a result of such exposure, Ozen developed
. . . pulmonary asbestosis, for which he died a painful and
terrible death on March 1, 2010."

The plaintiffs are suing for exemplary damages.  Attorney Keith
Hyde, Esq., of the Beaumont law firm Provost Umphrey represents
the Ozen family.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, has been assigned to Case
No. A191-324.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP100,000 Lawsuit v. Royal Scots Club Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Mannifield, a 78-year-old resident of Lostock Hall,
Lancashire, England, filed an asbestos lawsuit against the Royal
Scots Club, in Edinburgh, for GBP100,000, the Lancashire Evening
Post reports.

Mr. Mannifield claims he was exposed to asbestos while working as
the secretary at the Royal Scots Club.  However, lawyers for the
venue have refuted the claim and instead suggested his illness may
have been caused by playing the trombone.

Mr. Mannifield, who worked at the private members' club in
Abercromby Place from 1977 to 1989, claims he came into contact
with the asbestos during sweeping the boiler room "several times a
day."

Mr. Mannifield now claims he cannot walk more than 100 yards due
to the breathlessness caused by the exposure and has lodged the
legal action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh against the club
and its current trustees.

In a document submitted to the court, Mr. Mannifield's lawyers
stated their client was "never warned of the dangers of inhaling
asbestos" and was "not issued with protective equipment."

Mr. Mannifield said he suffered increasing breathlessness in 2008,
and a CT scan that September diagnosed pleural plaques and diffuse
bilateral thickening, conditions which affect lung expansion.  His
lawyers contend that his illness had left him "substantially
limited in his activities" and gave him a reduced life expectancy
due the club's failure to provide protective equipment and a safe
place to work.

However, the club's lawyers contend that Mr. Mannifield was a
"heavy smoker for many years" and already suffered from a number
of illness "unrelated to asbestos," including chronic bronchitis,
emphysema and heart disease which had "reduced his life
expectancy."

The lawyers called on Mr. Mannifield, a keen trombone player, to
reveal any locations he played the brass instrument where asbestos
may be present.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie's Appeal on AU$2MM Verdict Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie's Amaca subsidiary has filed an appeal on an AU$2.07
million asbestos-related verdict in favor of Simon Lowes, who
contracted mesothelioma from playing in asbestos waste as a child,
The West Australian reports.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Corboy, in October 2011, awarded the
42-year-old Mr. Lowes, of Perth, Australia, in damages after
finding James Hardie had caused or significantly contributed to
his cancer.

Mr. Lowes contracted mesothelioma after playing in asbestos waste
dumped by James Hardie at the popular Castledare miniature railway
site in Wilson in the early 1970s.  His lawyers, Slater & Gordon,
confirmed on Nov. 22, 2011 that Amaca had lodged an appeal.

In a statement, Mr. Lowes' lawyer -- Michael Magazanik -- said,
"Simon is very disappointed that James Hardie's compensation fund
(Amaca) has not accepted the umpire's decision and instead are
going to spend more time and money trying to avoid responsibility
for his life-threatening cancer.

"He hopes that the people in charge at the fund reconsider their
position and accept that exposing him to a deadly toxin when he
was a three-year-old was outrageous and that the judgment sum
should be paid and everybody left to get on with their lives."

It is believed Justice Corboy's judgment was the highest award by
a court for an asbestos claim in Western Australia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meyer Case v. ExxonMobil Filed Nov. 14 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blance Meyer, the widow of Harold Meyer, on Nov. 14, 2011, filed
an asbestos lawsuit against ExxonMobil in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Meyer was employed by Mobil Oil,
where was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers.  However, the suit
does not give dates of employment.

The suit states, "As a result of such exposure, Harold Meyer
developed an asbestos related disease, lung cancer, for which he
died a painful and terrible death on April 15, 2011."

The suit also alleges ExxonMobil knew for decades that asbestos
exposure caused cancer but still allowed employees to work with
asbestos products.

Mrs. Meyer is suing for exemplary damages.  Keith Hyde, Esq., of
the Beaumont law firm Provost Umphrey represents Mrs. Meyer.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, has been assigned to Case
No. A191-338.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $783MM for Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$783
million as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$841 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010, according to a Company press release dated Nov. 8,
2011.

The Company's non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$793
million as of June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12,
2011)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$448
million as of Sept. 30, 2011, compared with US$459 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$452
million as of June 30, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12,
2011)

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemicals,
technologies and insights to help customers create new and
improved products for today and sustainable solutions for
tomorrow.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Accrues $1.9MM Obligations at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation's asset retirement obligations
amounted to about US$1.9 million at Sept. 30, 2011 and US$2.1
million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations.

The asset retirement obligations relate primarily to the removal
of asbestos and contaminated soil during development or
redevelopment of the properties as well as the estimated equipment
removal costs upon termination of a certain lease under which the
Company is the lessee.

Denver, Colo.-based CoreSite Realty Corporation, through its
controlling interest in CoreSite, L.P., is engaged in the business
of owning, acquiring, constructing and managing technology-related
real estate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc, Units Still Named in Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc and certain and former subsidiaries, since 2004, have
been party to three multi-party asbestos-related lawsuits filed in
Mississippi.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily
under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the
period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the
Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs.
Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi
state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a
result of their removal from state court.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken
place in eight cases involving the Company.  While several cases
have been selected for trial during 2011 and 2012, none of the
cases pending against the Company in Mississippi state court are
included within those selected cases.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it in
litigation in other jurisdictions.

London-based Ensco plc's business consists of four operating
segments: (1) Deepwater, (2) Asia Pacific, (3) Europe and Africa
and (4) North and South America.  Each of the four operating
segments provides one service, contract drilling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Named in Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. is involved in certain legal proceedings with
a number of its former insurance carriers regarding the nature and
extent of the carriers' obligations to it under insurance policies
with respect to certain asbestos lawsuits.

The issue of whether insurance coverage for defense costs or
indemnity or both will be found to exist for the Company's
asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of factors.

The Company now has agreements with three former insurance
carriers under which the carriers reimburse it for a portion of
its future lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one such
carrier reimburses the Company for a portion of its future
asbestos litigation defense costs.

Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc., through its majority-owned
subsidiary, CompX, manufactures components that are sold to
industries including office furniture, recreational transportation
(including performance boats), mailboxes, tool boxes, home
appliances, banking equipment, vending equipment and computer-
related equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Flips Abbay Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, reversed the
ruling of the King County Superior Court, which dismissed an
asbestos case filed by spouses George Abbay and Lynne Abbay.

Judges Schindler, Dwyer, and Leach entered judgment in Case No.
62399-1-I on Aug. 8, 2011.

The Abbays appeal summary judgment dismissal of Mr. Abbay's
personal injury lawsuit against manufacturers and suppliers of
asbestos-containing products or equipment used on U.S. Navy
vessels at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

In an effort to prevent the respondents from seeking removal to
federal court, Mr. Abbay disclaimed "any cause of action or
recovery for any injuries caused by any exposure to asbestos dust
that occurred in a federal enclave, which expressly excludes U.S.
Navy vessels."

In the briefs submitted in opposition to summary judgment, Mr.
Abbay clarified that the disclaimer excluded his causes of action
under state law for exposure to asbestos while working on U.S.
Navy vessels at PSNS.

On reconsideration, the trial court applied the rules of grammar
in ruling that Mr. Abbay disclaimed all state law causes of action
that occurred at PSNS, including causes of action from exposure to
asbestos on Navy ships.

The Appeals Court concluded that grammatical rules do not require
interpreting the relative clause, "which expressly excludes U.S.
Navy vessels," as only applying to the antecedent noun, "federal
enclave," and the meaning of the disclaimer is ambiguous.  The
matter was remanded to the trial court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court OKs Warren Pumps Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, affirmed the
ruling of the King County Superior Court, which granted summary
judgment in favor of Warren Pumps, Inc. in an asbestos case filed
by Mary Jo Wangen on behalf of the late William Wangen.

Judges Cox, Leach, and Ellington entered judgment in Case No.
65258-3-I on Aug. 8, 2011.

Mrs. Wangen failed to show that Mr. Wangen was exposed to Warren
manufactured and supplied asbestos products, which caused his
death due to mesothelioma.

Moreover, Mrs. Wangen failed to show that Mr. Warren had any duty
to warn of the danger of exposure to asbestos replacement products
used in its pumps.  Accordingly, the trial court properly granted
Warren's motion for summary judgment.

Mr. Wangen served in the Navy onboard the destroyer USS WILTSIE
for three and a half years, beginning in 1950.  He worked in the
ship's forward fire room.  He was later diagnosed with
mesothelioma and eventually succumbed to the disease.

Before his death, Mr. Wangen commenced a lawsuit against numerous
parties other than Warren in California.  The suit was later moved
to Washington and Warren was added as a defendant.  Warren moved
for summary judgment on all claims.

The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Warren,
leaving other matters for trial.  Following Warren's motion for
reconsideration, the trial court granted Warren summary judgment
on the remaining matters.

Mr. Wangen appealed.  The Appeals Court affirmed the summary
judgment order and the order on reconsideration.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Flips Ruling in Farrow Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, reversed the
ruling of the King County Superior Court, which dismissed an
asbestos case filed by spouses Michael Farrow and Lidia Farrow.

Judges Schindler, Leach, Leach, and Dwyer entered judgment in Case
Nos. 62996-4-I and 63554-9-I on Aug. 8, 2011.

The Farrows filed a personal injury lawsuit against a number of
manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos- containing products used
on U.S. Navy vessels at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

Mr. Farrow died in May 2008.  He initially filed his personal
injury lawsuit against numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
asbestos-containing products used on U.S. Navy ships at the PSNS
in California state court.

Mr. Farrow filed a complaint in King County Superior Court against
the same manufacturers and suppliers and included the exact same
disclaimer.  The lawsuit alleged claims under state law for
personal injury damages from exposure to asbestos-containing
products used when Mr. Farrow worked on U.S. Navy ships at PSNS
from 1953 to 1974.  The respondents did not seek to remove the
case to federal court.

Following discovery, the respondents moved for summary judgment.

The trial court ruled that the disclaimer was unambiguous and
because PSNS in its entirety is a federal enclave, the court
dismissed the lawsuit.  The Farrows appealed.


                           *********

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  * * *