CAR_Public/111208.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 8, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 243

                             Headlines

APOLLO GROUP: Class Action Settlements Gets Preliminary Court OK
APPLE: Sianni & Straite Files Class Action Over Phone Software
APPLE REIT NINE: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
AVX CORP: Judge to Decide on Paperwork Requests in Class Action
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits

BOK FINANCIAL: Settlement in Suit vs. Unit Subject to Negotiation
BP: Some Oil Spill Claimants Balk at Class Certification
CELL PHONE PROVIDERS: Keefe Bartels Files Privacy Class Action
CHICO'S FAS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Use of Personal Info.
CHICO'S FAS: Still Defends "Schlim" Class Suit in California

DELL INC: Appeals From Securities Suit Settlement Order Pending
DELL INC: Calif. Court Approved "Brazil" Suit Settlement in Oct.
DICK'S SPORTING: Paid "Barrus" Settlement Administrator in Oct.
EXFO INC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Approval Still Pending
FACEBOOK: Settles Privacy Class Action in Canada

FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
GOV'T OF INDIA: UIDAI Faces Class Action Over Aadhaar Scheme
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Louisiana Retirement Fund Files Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend EMC Loan Suit
KIA MOTORS: Penn. Supreme Court Affirms Class Action Judgment

MERITOR INC: Automotive Filters Suit in Illinois Further Stayed
MF GLOBAL: Lowey Dannenberg Files Class Action in New York
MF GLOBAL: Two Former Employees File Class Action
NBTY INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Hamilton" Class Suit
NBTY INC: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in "Dirickson" Suit

NBTY INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hutchins" Suit
POWERCOR: Mediation Underway in Second Bushfire Class Action
RAYMOND JAMES: "Defer" Suit's Remaining Claims Dismissed in Sept.
ROCK-TENN CO: Hearing on Delaware Suit Settlement Set for Dec. 8
SONOMA COUNTY: Sued Over Unlawful Vehicle Seizures & Impoundments

TEMPLE INLAND: Enters MOUs to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
TICKETMASTER: Offers Purchase Credits to Settle Class Action
V.F. CORP: Unit Continues to Defend New Hampshire Class Suit
V.F. CORP: Unit Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Class Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Settles 401(k) Fiduciary Class Action

WATER STREET: Sued Over Unlicensed Debt Collection in Illinois
WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend "Kottaras" Antitrust Class Suit





                          *********

APOLLO GROUP: Class Action Settlements Gets Preliminary Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that seven
years after shareholders first accused Apollo Group of misleading
them about a government report on student recruitment practices at
the for-profit University of Phoenix, a federal judge has
preliminarily approved a $145 million settlement, with up to $48.3
million set aside for lead class counsel.


APPLE: Sianni & Straite Files Class Action Over Phone Software
--------------------------------------------------------------
AppleInsider reports that Apple is one of a laundry list of
companies that have been targeted in a new class-action lawsuit
over the Carrier IQ software data logging controversy.

Joining Apple among the list of defendants in the new lawsuit
filed by Delaware-based Sianni & Straite LLP are fellow device
makers HTC, Samsung and Motorola.  In addition, U.S. carriers
AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile have been targeted for selling phones
that include Carrier IQ software.

The class-action suit was filed in federal court in Wilmington,
Del., accusing the companies of an "unprecedented breach in the
digital privacy rights of 150 million cell phone users."  The
three carriers and four smartphone manufacturers targeted are
charged with violating the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored
Electronic Communications Act, and the Federal Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act.

"Defendants Samsung, Apple, Motorola, and HTC pre-install Carrier
IQ software on cell phones used by its customers on the AT&T, T-
Mobile and Sprint networks," the complaint reads.

Carrier IQ and its software gained attention last week when Trevor
Eckhart, a security researcher, found that it runs in the
background on a stock HTC handset, even if the phone is in
airplane mode and operating over Wi-Fi.  The Carrier IQ software
was tracked logging every action on the device, including keys
pressed and numbers dialed.

Apple issued a statement to say that Carrier IQ has not been a
part of "most of its products" since the release of iOS 5 in
October.  Inactive remnants of the Carrier IQ software do remain
in iOS 5, but Apple has said they will be removed entirely in a
future software update.


APPLE REIT NINE: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2011, a shareholder of Apple REIT Nine, Inc.,
filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Barbara Blazer v.
Apple REIT Nine, Inc., et al., Case No. 653186/2011, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against the Company, Glade
M. Knight, David Lerner Associates, Inc., and David Lerner,
according to the Company's November 23, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
units in the Company and on behalf of a subclass of shareholders
who reinvested in the Company and opted not to redeem their units,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint also asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty against the Company and Glade Knight, for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against David Lerner
and David Lerner Associates, and for false advertising against
David Lerner and David Lerner Associates.  The lawsuit seeks
certification of the class and subclass, monetary damages,
rescission of share purchases, elimination of redemption
restrictions, and costs and expenses.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that: (1) the registration statements and
prospectuses of the Company failed to disclose material
information concerning the value of the units of the prior Apple
REIT Companies, and (2) David Lerner Associates solicited
purchases and induced investors to reinvest shares of the Company
by means of false and misleading statements concerning the
distributions paid by prior Apple REIT Companies.

The Company believes that these claims against it and Glade Knight
are without merit, and it intends to defend against them
vigorously.  At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict
the outcome of these proceedings or an estimate of damages or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


AVX CORP: Judge to Decide on Paperwork Requests in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Wren, writing for The Sun News, reports that a lawyer
representing Myrtle Beach property owners in a class-action
lawsuit against AVX Corp. says the electronic components
manufacturer is trying to harass his clients with a barrage of
needless paperwork, but company lawyers say they need all of the
information they've requested to defend against potentially
millions of dollars in property-damage claims.

Gene Connell, the lawyer representing property owners, told Judge
Larry Hyman during a court hearing on Dec. 5 that AVX --
responsible for groundwater contamination in a roughly 12-block
neighborhood -- wants to overwhelm property owners with questions
and requests for documents so they will drop out of the lawsuit.
"They want to make it so difficult that each class member will not
want to proceed," Mr. Connell said.  "It's just a tactic to wear
these people down and grind them into the ground."

AVX wants each of the approximately 230 property owners in the
lawsuit to answer a set of written questions about their knowledge
of contamination on their land, their attempts to sell or get
refinancing for their property and their use of the property.  AVX
also wants those owners to supply copies of their mortgage
documents and any property tax challenges, sale documents,
redevelopment documents and contamination records they might
possess.

AVX lawyer Brad Devore said the company needs specific information
about each parcel to counter possible testimony from expert
witnesses that would show every property owner has suffered
financial losses tied to the contamination.

"We fully expect that the vast majority of people did not attempt
to sell their property or were successful in selling their
property," Mr. Devore said, adding that such information could
eliminate specific property owners from damage claims.

Mr. Connell said AVX's request amounts to 16,698 questions and
3,630 requests for documents from his clients -- much of it
information that could be obtained through public records.
Mr. Connell said AVX is hoping that many of the property owners
will fail to respond to the questions or document requests so the
company can dismiss them from the lawsuit.

"This is nothing but a strategy to reduce the claimants,"
Mr. Connell said.

Mr. Hyman did not rule on the matter but asked both sides to
prepare a proposed order within 15 days.

"I may sign one or I may do my own [order]," Mr. Hyman said.

The class-action lawsuit, now in its fifth year, isn't expected to
go to trial until January 2013.  The trial is expected to last
about one month.

The trial date was delayed by one month on Dec. 5 after AVX
lawyers pointed out deficiencies in how some class-action
participants were notified.  Mr. Connell was supposed to notify
those who owned property within the contaminated area as of
Nov. 27, 2007 -- the date the lawsuit was filed.  At least 28
properties have been sold since then, AVX lawyers said, and the
class-action notices for those parcels went instead to the new
owners.

"He's failed to notify some members of the class and he's notified
others who are not members of the class," said AVX lawyer Richard
Morton.  "They have frankly made a mess out of it."

Sid Connor, a lawyer who represents property owners, said AVX is
"making this an issue that's bigger than it really is," and said
he and Mr. Connell can simply go back and notify the correct
property owners.

Mr. Hyman gave Mr. Connell and Mr. Connor 20 days to correct the
problem and extended the lawsuit deadlines by 30 days after AVX
lawyers said the mistake has cost them time in preparing for a
trial.

The property included in the class-action lawsuit stretches from
17th Avenue South to 5th Avenue South.  Most of the property is
residential, although about 44 commercial lots are included --
sites where hotels, restaurants, shopping centers and an urgent
care clinic are located.

The contaminated area is based on a map drawn by Charles Fetter, a
hydrogeologist for 35 years and the author of textbooks used by
graduate programs and universities.  Mr. Fetter did not conduct
his own environmental testing but relied on data from AVX, the
S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control and
depositions from project managers working to clean up the
pollution.

The lawsuit claims that AVX contaminated groundwater in the
neighborhood with a degreaser called trichloroethylene, or TCE,
which has been linked to cancer and other health problems.
Mr. Connell is seeking unspecified damages from AVX to compensate
owners for the loss of property values that resulted from the
contamination.

AVX earlier this year settled a separate lawsuit with adjacent
property owner Horry Land Co., which also claimed its property
values had been ruined by the contamination.  The terms of that
settlement are confidential, but property records show AVX bought
the 21.5-acre Horry Land site in May for $4.6 million.

A third contamination lawsuit -- filed by a family that wanted to
develop a condominium project near the manufacturer -- also is
pending against AVX.  That property, located at Beaver Road and
17th Avenue South, is not included in the class-action lawsuit.

Although TCE is a health hazard, DHEC does not consider the
pollution in the 12-block neighborhood to be dangerous because it
is not groundwater used for drinking.

AVX -- which moved its world headquarters from Myrtle Beach to
Greenville in 2009 -- has been paying for studies to determine the
best way to clean up the pollution and expects to use a process
called enhanced reductive chlorination, in which a substance
similar to molasses is injected into the groundwater.  The
molasses-like mixture creates bacteria that eat the TCE, breaking
it down into harmless matter.


BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company continues to defend antitrust class
action lawsuits brought by distributors and purchasers of its
products, according to the Company's November 23, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended September 30, 2011.

BD is named as a defendant in these purported class action
lawsuits brought on behalf of distributors and other entities that
purchase BD's products (the "Distributor Plaintiffs"), alleging
that BD violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging
of higher prices for BD's products to the plaintiffs and other
purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Louisiana Wholesale Drug     U.S. Dist. Court   March 25, 2005
Company, Inc., et al. vs.          Newark, NJ
Becton Dickinson and Co.

SAJ Distributors, Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Sept. 6, 2005
et al. vs. Becton            Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Dik Drug Company, et al.     U.S. Dist. Court   Sept. 12, 2005
vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co.        Newark, NJ

American Sales Company,      U.S. Dist. Court     Oct. 3, 2005
Inc. et al. vs. Becton,      Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Park Surgical Co. Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Oct. 26, 2005
et al. vs. Becton,           Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson and Company            Pennsylvania

These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

BD is also named as a defendant in these purported class action
lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers of BD's products, such as
hospitals (the "Hospital Plaintiffs"), alleging that BD violated
federal and state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for BD's products to the plaintiffs and other
purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc.,       U.S. Dist. Court     June 7, 2005
et al. v. Becton           Greenville, Tenn.
Dickinson & Company

Drug Mart Tallman Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Jan. 17, 2006
et al. v. Becton           Newark, New Jersey
Dickinson and Company

Medstar v. Becton            U.S. Dist. Court     May 18, 2006
Dickinson                  Newark, New Jersey

The Hebrew Home for          U.S. Dist. Court   March 28, 2007
the Aged at Riverdale          Southern Dist.
vs. Becton Dickinson              of New York
and Company

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek
monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) in Federal court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, BD entered into a settlement agreement with the
Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions.  The settlement agreement
provided for, among other things, the payment by BD of $45 million
in exchange for a release by all potential class members of the
direct purchaser claims under federal antitrust laws related to
the products and acts enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal
of the case with prejudice, insofar as it relates to direct
purchaser claims.  The release would not cover potential class
members that affirmatively opt out of the settlement.  On
September 30, 2010, the court issued an order denying a motion to
approve the settlement agreement, ruling that the Hospital
Plaintiffs, and not the Distributor Plaintiffs, are the direct
purchasers entitled to pursue damages under the federal antitrust
laws for certain sales of BD products.  The settlement agreement
currently remains in effect, subject to certain termination
provisions, and the federal court of appeals has granted the
Distributor Plaintiffs' request to appeal the trial court's order
on an interlocutory basis.

BD says it currently cannot estimate the range of reasonably
possible losses with respect to these class action matters beyond
the $45 million already accrued and changes to the amount already
recognized may be required in the future as additional information
becomes available.


BOK FINANCIAL: Settlement in Suit vs. Unit Subject to Negotiation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation disclosed in its November 23, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
the $19 million settlement that its subsidiary entered into to
resolve three class action lawsuits is subject to negotiation of a
definitive agreement.

BOKF, NA, a wholly owned subsidiary of BOK Financial Corporation
which does business as Bank of Oklahoma, Bank of Arkansas, Bank of
Albuquerque, Bank of Arizona, Bank of Kansas City, Bank of Texas
and Colorado State Bank and Trust, has entered into an agreement
to settle three class action lawsuits respecting the manner in
which certain charges post to consumer demand deposit accounts.
These were opportunistic class action lawsuits in which BOKF, NA
was one of more than 70 US banks, of all sizes, targeted.

Two of the lawsuits were brought in the District Court of Tulsa
County.  The third action, originally brought in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, was
transferred to the Multi-District Litigation in the Southern
District of Florida.  In order to fully and finally resolve the
litigation and avoid any further expense and distraction, BOK
Financial agreed to pay a settlement amount of $19 million.  While
BOKF, NA has decided to settle, the bank stands by its practices,
which were developed considering customer feedback and
preferences, costs, revenues and technology changes, and will not
be changing its practices as a result of these lawsuits.

The settlement is subject to negotiation of a definitive agreement
and final approval by the United States District Court of the
Southern District of Florida and the District Court of Tulsa
County.  A substantial portion of the $19 million settlement has
been accrued in prior periods.  The remaining amount will not
significantly impact net income for the fourth quarter of 2011.


BP: Some Oil Spill Claimants Balk at Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that some oil
spill claimants say class certification of more than 130,000
plaintiffs would aid the "unscrupulous" tactics used by Kenneth
Feinberg and BP's Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

The two named plaintiffs in the memo opposing class certification
say there are too many different circumstances involved in the
litigation for class certification to be granted.  They also say
the entire process has been set up to choke off legitimate claims,
for the benefit of BP and the expediency of Mr. Feinberg's GCCF.

According to the 22-page motion filed last week by Tampa attorney
Brian Donovan: "Defendants Feinberg, et al. have been
strategically and systematically forcing oil spill claimants to
accept quick payments with accompanying releases because they are
offered no other viable option.  Feinberg, et al. have established
a claims process with the primary function of convincing claimants
that the only compensation available is a minimal set amount that
comes with a full release attached."

The memo claims that Feinberg and the GCCF "misled plaintiffs by
employing a 'Delay, Deny, Defend' strategy against them.  This
strategy, commonly used by unscrupulous insurance companies, is as
follows: 'Delay payment, starve claimant, and then offer the
economically and emotionally stressed claimant a miniscule percent
of all damages to which the claimant is entitled.  If the
financially ruined claimant rejects the settlement offer, he or
she may sue.'"

The opposition to class certification was filed on behalf of
plaintiffs Pinellas Marine Salvage Inc. and John Mavrogiannis.

It states: "Here, the class certification would be in a mass tort
context within the context of a multidistrict litigation.  Given
that 'all individual petitions or complaints that fall within
Pleading Bundles B1, B3, D1, or D2, whether pre-existing or filed
hereafter, are stayed until further order of the court' (Pretrial
Order No. 25, Para. 8), certification of pending class actions
would most probably not be decided until the conclusion of the
limitation and liability trial which does not commence until
February, 2012.  'It was reported that one attorney has
approximately 23,000 claimants and inquiry was made as to whether
the attorney may produce the information in the form in which it
is maintained rather than complete individual PPFs.' (Rec. Doc.
642 at Page 2) As of November 16, 2011, there are 523 actions,
which encompass approximately 130,000 total individual claims,
pending in MDL [multidistrict litigation] 2179.  In other words,
tens of thousands of potential class members are in legal limbo.
This hardly 'creates insurmountable pressure on defendants to
settle.'

"In the context of one of the largest mass tort cases in United
States history, the damages suffered by the vast majority of
individual potential plaintiffs as a result of the BP oil spill of
April, 2010, and the subsequent 'Delay, Deny, Defend' strategy of
Feinberg, et al., are potentially so great that class treatment
would not be necessary to permit effective litigation of the
claims.  Here, when the amount of damages suffered by the
individual is so great, the filing of an individual lawsuit should
be economically feasible and would be in the best interests of the
plaintiffs.

"The associated cost, consumption of time, and ongoing negative
publicity of numerous trials, rather than a few class action
lawsuits, are required in order [to] exert the proper amount of
pressure on parties to negotiate a settlement which reflects the
true value of the claim and not one which focuses on minimizing
the liability of Feinberg Rozen, LLP, Feinberg/GCCF, and the
responsible parties."

The document adds: "Plaintiffs continue to suffer damages from
three separate sources: (a) once from the oil spill, the
environmental and economic damages of which have devastated their
way of life; (b) again by being left in financial ruin as a direct
result of defendants' 'Delay, Deny, Defend' strategy; and (c) a
third time for daring to demand justice, which will consume their
time, energy and hopes for years to come if they are held hostage
by protracted litigation.

"If motions for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 are granted in MDL 2179, defendants Feinberg,
et al. will continue to have no incentive to settle claims,
including plaintiffs' claim, and plaintiffs will never receive the
true value of their claim."

The April 20, 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil killed
11 people and set off the worst oil spill in U.S. history.  As the
"responsible party" for the oil spill under the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990, BP initially received and paid spill-related interim
claims directly.

Mr. Feinberg was chosen by the White House and BP to handle
economic damage claims, and the GCCF was established, under his
oversight.

The "Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion in
Opposition to Class Certification on any Action in MDL No. 2179"
states that the original complaint from the motion arises from was
one of only two cases of its kind.

It was originally filed in Pinellas County, Fla., but was removed
by the defendants to the Middle District of Florida (FLMD) Federal
Court "on the erroneous grounds that the FLMD has federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332.  . . . On August 9, 2011,
the MDL [multidistrict litigation] Panel ordered this action
transferred to MDL No. 2179 on the erroneous grounds that '[T]his
action, similar to other actions already in the MDL, arises from
alleged injury to plaintiffs' business resulting from the oil
spill."

The complaint alleges that Mr. Feinberg, his law firm, Feinberg
Rozen LLP, and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility misled plaintiffs by
using the "Delay, Deny, Defend" strategy.

To manage this complex multidistrict litigation, the MDL 2179
court consolidated and organized the various claims into several
pleading bundles.  The B1 pleading bundle, which includes all
claims for private or nongovernmental economic loss and property
damages, includes more than 100,000 individual claims.

For claimants to litigate, they had to first file claims through
the GCCF, and be denied.

Mr. Donovan's motion says there are too many different
circumstances involved in the litigation for class certification
to be granted.

"MDL 2179 plaintiffs would not meet their burden by demonstrating
that a class action would be 'superior' under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3).  The superiority analysis 'requires an understanding of
the relevant claims, defenses, facts, and substantive law
presented in the case.' Allison [v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.], 151
F.3d at 419.  Given the multitude of individualized questions and
answers at issue, a class action is simply not the superior method
of adjudicating the instant dispute," the memo states.

A copy of the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Their Motion in
Opposition to Class Certification of Any Action in MDL No. 2179 in
In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of
Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 217 (E.D. La.) (Barbier, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/05/Feinberg.pdf


CELL PHONE PROVIDERS: Keefe Bartels Files Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
RedBank-Shrewsbury Patch reports that the Red Bank-based firm of
Keefe Bartels LLC has filed a class action complaint in Federal
Court in Wilmington, Del. alleging that several cell phone
manufacturers and service providers have breached the privacy of
150 million cell phone users by installing data mining software on
their phones, according to a press release issued by PR Newswire
recently.

Keefe Bartels is one of three firms behind the suit, which claims
that cell phone providers T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T, and
manufacturers HTC, Motorola, Apple, and Samsung violated the
Federal Wiretap Act, Stored Electronic Communications Act, and the
Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by employing software from
Carrier IQ, in what has been described as a rootkit and keylogger,
that secretly tracks personal and sensitive information.

The software collects information, including Web sites visited,
text messages sent, and passwords entered.  Concerns over privacy
violations as well as the failure of service providers and cell
manufacturers to inform customers that their cell phone use is
being tracked have been raised.  The tracking software was first
uncovered by an Android application developer who posted a video
on YouTube detailing its capabilities.

According to a recent article in PCmag, the revelation of the
software and its inherent privacy issues, which were dismissed by
the California-based developer who designed the software, have
prompted concerns from consumer advocacy groups and raised
eyebrows in government.  Minnesota Sen. Al Franken wrote a letter
to Carrier IQ asking for detailed information about how the
software works and the purpose of its data collection.

Attempts to reach Keefe Bartels representatives were unsuccessful
both on Dec. 2 and Dec. 5.  Several calls were met with an
automated message saying all circuits were busy.


CHICO'S FAS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Use of Personal Info.
------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc., is facing a putative class action lawsuit in
California alleging it required customers to provide personal
information as a condition of accepting payment by credit card,
the Company disclosed in its November 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 29, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in October 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, Leslie Golba v. White
House Black Market, Inc.  The Complaint alleges that the Company,
in violation of California law, requested or required customers to
provide personal information as a condition of accepting payment
by credit card.  The Company says it has only recently been served
with the Complaint, has not yet filed its response, but will do so
in a timely manner.  Based on the Company's initial assessment,
however, the Company believes that the case is without merit and,
as a result, should not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition or results of operations.


CHICO'S FAS: Still Defends "Schlim" Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. was named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles titled Eileen Schlim v.
Chico's FAS, Inc.  The Complaint attempts to allege numerous
violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest
periods, and vacation pay, among other things.  The Company denies
the material allegations of the Complaint.  The Company believes
that its policies and procedures for paying its associates comply
with all applicable California laws.  As a result, the Company
does not believe that the case should have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 23,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.


DELL INC: Appeals From Securities Suit Settlement Order Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four putative securities class actions filed between
September 13, 2006, and January 31, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, against
Dell Inc. and certain of its current and former directors and
officers were consolidated as In re Dell Securities Litigation,
and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the court.  The lead
plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged false and
misleading disclosures or omissions regarding Dell's financial
statements, governmental investigations, internal controls, known
battery problems and business model, and based on insiders' sales
of Dell securities.  This action also included Dell's independent
registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as
a defendant.  On October 6, 2008, the court dismissed all of the
plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without leave to amend.  On
November 3, 2008, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Dell and
the officer defendants to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument on the appeal was
heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 1, 2009.
On November 20, 2009, the parties to the appeal entered into a
written settlement agreement whereby Dell would pay $40 million to
the proposed class and the plaintiff would dismiss the pending
litigation.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by the
District Court on December 21, 2009.  The settlement was subject
to certain conditions, including opt-outs from the proposed class
not exceeding a specified percentage and final approval by the
District Court.  During the first quarter of Fiscal 2011, the
original opt-out period in the notice approved by the District
Court expired without the specified percentage being exceeded. The
District Court subsequently granted final approval for the
settlement and entered a final judgment on July 20, 2010.  Dell
paid $40 million into an escrow account to satisfy this settlement
and discharged the liability during the second quarter of Fiscal
2011.  Certain objectors to the settlement have filed notices of
appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to
approval of the settlement.  While there can be no assurances with
respect to litigation, Dell believes it is unlikely that the
settlement will be overturned on appeal.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 23,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 28, 2011.


DELL INC: Calif. Court Approved "Brazil" Suit Settlement in Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Dell Inc. granted in October 2011 final approval of a settlement
resolving the class action lawsuit commenced by Chad Brazil and
Steven Seick, according to the Company's November 23, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 28, 2011.

Chad Brazil and Steven Seick filed a class action lawsuit against
Dell in March 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The plaintiffs allege that Dell
advertised discounts on its products from false "regular" prices,
in violation of California law.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, disgorgement of profits from the alleged false
advertising, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.  In December 2010, the District Court certified a class
consisting of all California residents who had purchased certain
products advertised with a former sales price on the consumer
segment of Dell's Web site during an approximately four year
period between March 2003 and June 2007.  During the first quarter
of Fiscal 2012, the plaintiffs and Dell reached a class-wide
settlement in principle regarding the dispute on terms that are
not material to Dell, and on October 28, 2011, the District Court
granted final approval of the settlement.


DICK'S SPORTING: Paid "Barrus" Settlement Administrator in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. transferred funds on October 5, 2011,
to the claims administrator in final satisfaction of the Company's
and other defendants' financial obligations under an agreement to
settle a class action lawsuit commenced by Tamara Barrus,
according to the Company's November 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 29, 2011.

On January 28, 2011, the Company and attorneys for a group of
plaintiffs filed a settlement agreement in the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York to settle
Tamara Barrus, et al. v Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. et al.
("Barrus") and related state law claims.  Barrus, which was
initially filed in May 2005, and the related state law claims
alleged failures to pay wages and overtime wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state laws.  On July 29,
2011, the court granted final approval to the settlement and
entered a final judgment in the action.  On September 28, 2011,
the settlement became effective under the terms of the settlement
agreement, and on October 5, 2011, the Company transferred funds
to the claims administrator in final satisfaction of the Company's
and other defendants' financial obligations under the settlement
agreement


EXFO INC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Approval Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order in an Initial Public Offering-related
lawsuit to which EXFO Inc. was a party remains pending, according
to EXFO Inc.'s November 23, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 31,
2011.

On November 27, 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against EXFO, four of the underwriters of the Company's Initial
Public Offering and some of its executive officers pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Sections 11, 12 and 16 of the Securities Act of
1933.  This class action alleges that EXFO's registration
statement and prospectus filed with the SEC on
June 29, 2000, contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions resulting from (i) the underwriters allegedly soliciting
and receiving additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated
material portions of the shares issued in connection with EXFO's
Initial Public Offering; and (ii) the underwriters allegedly
entering into agreements with customers whereby shares issued in
connection with EXFO's Initial Public Offering would be allocated
to those customers in exchange for which customers agreed to
purchase additional amounts of shares in the after-market at
predetermined prices.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
containing master allegations against all of the defendants in all
of the 310 cases included in this class action and also filed an
amended complaint containing allegations specific to four of
EXFO's underwriters, EXFO and two of the Company's executive
officers.  In addition to the allegations, the amended complaint
alleges that the underwriters (i) used their analysts to
manipulate the stock market; and (ii) implemented schemes that
allowed issuer insiders to sell their shares rapidly after an
initial public offering and benefit from high market prices.  As
concerns EXFO and its two executive officers in particular, the
amended complaint alleges that (i) EXFO's registration statement
was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
the additional commissions and compensation to be received by
underwriters; (ii) the two named executive officers learned of or
recklessly disregarded the alleged misconduct of the underwriters;
(iii) the two named executive officers had motive and opportunity
to engage in alleged wrongful conduct due to personal holdings of
EXFO's stock and the fact that an alleged artificially inflated
stock price could be used as currency for acquisitions; and (iv)
the two named executive officers, by virtue of their positions
with EXFO, controlled the company and the contents of the
registration statement and had the ability to prevent its issuance
or cause it to be corrected.  The plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek
an unspecified amount for damages suffered.

In July 2002, the issuers filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint and a decision was rendered on
February 19, 2003.  Only one of the claims against EXFO was
dismissed.  On October 8, 2002, the claims against the Company's
officers were dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to the terms
of Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreements entered into with
the plaintiffs (the "Tolling Agreements").  Subsequent addenda to
the Tolling Agreements extended the tolling period through
August 27, 2010.

In June 2004, an agreement of partial settlement was submitted to
the court for preliminary approval.  The proposed partial
settlement was between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in
the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named
as defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies.  The court
granted the preliminary approval motion on February 15, 2005,
subject to certain modifications.  On August 31, 2005, the court
issued a preliminary order further approving the modifications to
the settlement and certifying the settlement classes.  The court
also appointed the notice administrator for the settlement and
ordered that notice of the settlement be distributed to all
settlement class members by January 15, 2006.  The settlement
fairness hearing occurred on April 24, 2006, and the court
reserved decision at that time.

While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs
continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants.  The
district court directed that the litigation proceed within a
number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 310 cases that
have been consolidated.  EXFO's case is not one of these focus
cases.  On October 13, 2004, the district court certified the
focus cases as class actions.  The underwriter defendants appealed
that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed the district court's class certification
decision.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing of that decision and, on May 18, 2007, the
Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en
banc.  In light of the Second Circuit's opinion, liaison counsel
for all issuer defendants, including EXFO, informed the court that
this settlement cannot be approved, because the defined settlement
class, like the litigation class, cannot be certified.  On June
25, 2007, the district court entered an order terminating the
settlement agreement.  On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed
their second consolidated amended class action complaints against
the focus cases and, on September 27, 2007, again moved for class
certification.  On November 12, 2007, certain defendants in the
focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class
action complaints.  On March 26, 2008, the district court denied
the motions to dismiss, except as to Section 11 claims raised by
those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess
of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside of
the previously certified class period.  Briefing on the class
certification motion was completed in May 2008.  That motion was
withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10,
2009.  The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10,
2009.  On October 6, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting
final approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of
the Court close these actions.  On August 26, 2010, based on the
expiration of the tolling period stated in the Tolling Agreements,
the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Termination of Tolling Agreement
and Recommencement of Litigation against the two named executive
officers.  The plaintiffs stated to the Court that they do not
intend to take any further action against the named executive
officers at this time.  Appeals of the opinion granting final
approval were filed, all of which were disposed of except the
appeals filed by one objector were remanded to the district court
to determine standing to appeal.

On August 25, 2011, the district court issued an order holding
that the final objector had no standing to appeal.  The objector
has appealed that decision.  Given that the district court's
August 25, 2011 judgment remains subject to appeal, the Company
says the ultimate outcome of the contingency is uncertain.
However, based on the settlement approved on October 6, 2009, and
the related insurance against such claims, the Company has
determined the impact to its financial position and results of
operations as at and for the year ended August 31, 2011 to be
immaterial.


FACEBOOK: Settles Privacy Class Action in Canada
------------------------------------------------
Brian Jackson, writing for itbusiness.ca, reports that Facebook
will pay C$76,000 to a Winnipeg-based law firm representing nearly
half of all Canadians in a class-action lawsuit stemming from
privacy concerns.

Merchant Law Group LLP issued a notice on Dec. 5 that Facebook
will pay the lawyers who handled the suit C$75,000 and class
representative Patrice St. Arnaud C$1,000 to settle the case.  The
suit includes all Canadians who were members of Facebook between
December 2009 and January 2010, except for those who opted out of
the suit.

The law firm launched litigation against Canada's most widely-used
social networking site charging that Facebook's users were
deceived by Facebook's misrepresentation of its updated privacy
settings at the time.  Users were prompted to review their privacy
settings by Facebook at the time, but anything left unchanged from
the default setting allowed Facebook to share information with
third parties, according to the firm, which was not the default
before the settings change.

"We see it as a process of bait and switch where they tell people
that their privacy is being improved, but for almost all of their
customers, those customers rely on a traditional level of
privacy," said Tony Merchant, head of Merchant Law Group.  "When
changes were made, the default position allowed Facebook to
harvest and mine their personal information for Facebook's
commercial purposes."

The settlement will be brought to a Montreal court room Feb. 9,
2012 to be approved by a judge.  Any member of the class defined
in the suit has 45 days from Dec. 5, the publication of the Notice
of Settlement, to opt out and seek other legal options.

Merchant's class-action suit against Facebook may be the largest
in Canadian history in terms of the number of claimants involved.
In addition to the class action litigation, Facebook is under an
ongoing investigation by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada due to
a complaint lodged in January 2010.

Merchant is known for representing high profile class-action suits
in Canada, including acting as representation for the native
residential school students, and taking action against HSBC
Mutural Funds and Winners/Homesense.

Facebook also agrees to keep its privacy policy substantially the
same for three years since publishing the updated policy, the
settlement says.

A Facebook spokesperson could not be reached at time of
publication.

FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
----------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, which is the only law firm to file a
securities class action lawsuit based on the May 11, 2011 public
offering of FriendFinder Networks, Inc. common stock, reminds
investors that the deadline to move for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is January 17, 2012.  The lawsuit, captioned Greenfield
Childrens Partnership v. FriendFinder Network, Inc. et al., 11-cv-
81270, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired FFN common stock pursuant to the May Offering.
The complaint asserts that FFN, its officers, directors and two
underwriters, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. and Imperial Capital
LLC, made false and misleading statements and omissions in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus dated May 10, 2011 and
May 11, 2011, respectively.  A copy of the complaint is available
on the firm's Web site -- http://www.blockesq.com

You may contact the attorneys at Block & Leviton to discuss your
rights in the case.  You may also retain counsel of your choice
and you need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.


GOV'T OF INDIA: UIDAI Faces Class Action Over Aadhaar Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Moneylife reports that two activists had filed a potential class
action suit against UIDAI requesting the Bangalore City Civil
Judge to declare the Aadhaar scheme as illegal.

Bengaluru-based Col. (Retd.) Mathew Thomas of Citizens' Action
Forum and VK Somasekhar, founder-trustee of Grahak Shakti have
filed a potential class action suit against the Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).  In the petition, both
the activists requested the Bangalore City Civil Judge to declare
Aadhaar scheme as illegal, stop enrolment in the scheme and grant
injuction against entering into any contracts binding the
government and expending taxpayers money.

According to the petition, the UIDAI chairman has entered into
number of agreements, contracts, and memorandum of understanding
(MOUs) with both Indian and international private companies, as an
authority of the Government of India, without the sanction of law.

In addition, the National Identification Authority of India Bill
(NAI Bill), the proposed law on Aadhaar, is worded in such a way
that regularizes all the activities of the chairman from the day
it was constituted as an authority by the Union government and
deputy chairperson of the Planning Commission.  "The Bill seeks to
provide ex-post-facto blanket approval of all such acts of the
first defendant (UIDAI chairman).  It is respectfully submitted
that first defendant on the basis of such a draft bill is
continuing with the implementation of the Aadhaar scheme in entire
India.  It is respectfully submitted that the same is illegal,"
the petition said.

It said, the UIDAI chairman has also entered into contracts with
209 companies, organizations, societies as Enrolling Agencies by
saying that Aadhaar is a high technology project.  However, it has
selected number of organizations, companies, societies, whose
capacity and qualifications are doubtful, it said.

According to the petition, an organization that is an education
society in rural Andhra Pradesh secures rights of enrolling agency
for entire state of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.  The basis on which,
the agency was granted the license for enrolling people of these
states is still unknown and raises questions on the criteria
employed by the first defendant for empanelling private companies
as enrolling agencies.  Similar is the case of a Tea Estate
Company being licensed as an enrolling agency that has been
granted enrolling job in entire state of Assam, it said.

Some of the enrolling agencies have already sub contracted the
work, allegedly against the rules of the first defendant, which
prohibit sub-contracting of the work, the petition said. "One of
the enrolling agencies, Alankit Financial Services sub-contracted
enrolling at Bangalore to another private company, ID Global
Technology Solutions.  The latter is alleged to have indulged in
franchising enrolling business to many other private companies. ID
Global Technology Solutions is alleged to have been taking
deposits of Rs2.5 Lakh from the franchisees.  When the first
defendant was confronted by the said fraud, it has stated that it
was not aware of this illegal activity," said Col. (Retd.) Thomas
and Mr. Somasekhar.

They alleged that the entire process of enrolling was done by a
sub-contracting agency in Mysore district.  There were instances
where the agency and its employees in collusion with other persons
have been issuing fake Aadhaar numbers to those who can pay at
Mysore.  The same was reported in a Kannada television channel
known as TV9.

According to the petition, there is urgency in filing the suit as
the defendants (UIDAI, Union Govt., and Deputy Chairman, Planning
Commission) intend to complete major part of the Aadhaar enrolment
before the matter is decided by the Standing Committee on Finance
of the Parliament and presented before the Lok Sabha so as to
compel the Parliament to support the project with retrospective
effect as money has already been spent.

"Every day the UID project continues, several crore of rupees of
taxpayers' money would be lost.  Apart from this, the continued
gathering of people's data would be an unacceptable security risk
both to the people and the nation itself.  It is respectfully
submitted that while millions are dying of hunger, starvation and
deprivation be it children, women, men or aged persons, spending
such huge amounts of money to benefit and make it possible for
many to pocket the money at the expense of the citizen in the name
of Aadhaar even without any legislative sanction is illegal.
Plaintiffs are affected by the conduct of the defendants and so
are many millions of Indians," said Col. (Retd.) Thomas and
Mr. Somasekhar in the petition.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Louisiana Retirement Fund Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan D'Ambrosio, writing for BurlingtonFreePress.com, reports that
a retirement fund for Louisiana police employees filed a class
action lawsuit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., last
week, alleging an "elaborate scheme" utilizing "falsified
financial statements" that made the company look like it was
performing better than it actually was, harming investors.

The lawsuit covers the period from Feb. 2, 2011, to Nov. 9, 2011
and names founder Robert Stiller and President and Chief Executive
Officer Lawrence Blanford as defendants along with seven other
officers and board members, stock analysts, and banks underwriting
a May 2011 stock offering of 7.1 million shares.

Suzanne DuLong, a spokeswoman for Waterbury-based Green Mountain
Coffee, acknowledged the company had been named in "a new piece of
litigation" filed Nov. 29.

"We have reviewed the complaint, believe the claims are without
merit and will defend ourselves vigorously," Ms. DuLong said.

A spokesman for the New York City law firm representing the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System did not
return a call for comment on Dec. 5.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission launched an inquiry
into accounting practices at Green Mountain Coffee in September
2010 that remains open, and that the company says it has
cooperated with fully.

Green Mountain Coffee makes the Keurig single-serving coffee
brewer and K-Cup single portion packages used in those brewers,
striking deals with both Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks to offer
their coffee in K-Cups in addition to Green Mountain Coffee's own
products.  The share price rose as high as $115.97 on Sept. 20
before dropping to $40.89 on Nov. 9.  On Dec. 5, the stock hovered
around $59.

"Throughout the Class period, the Company was portrayed to the
investing public as a healthy and growing business, with rapidly
increasing revenues and K-Cup sales," the lawsuit states.  "GMCR
was frequently described as one of the hottest stories on the
NASDAQ Global Market during the Class Period, with shares nearly
quadrupling in price from January 2011 to September 2011.  This
portrayal was false.  Defendants named herein orchestrated an
elaborate scheme to materially overstate the Company's apparent
success, complete with falsified financial statements."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend EMC Loan Suit
-------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is defending a purported class action brought
against Bank of America involving an EMC Mortgage Corporation
loan, according to the Firm's Nov. 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2011.


KIA MOTORS: Penn. Supreme Court Affirms Class Action Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Donovan Axler, LLC on Dec. 5 disclosed that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed the $5.6 million class
action judgment against Kia Motors America for selling cars with
defective brakes to Pennsylvania consumers.  The high Court issued
a 79 page decision on December 2, 2011, upholding the 2005 class
action verdict but remanding to the trial court for recalculation
the award of attorney's fees to be paid by Kia due to its class-
wide breach of warranty and violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

The affirmance is a major victory for class action practitioners
in one of the few class actions to be actually tried through
verdict in Pennsylvania.  The class of Pennsylvania purchasers of
1997-2000 Kia Sephia cars was represented by Michael Donovan of
Donovan Axler, LLC, Alan Feldman and Edward Goldis of Feldman
Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig and James Francis
of Francis & Mailman, all located in Philadelphia.  According to
class counsel, there are 9,402 Pennsylvania class members who will
share in the judgment.

Chief Justice Ron Castille wrote the 5-1 majority opinion for the
Court, holding that "the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in certifying the class" and that the "case properly proceeded to
trial as a class action."

Michael Donovan said "The Supreme Court's decision fully
vindicates the reasoning and approach utilized by the trial judge,
the Superior Court and class counsel.  We are gratified the Court
rejected Kia's attempt to repudiate its warranties by engaging in
scorched-earth litigation to deprive consumers of the contractual
right to have good brakes on their cars.  The case shows that
corporate promises matter and will be enforced even in small-value
cases that could not be litigated on an individual basis."

According to Alan Feldman, "the Court's decision is an affirmation
that class actions can and should be tried in front of a jury,
particularly where the trial judge has extensive experience and
familiarity with class action trials."  The trial judge in this
case was Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Mark I. Bernstein,
who also presided over the wage and hour class action against Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., that was tried to verdict by Mr. Donovan.

"We anticipate asking for millions of dollars more in post-
judgment interest and attorney fees once the case is returned to
the trial court," Mr. Francis said.

Contact: Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
         Donovan Axler, LLC
         E-mail: mdonovan@donovanaxler.com
         http://www.donovanaxler.com


MERITOR INC: Automotive Filters Suit in Illinois Further Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A multidistrict litigation relating to automotive filters and
involving a prior subsidiary of Meritor, Inc., is further stayed,
according to the Company's November 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 2, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including a prior
subsidiary of the Company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices,
rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive
filters.  This lawsuit is a purported class action on behalf of
direct purchasers of filters from the defendants.  Several
parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect
purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a
variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.  The
cases have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation
proceeding in Federal court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida
filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois based on these same allegations.  On May 25,
2010, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of
Washington informed the Company that it also was investigating the
allegations raised in these lawsuits.  On August 9, 2010, the
County of Suffolk, New York, filed a complaint in the Eastern
District of New York based on the same allegations.  The case has
been transferred to the multi-district litigation proceeding in
Illinois.  On April 14, 2011, the judge in that multi-district
litigation granted a stay on discovery and depositions until July
25, 2011.  The stay was subsequently extended until August 23,
2011, and on October 12, 2011, was further extended pending the
court's ruling on various motions.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the claims raised
in all of these actions.  The Company is unable to estimate a
range of exposure, if any, at this time.


MF GLOBAL: Lowey Dannenberg Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C. on Dec. 5 disclosed that it
has filed a class action against Jon Corzine and MF Global's
officers, directors and underwriters in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors
who purchased the publicly traded securities of MF Global Holdings
Ltd.

If you purchased MF Global publicly traded securities from
November 5, 2009, through October 31, 2011, including MF Global
notes issued in connection with MF Global's February 11, 2011
offering of the 1.875% Convertible Senior Notes, August 2, 2011
offering of the 3.375% Convertible Senior Notes, or August 8, 2011
offering of the 6.25% Senior Notes, you may want to consider your
recourse for your losses.  Investors wishing to act as Lead
Plaintiff in this litigation have until January 3, 2011 to file
their application with the Court.  If you have any questions,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Barbara Hart, Esq., of Lowey
Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., at 914-997-0500, or via e-mail at
bhart@lowey.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.

MF Global was a holding company that acted as a broker in markets
for commodities and listed derivatives.  The complaint alleges
that Jon Corzine and the other defendants issued false statements
concerning MF Global's exposure to European sovereign debt, and
raised $900 million in the Offerings.  MF Global's securities also
traded at inflated prices during the Class Period.  On October 31,
2011, MF Global announced that the New York Federal Reserve had
suspended the Company's designation as a primary dealer and that
the Company had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The MF Global
Notes issued pursuant to the Offerings are in default.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for violations of the Federal
securities law on behalf of all purchasers of MF Global
securities.  The plaintiff is represented by Lowey Dannenberg,
which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

                About Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart

Lowey Dannenberg -- http://www.lowey.com-- specializes in the
fields of investor representation, healthcare cost recovery,
antitrust, bankruptcy and creditors rights, and consumer
protection.


MF GLOBAL: Two Former Employees File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that two
former employees of MF Global have filed a class-action lawsuit
against the firm's former Chief Executive Jon Corzine, other
senior executives and board directors on behalf of themselves and
current and former employees who acquired stock in the company
while Mr. Corzine led the firm.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleges that the defendants
provided false information regarding the company's financial
condition and made statements that artificially inflated the stock
price.

Once the firm was downgraded due to its exposure to risky trades
in European sovereign debt, investors got spooked and the stock
price dropped, causing employees' shares to lose value.

"Jon Corzine and the board breached their fiduciary duty to their
employees and destroyed their careers and retirement savings,"
Jacob Zamansky, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in an
e-mail.

The plaintiffs are Monica Rodriguez, the New York-based head of
credit for the Americas, and Cyrille Guillaume, the London-based
managing director of the commodities and stock division.

Plaintiffs are seeking class action status for all employees who
acquired MF Global shares between May 20, 2010 and Nov. 3, 2011
through company-supported plans.  At the time of the company's
bankruptcy Oct. 31, the firm had close to 2,900 employees.

Employee plans included a long term incentive plan, which required
employees to receive a portion of their compensation in stock, and
an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP), which allowed them to buy
shares at a discount.  The lawsuit claims the defendants breached
their duty "to keep [employees] reasonably informed of all facts
and circumstances relating to their decision to participate in the
ESPP."

If employees had known MF Global's true financial state,
Mr. Zamansky said, "they could have refused to buy in or insisted
on compensation arrangements that were all cash."

The employees did not file suit against MF Global, the company
itself, because it is currently undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.


NBTY INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Hamilton" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
On July 7, 2010, a putative class action captioned Hamilton and
Taylor v. Vitamin World, Inc. was filed against one of NBTY,
Inc.'s subsidiaries in the Alameda Superior Court, California.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of employees in connection
with several causes of action alleging, among other things, wage
and hour violations.  Plaintiffs describe the class as all non-
exempt current and former employees of Vitamin World Stores in
California.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages, statutory
penalties, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys'
fees and costs in unidentified amounts.  To date, the Plaintiffs
have filed an amended complaint and discovery is ongoing.  The
Company challenges the validity of the claims and intends to
vigorously defend this action.  At this time, however, no
determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of the
defendant.  In addition, on October 27, 2010, a different set of
plaintiffs filed an action captioned Hickman v. Vitamin World,
Inc. in Solano County Superior Court, California.  Vitamin World
filed a demurrer and motion to abate that action because it is
identical to the instant Hamilton complaint and the Hickman action
was dismissed on May 31, 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 23,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NBTY INC: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in "Dirickson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 8, 2010, a putative class action captioned Dirickson v.
NBTY Acquisition, LLC, NBTY Manufacturing, LLC, NBTY, Inc., and
Volt Management Corporation ("Volt") was filed against the Company
and certain subsidiaries in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles.  Volt is not related to the Company.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of employees in connection
with several causes of action alleging, among other things, wage
and hour violations.  The complaint seeks damages on behalf of all
non-exempt employees within the State of California who worked for
Volt or any of the NBTY entities between April 8, 2006, and April
8, 2010, including compensatory damages, unpaid wages, statutory
penalties, restitution, unspecified injunctive relief, unjust
enrichment and attorneys' fees and costs in unidentified amounts.
The NBTY entities have entered into settlement discussions with
the plaintiffs, and those discussions are ongoing.  Until such
settlement is finalized, however, no determination can be made as
to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of
liability, if any, on the part of the defendant.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 23,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NBTY INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hutchins" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 11, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned John F.
Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, against NBTY and
certain current and former officers, claiming that the defendants
made false material statements, or concealed adverse material
facts, for the purpose of causing members of the class to purchase
NBTY stock at allegedly artificially inflated prices.  An amended
complaint, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, was served on February 1, 2011.  The Company moved
to dismiss the amended complaint on March 18, 2011, and that
motion is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 23,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend this action.  At this time, however, no
determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of any
of the defendants.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


POWERCOR: Mediation Underway in Second Bushfire Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the second class action launched over a
Black Saturday bushfire was set to begin mediation in the Supreme
Court, on Dec. 6.

The fire at Coleraine in the state's south-west in February 2009,
destroyed an estimated 700 hectares of land.

The Bushfires Royal Commission was told the blaze was started by a
faulty powerline.

Thirty landowners launched the action to recoup the costs of the
damage from the electricity company, PowerCor.

The mediation was ordered in an attempt to prevent a long and
costly trial.

The lawyer representing the victims, Brendan Pendergast, says his
clients are hopeful of a quick settlement.

"There is a desire resolve the matter if possible, but not at any
cost," he said.

On Dec. 5, the first Black Saturday class action was resolved when
the Supreme Court endorsed a settlement between PowerCor and the
victims of the Horsham bushfire.


RAYMOND JAMES: "Defer" Suit's Remaining Claims Dismissed in Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining claims in the class action lawsuit captioned Defer LP
vs. Raymond James Financial, Inc., et al., were dismissed with
prejudice in September 2011, according to the Company's
November 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

The Company is named in a class action lawsuit, Defer LP vs.
Raymond James Financial, Inc., et al., filed in April 2008 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The case is similar to those filed against a number of
brokerage firms alleging various securities law violations
relating to the adequacy of disclosure in connection with the
marketing and sale of auction rate securities ("ARS").  The
complaint seeks class action status, compensatory damages and
costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.  In September
2010, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with
respect to all but two counts against defendant Raymond James &
Associates, Inc., while simultaneously limiting the class period
to 3 1/2 months beginning November 2007 and ending February 13,
2008.  The remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice in
September 2011.


ROCK-TENN CO: Hearing on Delaware Suit Settlement Set for Dec. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement hearing is scheduled for December 8, 2011, in a
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Delaware, according
to Rock-Tenn Company's November 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2011.

Three complaints on behalf of the same putative class of Smurfit-
Stone Container Corporation stockholders were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the Company's acquisition
of Smurfit-Stone: Marks v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al.,
Case No. 6164 (filed February 2, 2011); Spencer v. Moore, et al.,
Case No. 6299 (filed March 21, 2011); and Gould v. Smurfit-Stone
Container Corp., et al., Case No. 6291 (filed March 17, 2011).  On
March 24, 2011, these cases were consolidated under Case No. 6164,
plaintiffs Marks and Spencer were appointed lead plaintiffs, and
the complaint in Spencer was designated as the operative
complaint.  In the Spencer complaint, plaintiffs name as
defendants RockTenn, the former members of the Smurfit-Stone board
of directors and Sam Acquisition, LLC (now known as RockTenn CP,
LLC, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary that is the successor
to Smurfit-Stone).  The plaintiffs alleged, among other things,
that the consideration the Company paid to acquire Smurfit-Stone
was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone stockholders, that the
February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
contained misleading or inadequate disclosures regarding the
Company's acquisition of Smurfit-Stone, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
acquisition of Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches were aided
and abetted by the Company.  On May 2, 2011, the court granted
class certification, appointing the lead plaintiffs and their
counsel to represent a class of all record and beneficial holders
of Smurfit-Stone common stock as of January 23, 2011, or their
successors in interest, but excluding the named defendants and any
person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or
affiliated with any of the defendants.  During argument in
connection with the preliminary injunction sought by the
plaintiffs, the plaintiffs acknowledged that their claims
concerning the adequacy of the disclosures in the
February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
were moot in light of subsequent disclosures made by Smurfit-Stone
and the Company.  On May 20, 2011, the court denied the
plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction preventing the
completion of the acquisition, finding that the plaintiffs had
failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success with respect to the
merits of their claims, that the requisite showing of irreparable
harm had not been made and that the balance of the equities
counseled against granting the injunction.  On July 7, 2011, the
Company filed a counterclaim in this case seeking a declaration
that the plaintiffs are not entitled to damages or the imposition
of any other remedy with respect to an error in Smurfit-Stone's
proxy statement relating to appraisal rights.

On October 5, 2011, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
class action with the plaintiffs.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the class will release all claims against the Company
and the former directors of Smurfit-Stone that arise out of the
class members' ownership of Smurfit-Stone shares between the dates
on which the merger was agreed and consummated and that are based
on the merger agreement or the acquisition, disclosures or
statements concerning the merger agreement or the acquisition, or
any of the matters alleged in the lawsuit.  In exchange for these
releases, the Company will grant the former Smurfit-Stone
shareholders (other than those who have already asserted their
appraisal rights) the right to bring and participate in a future
"quasi-appraisal" proceeding in which the court will assess the
value of a share of Smurfit-Stone common stock on a stand-alone
basis as of the closing of the transaction.  The ability of former
Smurfit-Stone shareholders to bring and participate in the future
quasi-appraisal proceeding will be subject to a number of
conditions, including returning to the Company an amount of cash
equal to $41.26 per Smurfit-Stone share if the former shareholder
voted in favor of the merger (representing approximately 73% of
Smurfit-Stone shares outstanding as of the record date) or $6.26
per Smurfit-Stone share if the former shareholder either voted
against the merger (representing approximately 7% of the Smurfit-
Stone shares outstanding as of the record date) or abstained or
did not vote with respect to the merger.  The proposed settlement
is subject to a number of conditions, including final court
approval following completion of a settlement hearing scheduled
for December 8, 2011.

In addition, the Company has also settled an appraisal demand
regarding substantially all the Smurfit-Stone shares for which
appraisal rights were asserted.  The shareholder that made this
appraisal demand has received an amount of cash per Smurfit-Stone
share for which its appraisal rights were asserted equal to the
per-share value of the merger consideration on the date of the
merger and will not participate in the future quasi-appraisal
proceeding or object to the class settlement.

On February 17, 2011, a putative class action complaint asserting
similar claims was filed against RockTenn, Smurfit-Stone, the
former members of the Smurfit-Stone board of directors and Sam
Acquisition, LLC in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under the caption of Dabrowski v.
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-cv-01136.  On
April 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging,
among other things, that the consideration the Company paid to
acquire Smurfit-Stone was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone
stockholders, that Smurfit-Stone and the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the acquisition of
Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches were aided and abetted by
the Company.  The plaintiff in Dabrowski also alleged that the
March 31, 2011 amended joint proxy statement/prospectus contains
misleading or inadequate disclosures constituting violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiff in Dabrowski sought monetary and equitable relief.
On August 4, 2011, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this matter
without prejudice.

Four complaints on behalf of the same putative class of Smurfit-
Stone stockholders were filed in the Circuit Court for Cook
County, Illinois challenging RockTenn's acquisition of Smurfit-
Stone: Gold v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-
3371 (filed January 26, 2011); Roseman v. Smurfit-Stone Container
Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-3519 (filed January 27, 2011); Findley v.
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-3726 (filed
January 28, 2011); and Czech v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et
al., No. 11-CH-4282 (filed February 4, 2011).  On February 10,
2011, these cases were consolidated together, and on March 4,
2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint names as defendants RockTenn,
Smurfit-Stone and the former members of the Smurfit-Stone board of
directors.  The amended complaint alleged, among other things,
that the consideration the Company paid to acquire Smurfit-Stone
was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone stockholders, that the
February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
contained misleading or inadequate disclosures, that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the acquisition of Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches were
aided and abetted by RockTenn and Smurfit-Stone.  The amended
complaint sought equitable relief.  On April 21, 2011, the court
stayed this consolidated matter pending resolution of the Delaware
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction or until further
order of the court.  On July 20, 2011, this consolidated matter
was dismissed without prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs.

The Company says it is continuing to vigorously defend against all
claims made against it, Smurfit-Stone and the former directors of
Smurfit-Stone arising out of this acquisition, and the Company
intends to vigorously defend any quasi-appraisal claims that may
be commenced.  The Company cannot currently estimate the losses,
if any, that will result from these claims.  No assurance can be
given that the final resolution of these claims will not be
material to the Company.


SONOMA COUNTY: Sued Over Unlawful Vehicle Seizures & Impoundments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Mateos-Sandoval and Simeon Avendano Ruiz, individually and
as class representatives v. County of Sonoma, Sonoma County
Sheriff's Department, Steve Freitas, City of Santa Rosa, Santa
Rosa Police Department, Tom Schwedhelm, and Does 1 through 20;
individually and in their official capacities, Case No. 3:11-cv-
05817 (N.D. Calif., December 2, 2011) seeks declaratory, equitable
and injunctive relief for unlawful seizures and impoundments of
vehicles pursuant to the authority of the California Vehicle Code.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of an injunctive relief class
and a damages class against the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs allege
that they received a "Notice of Stored Vehicle," but that form
provided no notice of a hearing to contest the decision to impound
their vehicles or why their vehicles were being impounded for 30
days.

Mr. Mateos-Sandoval is the registered and legal owner of one 1995
GMC Sierra pick-up truck.  Mr. Ruiz is the registered and legal
owner of a 2001 Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck.

County of Sonoma is a political subdivision of the state of
California.  SCSD is an agency of Sonoma County and as such,
separately sueable as a public entity.  Mr. Freitas is the Sheriff
of Sonoma County, and the SCSD policymaker.  Santa Rosa  is a
political subdivision of California, and SRPD is an agency of
Santa Rosa.  Mr. Schwedhelm is the SRPD Police Chief, and the SRPD
policymaker.  Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alicia Roman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALICIA ROMAN
          719 Orchard Street
          Santa Rosa, CA 95404
          Telephone: (707) 526-4100
          Facsimile: (707) 573-1094
          E-mail: aliciaromanlaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Robert Mann, Esq.
          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          ROBERT MANN & DONALD W. COOK
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252-9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
          E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-3246
          E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com


TEMPLE INLAND: Enters MOUs to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc. entered into a memoranda of understanding to
settle class action lawsuits in Texas and Delaware arising from
its proposed merger with International Paper Company, according to
the Company's November 23, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court of
Chancery"), captioned Raul v. Simons, et. al., Case No. 6690-VCP
(filed July 22, 2011) (the "Raul Action") and Kahn v. Temple-
Inland, Inc. et al., Case No. 6702-VCP (filed July 25, 2011) (the
"Kahn Action").  The Raul Action and the Kahn Action were
consolidated as In re Temple-Inland, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
under the case number 6702-VCP pursuant to an order dated
August 5, 2011.  In addition, on August 16, 2011, a putative class
action lawsuit, captioned Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement
System v. Simons, et. al., Cause No. D-1-GN-11-002456, was filed
in the District Court of Travis County, Texas (the "Texas
Action").  The Raul Action, the Kahn Action and the Texas Action
were filed prior to the time that the Company entered into its
previously announced Agreement and Plan of Merger with
International Paper Company ("IP") and Metal Acquisition Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of IP ("Metal"), dated as of September 6,
2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), providing for the merger of Metal
with and into the Company in which the Company's stockholders will
receive $32.00 per share, in cash, on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement (the "Merger").

These lawsuits alleged, among other things, that the members of
the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
by refusing to negotiate with IP following its unsolicited offer
to acquire the Company in June 2011, failing to solicit
alternative offers and adopting a stockholder rights plan on
June 7, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit, captioned Buxton v. Temple-
Inland, Inc., et al., Case No. 6866-VCP (the "Buxton Action"), was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on September 14, 2011,
after the date of the Merger Agreement.  The Buxton Action named
as defendants the Company and its directors, IP and Metal, and
alleged, among other things, that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a transaction with IP at a
price of $32.00 per share.  On September 26, 2011, the Buxton
Action was consolidated into In re Temple-Inland, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation (the "Consolidated Delaware Action").  On
September 28, 2011, an amended complaint was filed in the
Consolidated Delaware Action that included allegations that the
preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company under cover of
Schedule 14A with the SEC on September 23, 2011, relating to the
Merger Agreement (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement") failed to
include or misrepresented certain material information and
prevented the Company's stockholders from making an informed
decision with respect to the stockholder vote on the Merger
Agreement.

On October 27, 2011, an amended complaint was filed in the Texas
Action, also alleging that the Preliminary Proxy Statement failed
to include or misrepresented certain information.

On November 7, 2011, the Company filed a definitive proxy
statement with the SEC (the "Definitive Proxy Statement").

On November 18, 2011, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action informed the Delaware Court of Chancery that they had
reached an agreement in principle, which, if approved by the
Court, would result in the settlement of all claims brought on
behalf of the purported class.  The parties to the Consolidated
Delaware Action have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
memorializing the key terms of their agreement (the "Delaware
MOU").

On November 23, 2011, the parties to the Texas Action reached an
agreement in principle, which is intended to resolve all issues in
that litigation.  The parties to the Texas Action have entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding memorializing the key terms of
their agreement (the "Texas MOU" and together with the Delaware
MOU, the "MOUs").

Pursuant to the MOUs, the Company will make certain additional
disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosure"), which will be filed
with the SEC on DEFA14A and which should be read in conjunction
with the Definitive Proxy Statement.

The settlements will not affect the merger consideration to be
paid to stockholders of the Company pursuant to the Merger
Agreement or the timing of the special meeting of the Company's
stockholders scheduled for December 7, 2011, to vote upon a
proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement.

The Company and the other defendants have each denied, and
continue to deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in
the commission of any violation of law or breaches of duty or
engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in the lawsuits filed
in connection with the proposed Merger, and expressly maintain
that they diligently and scrupulously complied with their
fiduciary and other legal duties.


TICKETMASTER: Offers Purchase Credits to Settle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Sisario, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Ticketmaster's various fees and surcharges, which sometimes add 40
percent or more to the cost of a ticket, have long infuriated its
customers.  But next year, thanks to a recent class-action
settlement, many of those fans will be able to get some money
back.

To settle an eight-year-old lawsuit over its fees for shipping and
"order processing," Ticketmaster will offer two kinds of purchase
credits to people who bought tickets on its Web site from Oct. 21,
1999, to Oct. 19, 2011.  For each order, a customer will be
eligible for $1.50 off future transactions, and people who paid
for expedited ticket delivery by United Parcel Service can get a
$5 credit.

The fine print: Credits must be redeemed within four years and
cannot be used for events at theaters operated by A.E.G. Live, the
rival of Ticketmaster's parent company, Live Nation Entertainment.
Customers are limited to 17 credits of each kind, and only
residents of the United States are eligible.  The claims
administrator has set up a Web site explaining the terms in
detail.

The Los Angeles Superior Court gave preliminary approval to the
settlement last month, and last week notices about it began to go
out by e-mail.  A final court hearing is scheduled for May 29.

The case began in 2003 after two men bought tickets to concerts by
Wilco and Bruce Springsteen.  They filed a joint lawsuit arguing
that Ticketmaster's U.P.S. charges and order processing fees were
excessive, and that the company did not disclose that it profited
from those fees.  Nationwide class-action status for the claim was
affirmed by the court last year.

Ticketmaster faces a minimum payment of $11.25 million per year
over the four-year life of the settlement, with the company to pay
any unclaimed balance to charity.  Ticketmaster is also required
to pay legal fees for the class action, and its penalties are
subject to limitations.

In a statement, Ticketmaster emphasized that it was not admitting
to any wrongdoing through the agreement.

"Ticketmaster vigorously disputes that its previous descriptions
of these fees were misleading and the responses of customers to
the news of this settlement have confirmed that," the company
said.  "Nonetheless, as part of the settlement, Ticketmaster has
modified its disclosures to emphasize that there is a profit
component in these fees."

In October, Ticketmaster settled another class-action suit for
$16.5 million that began when two fans in New Jersey sued over the
sale of tickets for a pair of Springsteen concerts in 2009.


V.F. CORP: Unit Continues to Defend New Hampshire Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of VF Corporation continues to defend a class action
lawsuit pending in New Hampshire, according to the Company's
November 23, 2011, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On September 13, 2011, VF completed its acquisition of The
Timberland Company ("Timberland") pursuant to an Agreement and
Plan of Merger that was signed on June 12, 2011.

A purported class action, City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement
System, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
The Timberland Company and Jeffrey B. Swartz, U.S.D.C., District
of New Hampshire, was filed on June 3, 2011, on behalf of persons
who purchased the common stock of Timberland between February 17,
2011, and May 4, 2011, seeking remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges false and misleading
statements and a scheme to defraud during the class period.  While
this litigation is at an early stage, Timberland believes this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the
litigation vigorously.


V.F. CORP: Unit Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Timberland Company continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit arising from its merger with V.F. Corporation's
subsidiary, according to VF's November 23, 2011, Form 8-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On September 13, 2011, VF completed its acquisition of The
Timberland Company ("Timberland") pursuant to an Agreement and
Plan of Merger that was signed on June 12, 2011.

Shortly after Timberland entered into the Merger Agreement with
VF, three putative stockholder class action complaints were filed,
on behalf of Timberland's public stockholders, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against Timberland, the members
of the Timberland Board, V.F. Corporation, and V.F. Enterprises,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of VF.  The complaints generally
allege, among other things, that the members of the Timberland
Board breached their fiduciary duties owed to Timberland's public
stockholders by causing Timberland to enter into the Merger
Agreement, approving the merger, failing to take steps to
ascertain and maximize the value of Timberland, failing to conduct
a public auction or other market check, and failing to provide
Timberland's public stockholders with the right to vote on whether
to approve the merger, and that VF and VF Enterprises aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.  In addition, the
complaints allege that the Merger Agreement improperly favors VF
and unduly restricts Timberland's ability to negotiate with other
potential bidders.  The complaints generally seek, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from
consummating the merger, other forms of equitable relief, and
compensatory damages.  On June 30, 2011, the three actions were
consolidated under the caption In re The Timberland Company
Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6577-CS.

While this litigation is at an early stage, Timberland believes
that the claims are without merit and intends to defend against
the litigation vigorously.


WAL-MART STORES: Settles 401(k) Fiduciary Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
William P. Barrett, writing for Forbes.com, reports that Wal-Mart
Stores and Merrill Lynch, a unit of Bank of America, have agreed
to pay a total of $13.5 million to settle a long-running class-
action lawsuit alleging the world's largest private employer and
its retirement plan administrator breached their fiduciary duty
toward nearly 2 million past and present Walmart workers in the
company's 401(k) plan.

In papers filed in Kansas City federal court, the two corporate
defendants admitted no wrongdoing.  But Wal-Mart said it would
"further its goal to offer investment options with fees that are
reasonable," remove mutual funds that charge high fees and provide
more financial education to employees.

From Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., spokesman Greg
Rossiter said on Dec. 5 in a statement, "Walmart agrees it is in
the best interest of the parties, and in the best interest of the
401(K) plan's participants, to resolve the claims in this case on
the terms laid out in the settlement agreement."  Bill Halldin, a
Bank of America spokesman, "We are pleased to have been able to
work with Walmart to resolve this matter and continue to serve its
employees with a high-quality 401(k) platform."

Aside from named plaintiff Jeremy Braden, who would get $20,000,
Walmart employees would get none of the $13.5 million directly,
but the settlement would go toward reducing future 401(k) plan
fees.  Lawyers representing the class could get as much as $4
million of that $13.5 million.  A court hearing on approving the
settlement and the fees will be held in several months.

One interesting aspect of the settlement is that Merrill Lynch,
which initially wasn't a named defendant, would pay $10 million of
the $13.5 million.  This is presumably due to an explosive
allegation that emerged during the litigation.

As recounted in a 2009 Forbes story, the lawsuit was filed in 2008
by Mr. Braden, a Walmart employee in Highlandville, Mo. It charged
that Walmart -- famous for using its size to squeeze suppliers to
get the lowest possible price to pass onto customers -- did
nothing of the sort with mutual funds offered in its 401(k) plan.
The company offered just 10 investment options, most of them
mutual funds charging "retail" fees, code for very high charges.
High fees will eat tremendously into the nest eggs that employees
are trying to accumulate for retirement.  The lawsuit alleged
various violation of fiduciary duty and federal pension law.

The trial judge's dismissal of the case was reversed by the
federal appeals court in St. Louis.  Then, in an amended
complaint, Mr. Braden added Merrill Lynch as a defendant, saying
the giant investment firm received undisclosed "kickback payments"
from outside mutual fund companies simply for allowing them to be
in the plan.

Mr. Halldin, the Bank of America spokesman, said he could not
comment on that allegation, but noted that Merrill Lynch still
administers the 401(k) plan for Walmart.  That service includes
recordkeeping and investment consulting.


WATER STREET: Sued Over Unlicensed Debt Collection in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Rice, on behalf of plaintiff and the classes defined below;
and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Linda Rice v. Water
Street Financial, Inc., and Arthur B. Adler & Associates, Ltd.,
P.C., Case No. 2011-CH-41245 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
December 2, 2011) is brought to secure redress from alleged
unlawful debt collection practices engaged in by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff accuses Water Street of acting as an unlicensed
collection agency, in violation of the Illinois Collection Agency
Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff
also alleges that Defendant Adler has demanded payment of
judgments on behalf of Water Street, also in violation of the
FDCPA.

Ms. Rice is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.  She contends
that the Defendants have been attempting to collect from her a
debt incurred for personal, family or household purposes, and not
for business purposes.

Water Street, a Maryland corporation, acquires and collects
delinquent consumer debts originally owed to others.  Defendant
Adler is a law firm organized as an Illinois professional
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend "Kottaras" Antitrust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 27, 2008, Whole Foods Market, Inc. was served with the
complaint in Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking treble damages, equitable,
injunctive, and declaratory relief and alleging that the
acquisition and merger between Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats
Markets violates various provisions of the federal antitrust laws.
This case is in the preliminary stages.  Whole Foods Market says
it cannot at this time predict the likely outcome of this judicial
proceeding or estimate the amount or range of loss or possible
loss that may arise from it.  The Company has not accrued any loss
related to the outcome of this case as of September 25, 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 23,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 25, 2011.



                           *********

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  * * *