CAR_Public/111219.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 19, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 250

                             Headlines

BLUE COAT: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit Remains Pending
BLUE COAT: Securities Suit in California Still Pending
CARRIER IQ: Faces Suit for Intercepting Consumers' Private Data
CARRIER IQ: Sued for Data Interception in Mobile Phones
CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: May Face Suit Over Red-Light Cameras

CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
DSW INC: Still Awaits Final OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
E-Z-GO: Recalls 21,900 Golf Cars, Shuttles and Off-Road Vehicles
ECOLAB INC: Nalco Unit Continues to Face Suits Over COREXIT Use
ECOLAB INC: Still Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal

HEALTHWORKS FITNESS: Violates Mass. Wage Laws, Suit Claims
HOOTERS: Atty. Says Class Action Settlement to End "Indignities"
J CREW: Judge Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Sees No Wrong in "False Claims" Settlement
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in IPO Securities Suit Remains Pending
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Settles "Holton" Wage and Hour Class Suit
MEDTRONIC: Stock-Drop Suit Obtains Class Certification
MFS: Judge Allows Investor Suit to Proceed as Class Action
PRIMO WATER: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in North Carolina

PRIMO WATER: Shareholder Class Action Likely to Prevail
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over False Claims on Crest Toothpaste
SAN FRANCISCO: K. Dermody Named Pres. of Bar Association
SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Another Merger-Related Suit in N.Y.
STATE BANCORP: Gets Final Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal

US CONSULATE GENERAL: Faces Class Action in Indonesia Over Wall
WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Juices
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Failure to Protect KH Funding Noteholders

* Pace of Securities Class Action Filings Steady in 2011





                          *********


BLUE COAT: Appeal in Consolidated IPO Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a ruling resolving a consolidated securities
lawsuit remains pending, according to Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'s
December 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

Beginning on May 16, 2001, a series of putative securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the firms that underwrote
the Company's initial public offering, the Company, and some of
its officers and directors.  These cases have been consolidated
under the case captioned In re CacheFlow, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1-01-CV-5143.  In
November 2001, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the firms that underwrote Packeteer's initial public
offering, Packeteer, and some of its officers and directors.  An
amended complaint, captioned In re Packeteer, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-CV-10185, was
filed on April 20, 2002.

These are two of a number of actions coordinated for pretrial
purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92.  Plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding brought claims
under the federal securities laws against numerous underwriters,
companies, and individuals, alleging generally that defendant
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
concerning the allocation of shares in the IPOs of more than 300
companies during late 1998 through 2000.  Among other things, the
plaintiffs allege that the underwriters' customers had to pay
excessive brokerage commissions and purchase additional shares of
stock in the aftermarket in order to receive favorable allocations
of shares in an IPO.

The consolidated amended complaint in the Company's case sought
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between December 9, 1999, and
December 6, 2000.

The amended complaint in the Packeteer case seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Packeteer's common stock between July 27, 1999, and December 6,
2000.

The parties reached a global settlement of the litigation under
which, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement share
allocated to the Company and Packeteer, and the Company and
Packeteer will not bear any financial liability.  On October 5,
2009, the district court entered an order granting final approval
of the settlement.  Certain objectors appealed that order to the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Several of the appeals
were dismissed.  In May 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order
granting the motion to dismiss as to one set of the remaining
appeals and remanding the other set of appeals to the district
court for further action.  On August 25, 2011, the district court
ruled that the objector that submitted the remaining set of
appeals is not a class member, and therefore does not have
standing to object to the settlement.  That objector is now
appealing the district court's August 2011 order.


BLUE COAT: Securities Suit in California Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
On August 30, 2011, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and certain
of its current and former officers by an individual on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between November 24, 2009, and May 27, 2010.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements
about the Company's business and prospects in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other
relief as the court deems proper.  A response to the complaint is
not yet due and the court has not yet appointed lead plaintiffs.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 2,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.


CARRIER IQ: Faces Suit for Intercepting Consumers' Private Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andre LaVertue and Gary Cribbs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., HTC, Inc., HTC
America, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC, Case No. 3:11-cv-06196 (N.D.
Calif., December 9, 2011) accuses the Defendants of doing unlawful
interception of private electronic communications emanating from
private mobile phones, handsets and smart phones.

The Plaintiffs tell the Court that they did not know that the
Defendants were surreptitiously monitoring and collecting the
Plaintiffs' private data sent through their cell phones, nor did
the Plaintiffs give the Defendants permission to do so.

Mr. LaVertue is a resident of New Hampshire, while Mr. Cribbs is a
resident of Maryland.  Mr. LaVertue owns an HTC4 EVO phone.  Mr.
Cribbs owns a Samsung Galaxy S2 Skyrocket phone.

Carrier IQ is a provider of mobile services intelligence solutions
to the wireless industry.  HTC produces mobile phones and
handsets, including "Android" smart phones.  Samsung produces
mobile phones and handsets, including "Android" smart phones.  The
CIQ software is embedded in HTC and Samsung phones, including the
Plaintiffs' phones.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          Nance F. Becker, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com
                  nance@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Gary Klein, Esq.
          Shennan Kavanagh, Esq.
          Kevin Costello, Esq.
          RODDY KLEIN & RYAN
          727 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, MA 02111-2810
          Telephone: (617) 357-5500, ext. 15
          Facsimile: (617) 357-5030
          E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com
                  kavanagh@roddykleinryan.com
                  costello@roddykleinryan.com

               - and -

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          Steven J. Stolze, Esq.
          Steven L. Groves, Esq.
          HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER & STOLZE, LLC
          300 N Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com
                  stevenstolze@sbcglobal.net
                  sgroves@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jon D. Robinson, Esq.
          Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
          Shane M. Mendenhall, Esq.
          BOLEN, ROBINSON & ELLIS, LLP
          202 South Franklin Street, 2nd Floor
          Decatur, IL 62523
          Telephone: (217) 429-4296
          Facsimile: (217) 329-0034
          E-mail: jrobinson@brelaw.com
                  cellis@brelaw.com
                  smendenhall@brelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BREMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


CARRIER IQ: Sued for Data Interception in Mobile Phones
-------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Fischer, a Wisconsin resident; Kurt Fairfield, a Wisconsin
resident; Harry Sarafian, a California resident; David Williams, a
California resident; Stephanie Wirth, a California resident; John
Swafford, a Florida resident; Luke Szulczewski, an Illinois
resident; Richard Rosenfeld, a Kentucky resident; Michael
Zemartis, a New Jersey resident; Timothy Dodson, a Texas resident;
Evan Brooks, a Washington resident; Marcus Neal, a Washington
resident; Brian Sandstrom, a Washington resident; John Woods, a
Washington resident; Leonard Hobbs, a Nevada resident; and Kenneth
Tishenkel, an Ohio resident, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; LG Electronics, Inc., a Korean company; LG
Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., a California corporation; HTC
Corporation, a Taiwanese company; HTC America, Inc., a Washington
corporation; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a Korean company;
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. a New York corporation; and
Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 5:11-cv-06199 (N.D. Calif., December 9, 2011) asserts
that CIQ claims that its software, which is embedded on cellular
devices manufactured by HTC and Samsung, does not log key-strokes
and, thus, does not intercept, store, and transfer consumer's
electronic communications to third parties, like cellular carriers
and device manufacturers.

The Plaintiffs, however, allege that CIQ software does log
keystrokes and does store and transmit to third parties detailed
information, including the content of user messages sent and
received.  They argue that consumers using devices equipped with
CIQ software are not notified that the software is actively
running on their devices and have no idea that, and give no
consent for, their private communications to be intercepted,
stored, and transmitted to third parties.

Plaintiffs Fischer and Fairfield are residents of Janesville,
Wisconsin.  Plaintiffs Sarafian, Williams and Wirth are California
residents.  Plaintiff Swafford is a resident of Sanford, Florida.
Plaintiff Szulczewski is a resident of Lansing, Illinois.
Plaintiff Zemartis is a resident of Egg Harbor Township, New
Jersey, while Plaintiff Dodson is a resident of Arlington, Texas.
Plaintiffs Brooks, Neal, Sandstrora and Woods are residents of
Washington.  Plaintiff Hobbs is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada,
while Plaintiffs Rosenfeld and Tishenkel are residents of
Kentucky.

Carrier IQ, a Delaware corporation, created and provides software
that is embedded on cellular devices manufactured by HTC and
Samsung.  LG Electronics Inc. is a Korean corporation and cellular
device manufacturer.  LG's subsidiary, LG Electronics, is a
California corporation and sells its products throughout the
United States.  HTC is a Taiwan corporation and cellular device
manufacturer.  HTC's subsidiary, HTC America, is a Washington
corporation and sells its products throughout the United States.
Samsung Electronics America is a New York corporation, while
Samsung Telecommunications America is a Delaware corporation.
Both are subsidiaries of Samsung Electronics Co., a Korean
company, and sell their products throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  robl@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com


CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA: May Face Suit Over Red-Light Cameras
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Edwards Staggs, writing for VVDailyPress.com, reports that
a local attorney has sent notice that he intends to file a class
action lawsuit against the city of Victorville and Redflex Traffic
Systems unless changes are made with the way red-light cameras are
handled here.

Robert Conaway, a criminal defense attorney from Barstow, is
demanding that the two parties stop issuing tickets and that
Redflex let Victorville out of its red-light camera contract.
Otherwise, Mr. Conaway said he will sue unless the city begins
paying San Bernardino County Sheriff's deputies to watch the live
video feed and issue tickets as they occur, then appear in court
to testify regarding the violations.

The request stems from the primary concern cited by Mr. Conaway,
local tea party members and others who've risen up to oppose the
cameras: that they violate civil rights because the accused don't
have the opportunity to confront their accuser.  And, since
employees with Redflex -- a private company headquartered in
Phoenix -- are the ones first viewing the alleged violations,
opponents claim testimony from local deputies should be
inadmissible as evidence.

Mr. Conaway filed the suit on behalf of Victorville resident
Michael Curran "and others."  Mr. Curran, 62, is accused of
running the red light at Bear Valley and Hesperia roads on
Sept. 26.  He has no previous violations in San Bernardino County,
according to court records.

The city and Redflex have 30 days to respond to the notice.
Mr. Conaway declined to answer further questions until he receives
their responses.

"We are confident that any action at this point is without merit,"
Tom Herrmann, Redflex spokesman, said on Dec. 13 by phone from the
company's Phoenix headquarters.

Mr. Herrmann declined to discuss specifics of the claim without
having seen the suit, which Mr. Conaway sent on Dec. 9.

"We are unaware of any courts in California that have deemed use
of red-light cameras unconstitutional at this time," Victorville
City Attorney Andre de Bortnoswky said via e-mail on Dec. 13.
"Nevertheless, we will review and research the theories raised and
respond accordingly."

Victorville isn't particularly pleased with how the red-light
cameras have worked out either, with city officials citing the
"excessive" $490 fine and a questionable correlation to increased
safety at most monitored intersections.

In March, a split City Council approved a partnership between the
city attorney's office and local attorney Brandon Wood to explore
strategies for terminating Victorville's contract with Redflex
before it expires in 2014.  They'd hoped to have an answer within
60 days, but nine months have passed without any indication
Victorville can terminate its contract for 10 red-light cameras
without facing litigation from Redflex.


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

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

No Class has yet been certified in the above action.  If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact either Peretz Bronstein or Eitan
Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or
via e-mail eitan@bgandg.com

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

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


DSW INC: Still Awaits Final OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
DSW Inc. is still awaiting final approval of its settlement of a
consolidated shareholder lawsuit pending in Ohio, according to the
Company's December 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2011.

On May 19, 2011, Retail Ventures, Inc. ("Retail Ventures" or
"RVI") shareholders and DSW Inc. ("DSW") shareholders approved the
proposal presented to them at their respective special meetings of
shareholders to adopt the merger agreement between DSW and Retail
Ventures and to approve the merger (the "Merger").  The Merger
closed on May 26, 2011.  Pursuant to the terms and conditions of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, Retail Ventures merged with and
into DSW MS LLC ("Merger Sub"), with Merger Sub surviving the
Merger and continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of DSW.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2011, purported shareholders of
Retail Ventures filed two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits in an Ohio state court captioned as follows: Steamfitters
local #449 Retirement Security Fund v. Schottenstein, et. al
("Steamfitters"), and Farkas v. Retail Ventures, Inc. ("Farkas").
The Steamfitters action was brought against Retail Ventures and
its directors and chief executive officer and DSW.  The Farkas
action was brought against Retail Ventures and its directors, and
DSW and DSW MS LLC, the entity that Retail Ventures since merged
into ("Merger Sub").  The Steamfitters action alleges, among other
things, that Retail Ventures and its directors has breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement and that Retail
Ventures' chief executive officer and DSW aided and abetted in
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Farkas action
alleges, among other things, that the Retail Ventures board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by approving the merger
agreement and failing to disclose certain alleged material
information, and that Retail Ventures and DSW aided and abetted
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  Both complaints sought,
among other things, to enjoin the shareholder vote on the Merger,
as well as money damages.  On May 9, 2011, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the actions.

In order to avoid the costs associated with the litigation, the
parties agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement of
the lawsuits set forth in an executed memorandum of understanding
that was filed with the court.  The memorandum of understanding
provided for, among other things, additional public disclosure
with respect to the Merger, which was included in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus sent to the shareholders of RVI and DSW.  The
plaintiffs have filed final settlement documents in Ohio state
court, which remain subject to final court approval.

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

The Company says that if the parties are unable to obtain final
court approval of the settlement, then the litigation may proceed,
and the outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain.


E-Z-GO: Recalls 21,900 Golf Cars, Shuttles and Off-Road Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
E-Z-GO, a Textron Company, of Augusta, Georgia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 21,900 TXT golf cars, Cushman shuttle
vehicles and Bad Boy off-road utility vehicles.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The threaded end of the rack rod ball joint can break and the ball
joint can become displaced, causing the driver to lose steering
control.  This can result in a crash.

The firm is aware of 71 reports of the ball joint breaking, 13 of
which resulted in the ball joint displacing.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled vehicles are gas- and electric-powered, four-wheeled
vehicles with bench seats for the driver and passengers.  These
models are included:

   Model                              Serial Number
   -----                              -------------
   E-Z-GO TXT Fleet golf cars         2748187 thru 2770316
   E-Z-GO Freedom TXT golf cars       2748187 thru 2770316
   E-Z-GO TXT shuttle vehicles        2748187 thru 2770316
   Cushman Bellhop shuttle vehicles   2748187 thru 2770316
   E-Z-GO ST utility vehicles         2748187 thru 2770316
   Bad Boy Buggies HD, LD and         8000035 thru 8002809
   LTO utility vehicles

The brand and model names are printed on the side and front panels
of the vehicles.  Serial numbers are printed on a plate or label
located on the exterior of the vehicle below the driver's seat.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12056.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at E-Z-GO and Bad Boy dealers nationwide from
February 2011 through July 2011 for between $6,650 and $10,650.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact E-Z-GO or an authorized dealer for a free repair.  E-Z-GO
and E-Z-GO dealers are contacting known owners.  For additional
information, contact E-Z-GO toll-free at (800) 774-3946 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.ezgo.com/


ECOLAB INC: Nalco Unit Continues to Face Suits Over COREXIT Use
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Nalco Holding Company continues to face lawsuits
arising from the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident and
relating to the use of Nalco's oil dispersant product, COREXIT(R)
9500, according to Ecolab Inc.'s December 2, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 1, 2011, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of July 19, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement") by and among
Ecolab Inc., a Delaware corporation,  Sustainability Partners
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of
Ecolab ("Merger Sub"), and Nalco Holding Company, a Delaware
corporation ("Nalco"), Nalco merged with and into Merger Sub (the
"Merger"), with Merger Sub surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Ecolab.

          Matters Related to Deepwater Horizon Incident

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of
Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April
20, 2010.  A massive oil spill resulted.  Approximately one week
following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, an indirect subsidiary of Nalco Holding
Company, to supply large quantities of COREXIT(R) 9500, a Nalco
oil dispersant product listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency National Contingency Plan Product Schedule.  Nalco Company
responded immediately by providing available COREXIT and
increasing production to supply the product to BP's subsidiaries
for use, as authorized and directed by agencies of the federal
government throughout the incident.  Prior to the incident, Nalco
Holding Company and its subsidiaries had not provided products or
services or otherwise had any involvement with the Deepwater
Horizon platform.  On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had
capped the leaking well, and the application of dispersants by the
responding parties ceased shortly thereafter.

On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident
Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the
incident at the national level.  The EPA directed numerous tests
of all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, "to ensure
decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are
grounded in the best available science."  Nalco Holding Company
cooperated with this testing process and continued to supply
COREXIT 9500, as requested by BP and government authorities.
After review and testing of a number of dispersants, on June 30,
2010, and on August 2, 2010, the EPA released toxicity data for
eight oil dispersants.

The use of dispersants by the responding parties was one tool used
by the government and BP to avoid and reduce damage to the Gulf
area from the spill.  Since the spill occurred, the EPA and other
federal agencies have closely monitored conditions in areas where
dispersant has been applied.  Nalco Holding Company has encouraged
ongoing monitoring and review of COREXIT and other dispersants and
has cooperated fully with the governmental review and approval
process.  However, in connection with its provision of COREXIT,
Nalco Company has been named in several lawsuits.

                Putative Class Action Litigation

In June, July and August 2010, and in April 2011, Nalco Company
was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in eight
putative class action complaints filed in either the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Parker, et
al. v. Nalco Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01749-CJB-
SS; Harris, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-
02078-CJB-SS; Irelan v. BP Products, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 11-cv-00881; Adams v. Louisiana, et al., Civil Action No. 11-
cv-01051), the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama, Southern Division (Lavigne, et al. v. BP PLC,
et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00222-KD-C; Wright, et al. v. BP,
plc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00397-B) or the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida,
Pensacola Division (Walsh, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., Civil Action
No. 3:10-cv-00143-RV-MD; Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al.,
Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-EMT) on behalf of various potential
classes of persons who live and work in or derive income from the
Coastal Zone.  The Parker, Lavigne and Walsh cases have since been
voluntarily dismissed.  Each of the remaining actions contains
substantially similar allegations, generally alleging, among other
things, negligence relating to the use of Nalco Company's COREXIT
dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
The plaintiffs in each of these putative class action lawsuits are
generally seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

                  Other Related Federal Claims

In July, August, September, October and December 2010, Nalco
Company was also named, along with other unaffiliated defendants,
in eight complaints filed by individuals in either the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Ezell
v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW), the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
Southern Division (Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-
00472-M; Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00471-
CG-N; Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action No. 10-cv-00532-N),
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida, Tallahassee Division (Capt Ander, Inc. v. BP, plc, et
al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS), the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division
(Trehern v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00432-HSO-JMR) or
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Chatman v. BP Exploration & Production, Civil Action No.
10-cv-04329; Brooks v. Tidewater Marine LLC, et al., Civil Action
No. 11-cv-00049).

In April 2011, Nalco Company was also named in Best v. British
Petroleum plc, et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-00772 (E.D. La.);
Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. Civil Action
No. 2:11-cv-867, (E.D. La.); Pearson v. BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-863, (E.D. La.);
Alexander, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production, et al., Civil
Action No. 11-cv-00951 (E.D. La.); and Coco v. BP Products North
America, Inc., et al. (E.D. La.).  The complaints generally
allege, among other things, negligence and injury resulting from
the use of Nalco Company's COREXIT dispersant in connection with
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The complaints seek unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Chatman case was voluntarily dismissed.

All of the cases pending against Nalco Company have been
administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, Civil Action No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179").
Pursuant to orders issued by Judge Barbier in MDL 2179, the claims
have been consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Bundle").  Plaintiffs are required by
Judge Barbier to prepare a list designating previously-filed
lawsuits that assert claims within the B3 Bundle regardless of
whether the lawsuit named each defendant named in the B3 Bundle
master complaint.  Nalco Holding Company has received a draft list
from the plaintiffs' steering committee.  The draft list
identifies fifteen cases in the B3 Bundle, some of which are
putative class actions.  Six cases previously filed against Nalco
Company are not included in the B3 Bundle.

Pursuant to orders issued by Judge Barbier in MDL 2179, claimants
wishing to assert causes of action subject to one or more of the
master complaints may do so by filing a short-form joinder.  A
short-form joinder is deemed to be an intervention into one or
more of the master complaints in MDL 2179.  The deadline for
filing short form joinders was April 20, 2011.  Of the individuals
who have filed short form joinders that intervene in the B3
Bundle, Nalco Company has no reason to believe that these
individuals are different from those covered by the putative class
actions.  These plaintiffs who have intervened in the B3 Bundle
seek to recover damages for alleged personal injuries, medical
monitoring and/or property damage related to the oil spill clean-
up efforts.

Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder
defendants have been named as third party defendants by Transocean
Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean
Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771).  In
April and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International
Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C.,
Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc.
(collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL
2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross
defendants.  The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other
things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from
the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response,
they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross
defendants.

In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims
against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross
Claimants.  In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges
that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it
is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants.

                Other Related State Court Actions

In March 2011, Nalco Company was named, along with other
unaffiliated defendants, in an amended complaint filed by an
individual in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi,
Second Judicial District (Franks v. Sea Tow of South Miss, Inc.,
et al., Cause No. A2402-10-228 (Circuit Court of Harrison County,
Mississippi)).  The amended complaint generally asserts, among
other things, negligence and strict products liability claims
relating to the plaintiff's alleged exposure to chemical
dispersants manufactured by Nalco Company.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, medical expenses, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

In October 2011, Nalco Company was named along with other
unaffiliated defendants, in a complaint filed in Louisiana State
Court, Toups, et al. v Nalco Company, et al., No. 59-121 (25th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana).  The
complaint alleges that 26 boat operators and clean-up technicians
suffered health-related problems as a result of using chemicals
during the oil spill response efforts.

Nalco Holding Company believes the claims asserted against Nalco
Company are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.  Nalco Holding Company also believes that it has
rights to contribution and/or indemnification (including legal
expenses) from third parties.  However, Nalco Holding Company
cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the involvement it
might have in these matters in the future or the potential for
future litigation.


ECOLAB INC: Still Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. is still awaiting court approval of its settlement of
a consolidated merger-related lawsuit, according to the Company's
December 2, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On December 1, 2011, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of July 19, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement") by and among
Ecolab Inc., a Delaware corporation,  Sustainability Partners
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of
Ecolab ("Merger Sub"), and Nalco Holding Company, a Delaware
corporation ("Nalco"), Nalco merged with and into Merger Sub (the
"Merger"), with Merger Sub surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Ecolab.

Following Ecolab and Nalco Holding Company's announcement of a
planned merger transaction on July 20, 2011, a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Nalco, members of Nalco's board
of directors and Ecolab in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit (DuPage County, State of Illinois): Jack Mozenter
v. Nalco Holding Co., Ecolab, Inc., et al., No. 2011MR001043.
Three additional purported class action lawsuits were also filed
in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit: Ziegler
v. Nalco Holding Company, et al., No. 2011 L 861, Stasik v.
Fyrwald, et al., No. 2011 CH 3745 and Construction Workers Pension
Trust Fund - Lake County v. Nalco Holding Co., et al., No. 2011
L951.  The four actions were consolidated by the Circuit Court on
September 7, 2011.  The lawsuits allege that the planned merger
transaction is the result of an unfair and inadequate process, the
consideration to be received by Nalco's stockholders in the merger
is inadequate and that the members of Nalco's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits were later amended
to allege that the disclosures regarding the proposed merger as
submitted by Nalco in a draft proxy statement for its shareholders
were inadequate.  (The lawsuits also allege that Ecolab aided and
abetted the Nalco board of directors in the breach of their
fiduciary duties to Nalco's stockholders.)  The lawsuits seek,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining Ecolab and Nalco
from proceeding with the merger unless Nalco implements procedures
to obtain the highest possible price for its stockholders,
directing the Nalco board of directors to exercise its fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction in the best interests of Nalco's
stockholders and seeking additional disclosures in the proposed
proxy statement. Nalco believes the allegations are meritless.

On October 24, 2011, the parties to the consolidated actions
reached an agreement in principle regarding settlement of the
consolidated actions.  The defendants have entered into the
settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and
distraction of the litigation.  Under this settlement, the
consolidated actions will be dismissed with prejudice on the
merits and all defendants will be released from any and all claims
relating to, among other things, the merger and any related
disclosures.  The settlement is subject to customary conditions,
including consummation of the merger, completion of certain
confirmatory discovery, class certification and final approval by
the court.

In exchange for the releases provided in the settlement, Ecolab
and Nalco have provided additional disclosure requested by
plaintiffs in the consolidated action related to, among other
things, the negotiations between Ecolab and Nalco that resulted in
the execution of the merger agreement, the financial forecasts
prepared by Ecolab and Nalco, the opinions provided by Ecolab's
and Nalco's respective financial advisors in connection with the
merger and the fees paid to those advisors by Ecolab and Nalco
over the past two years.

The settlement will not affect any provision of the merger
agreement or the form or amount of the consideration to be
received by Nalco stockholders in the merger.  The parties have
agreed that the lead plaintiff may apply to the court for an award
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, which, under
certain circumstances, defendants have agreed not to oppose.


HEALTHWORKS FITNESS: Violates Mass. Wage Laws, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
DeAnna Putnam, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Healthworks Fitness Centers, Inc., and Mark Harrington, Sr.,
Case No. SUCV2011-04423 (Mass. Super. Ct., December 6, 2011) is
brought on behalf of individuals, who have worked for the
Defendants at Healthworks fitness centers in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in numerous
violations of wage laws, including not paying employees for all
hours worked and not paying overtime.  The Plaintiff seeks treble
damages, interest, and costs and attorneys' fees.

Ms. Putnam is a resident of Waltham, Massachusetts.  She was
employed as a personal trainer for the Defendants at the
Healthworks Fitness Center at 325 Harvard Street in Brookline,
Massachusetts, from approximately August 2010 to June 2011.  She
was also employed as a group fitness instructor at Healthworks
from approximately 2006 to June 2011, during which time she
performed work at all of the Healthworks clubs.

Healthworks is a corporation that operates fitness centers in
Massachusetts.  Mr. Harrington is an owner and operator of
Healthworks Fitness Centers, Inc.  He is listed on the
Massachusetts Secretary of State's Web site as the president,
treasurer, secretary, director, and registered agent for
Healthworks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Michael Rabieh, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hschwab@llrlaw.com
                  mrabieh@llrlaw.com


HOOTERS: Atty. Says Class Action Settlement to End "Indignities"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chow, writing for FindLaw, reports that a class-action
Hooters lawsuit settlement will bring an end to "indignities"
suffered by the restaurant chain's waitresses, an attorney for the
workers says.

The suit, filed in March 2010 in Sacramento, involved about 400
Hooters workers at the chain's central California locations who
claimed the company violated their rights as employees, KCRA-TV
reports.  Hooters is known for outfitting voluptuous waitresses in
tight-fitting t-shirts.

The workers alleged they weren't allowed to take breaks as
required by law, had to pay out-of-pocket for their uniforms, and
were held financially responsible when customers bailed on paying
their checks.

All of those practices will now change, at least in central
California, plaintiffs' attorney Burton Boltuch told KCRA-TV.
Mr. Boltuch called the settlement "vindication" for the
"indignities endured" by the workers.

The Hooters lawsuit settlement gives the workers financial
compensation, Mr. Boltuch said, though he declined to go into
details.  The agreement also relaxes Hooters' uniform
requirements, KCRA-TV reports -- though it's not clear exactly
what those relaxed requirements will entail.

A Hooters spokesman declined to comment about the settlement.  But
an employee-rights advocate told KCRA it sends a powerful message
to the restaurant industry, in which workers are often denied
breaks as a matter of course.

Breaks and meal periods are not required under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.  But they are mandated by law in many states
including California, which also requires employers to pay the
cost of workers' uniforms.

This Hooters lawsuit is actually Mr. Boltuch's third against the
company.  He's also brought similar suits against Hooters
restaurants in San Francisco and Los Angeles.


J CREW: Judge Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that a judge approved a
shareholder class action settlement over the controversial buyout
of J Crew Group Inc on Dec. 14, and blasted the retailer's sale
process as "icky."

The settlement caps a buyout in which J Crew Chief Executive,
Millard Drexler negotiated the $3 billion sale before telling his
board.  Shareholders approved the deal narrowly, in a cliff-hanger
vote.

The settlement provides $16 million for shareholders.  J Crew also
agreed to reduce barriers that were meant to protect the deal for
the two private equity buyers, TPG Capital and Leonard Green &
Partners.

Delaware Chancery Court Judge Leo Strine also took the unusual
step of removing two of the six shareholders who were acting as
lead plaintiffs representing the rest of the class.

The New Orleans Employees' Retirement System was removed as a lead
plaintiff because it had voted for the sale, which Judge Strine
said "doesn't make them look good."

The only individual acting as a lead plaintiff, Martin Vogel, was
also removed because he opposed the settlement.

The plaintiffs had sued J Crew's board for agreeing to sell the
retailer too cheaply.  The sale closed in March and shareholders
agreed to settle their lawsuit in September.

Mark Vogel, a New Jersey lawyer and investment adviser who
represented his father Martin Vogel at the Dec. 14 hearing, said
the class action process was driven by attorneys who "confined me
to a silo" and "steamrolled" him.

"Lead counsel's game is to intimidate the one individual who
managed to find his way into their cozy club," Mark Vogel said.

For example, he said he learned that attorneys had agreed to an
initial settlement three days after it had been signed.

He also criticized the other plaintiffs, which were pension funds,
noting that only one of them had voted against the deal they were
litigating over.  Four abstained from voting.

"The class should be represented by members who take an active
interest," he told the court.

Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer PA, who represented the class
of shareholders, told the court that no one had more input than
Mr. Vogel in the process, but that did not give him a right to
control the case.

"With six lead plaintiffs, one doesn't get a veto," Mr. Grant
said.

The case has taken several odd turns.  At one point the defendants
sued the plaintiffs for backing out of an initial agreement to
settle.

A large part of the Dec. 14 two-hour hearing was spent in an
argument between Mark Vogel and Judge Strine over J Crew's value,
with Mr. Vogel saying it was worth as much as $9 billion.

"I'm somewhat suspicious that the world will go gangbusters for J
Crew," said Judge Strine, who kept noting that no one else bid for
the company.

Judge Strine also criticized the behavior of J Crew's directors
and chief executive for allowing TPG Capital, one of the buyers,
to get a head start in the sale process, which he said may have
eliminated potential rivals.

"It's icky stuff," said Judge Strine.  "This was not good
corporate governance."

Judge Strine also approved fees for the plaintiffs' attorneys of
$6.5 million.

The case is In Re J Crew Group Inc Shareholder Litigation,
Delaware Chancery Court, No 6043.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Sees No Wrong in "False Claims" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company on Dec. 7 commented on the settlement
of false claims allegations with the U.S. Department of Justice
associated with the Company's former ETHEX generic pharmaceutical
subsidiary.

In connection with a multi-defendant action captioned United
States ex rel. Constance Conrad v. ETHEX Corp., et al., No. 02-
11738-RWZ (D. Mass.), K-V has agreed to pay a total of $17 million
over five years to resolve False Claims Act allegations raised by
the government that ETHEX, the Company's former generic
pharmaceutical subsidiary, allegedly failed to advise the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that two products -
Nitroglycerin Extended Release Capsules (Nitroglycerin ER) and
Hyoscyamine Sulfate Extended Release Capsules (Hyoscyamine ER) -
purportedly did not qualify for coverage under federal health care
programs.  K-V admitted no wrongdoing in settling the matter.  The
settlement includes a multi-year payment schedule with nominal
near-term capital requirements.

"We are satisfied with the settlement terms and the resolution of
a legacy issue associated with our former ETHEX subsidiary,"
stated Greg Divis, chief executive officer of K-V.  "The agreed
terms include a reasonable five-year payment schedule, with less
than $1 million to be paid within the first year.  We are also
pleased that the government deemed our current operations and
compliance function sufficiently robust as to not require a
corporate integrity agreement.  The closure of this matter is
another step forward as K-V moves ahead as a women's healthcare
focused branded specialty pharmaceutical company."


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
--------------------------------------------------------------
On October 19, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action
complaint for violations of the federal securities laws against
K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain of the Company's officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Case No. 2011-cv-01816.  The action covers all purchasers of the
common stock of K-V between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011,
inclusive.  This is to remind you that if you purchased the common
stock of K-V during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court by December 19,
2011.

Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact Scott+Scott, scottlaw@scott-scott.com
(800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott K-V
Pharmaceutical Web site for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com/cases/new/securities-fraud-litigation-
1533-k-v-pharmaceutical-company-kv-a.html.  There is no cost or
fee to you.

The complaint filed in the action charges that during the brief
Class Period, the Company issued false and misleading statements
claiming the Food and Drug Administration had granted K-V the
exclusive distribution rights over its "Makena," a drug compound
that had previously been prescribed by physicians for decades to
prevent miscarriages, and that the agency would enforce those
rights by preventing K-V's competitors from distributing generic
compounds of Makena.  The complaint also alleges that defendants
told investors K-V's Makena distribution program was designed to
"expand access" to the drug compound, including to low-income and
other at-risk groups, while concealing that the $1,500 list price
K-V was charging would actually reduce availability of the drug
compound to physicians and their patients.  As a result, based on
a fundamental misperception of K-V's sales and earnings potential,
the complaint charges that K-V's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, allowing K-V to sell $200
million worth of senior secured notes, with the proceeds used in
large part to pay down the Company's debts.

The complaint alleges that the truth began to come to light on
March 17, 2011, when two U.S. Senators publicly questioned the
bona fides of K-V's distribution program, stating "the financial
assistance is not sufficient and does not extend to certain groups
of women," and so that in reality, "KV Pharmaceutical's actions
will result in diminished access to appropriate health care for
women and result in increased preterm births."  It is alleged that
this partial disclosure caused K-V's stock price to fall
precipitously, removing some of the stock inflation.  Then,
following the FDA's own March 30, 2011 statement that the agency
did "not intend to take enforcement action against" K-V's
competitors for distributing the generic version of K-V's Makena,
K-V's stock fell further on extremely high trading volume.
Finally, following K-V's April 1, 2011 disclosure that K-V was
reducing Makena's list price by nearly 55% to $690 per injection
-- versus the previous list price of $1,500 -- the market learned
on April 4, 2011 that many physicians would never prescribe Makena
to their patients due to flaws in the distribution program.  On
this news, K-V's stock price fell an additional 9.5% in a single
trading session.

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


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in IPO Securities Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court's August 2011 ruling in a consolidated
securities lawsuit remains pending, according to Marvell
Technology Group Ltd.'s December 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2011.

In 2001, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
concerning certain alleged underwriting practices related to the
Company's initial public offering (the "IPO") on June 29, 2000.
The actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was
filed, naming as defendants certain investment banks that
participated in the IPO, the Company, and two of its officers, one
of whom is also a director.  Plaintiffs claim that defendants
violated certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), by allegedly failing to disclose that the
underwriters received "excessive" and undisclosed commissions and
entered into unlawful "tie-in" agreements with certain of their
clients.  The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest and fees.  In addition, this case has been coordinated
with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against
underwriters and issuers for approximately 300 other IPOs.
Defendants in the coordinated proceedings moved to dismiss the
actions.  In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in
part and denied them in part, allowing certain claims to proceed.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company will bear no financial liability.  The Company and other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.  In
2009, the district court issued an order of final approval of the
settlement.  Certain objectors filed appeals, a number of which
were dismissed by agreement or by the appellate court.  The
current matter on appeal is the district court's August 2011
ruling that the remaining appellate was not a class member with
standing to object to the settlement.  If for any reason the
settlement does not become effective, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims against it and intends to
defend the action vigorously.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Settles "Holton" Wage and Hour Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. entered into an agreement to settle
a class action lawsuit commenced by a former employee of its
subsidiary, according to the Company's December 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 29, 2011.

On October 18, 2006, Dan Holton ("Holton"), a former employee of
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. ("MSI"), filed a civil complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court.  Holton alleges that MSI
misclassified him as an exempt employee.  Holton claims that due
to its misclassification MSI owes him unpaid wages for overtime,
penalties for missed meal periods, and various other penalties
under the California Labor Code, as well as interest.  Holton also
pursues a cause of action for unfair business practices under the
California Business & Profession Code.  Holton brought his
complaint as a class action.  On July 8, 2009, the court granted
certification of the following class: "All Individual Contributor
Engineers who held the title of PCB Designer, Associate Engineer,
Engineer, Staff Engineer and Senior Engineers, who at any time
during the class period while holding these positions did not have
a degree above a baccalaureate degree nor a degree above a
baccalaureate degree in a field of science related to the work
performed, and worked for MSI in California, at any time from
October 19, 2002 through the present."  MSI disputes all of
plaintiff's class claims.

On June 23, 2011, MSI filed a motion for decertification of the
class, which was heard by the court on August 25, 2011.  On
September 6, 2011, the court granted decertification of the
plaintiffs' meal period claims and denied the remainder of MSI's
motion for decertification of the class.  On September 19, 2011,
the parties attended a mediation and subsequently agreed in
principal to settle this matter.  On November 23, 2011, the
parties executed a settlement agreement and plaintiffs filed their
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.  The
anticipated settlement amount has been recorded in the Company's
financial statements for the three months ended October 29, 2011,
and is not significant to the results of operations for the three
and nine months ended October 29, 2011.


MEDTRONIC: Stock-Drop Suit Obtains Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that
Medtronic's lawyers at Kirkland failed to convince a St. Paul,
Minn., federal district court judge to deny class certification on
the grounds that shareholder plaintiffs in a stock-drop suit had
fudged the testimony of 13 confidential witnesses.  Ruling that it
was "premature" to determine whether the plaintiffs had accurately
represented witnesses' testimony, Judge Paul Magnuson certified
the class on Dec. 12.


MFS: Judge Allows Investor Suit to Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that an investor class action against the accounting firm KPMG and
former directors and executives of the failed MFS property
investment group received belated good news on Dec. 14, when a
Federal Court judge said he would allow a two-year-old
compensation suit to proceed.

Justice Nye Perram said the case, in which he has previously
rejected two attempts to file long statements of claim, had "a
tortured procedural history".  Earlier this year, Justice Perram
said if the plaintiffs filed a fresh pleading of 50 pages or less
he would consider whether it could go to trial.

On Dec. 14, he allowed the new claim to proceed after rejecting
complaints by KPMG and the individual defendants, including the
former managing director of MFS, Michael King.

However, he ordered the investors, whose legal costs are funded by
IMF (Australia) Ltd, to pay the costs thrown away on the earlier
pleadings, saying there was "much to be said for the view that the
last two years have been a waste of time".

"Given the expense in getting to this point, it would be unfair in
my opinion for the applicants not to have to confront the
consequences of what has been done on their behalf until the
present application," Justice Perram said.

Since the suit was filed in April 2009, the class action has used
three consecutive firms of solicitors and three consecutive senior
barristers.

The judge rejected a claim from the defendants for additional
so-called "indemnity costs", or reimbursement of all costs
incurred.

Justice Perram predicted that the hearing was "a good way off" and
said all sides were steeling themselves for "a long and drawn-out
procedural Stalingrad in which no quarter will be given".

The investors want to recover losses sustained when the MFS
Premium Income Fund collapsed in 2009.  The class action is
defined as registered holders of units in the fund between January
2007 and October 2008, when redemptions were frozen.

Justice Perram will allow a negligence claim against KPMG, which
audited the fund's compliance with the plan required under its
registration as a managed investment scheme.  He will also allow a
claim of breach of the compliance auditor's duty as defined in the
Corporations Act.

The class action will also sue former directors and executives of
MFS, which changed its name to Octaviar Ltd in 2009, and of the
responsible entity for the fund.

Allegations against the individuals include failing to prevent
unsecured loans by the fund to related parties which they should
have known were not authorized.


PRIMO WATER: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired
the common stock of Primo Water Corporation in or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering on or about November 4, 2010,
and the Company's offering of common stock on or about June 17,
2011, as well as purchasers of the Company's common stock between
November 4, 2010, and August 10, 2011, inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Dec. 2.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/primowater/

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

The complaint charges Primo Water, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Offerings with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Primo Water, together with its subsidiaries, provides
multi-gallon purified bottled water, self-serve filtered drinking
water, and water dispensers in the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts: (a) neither demand nor sales of the Company's products were
as robust as represented; (b) stores owned by the Company's
largest retail customers did not carry the Company's products so
the Company was not generating any revenue from those locations;
(c) the Company's growth and business prospects were heavily
dependent upon the ability of the Company's two largest customers
to sell products from other, unrelated companies before those
customers would order products from Primo Water; (d) the Company's
primary retail customers would not be in a position to order any
of the Company's products until after those retail customers
cleared out other inventory sitting on their shelves, including
inventory related to products sold by competitors to the Company;
(e) the Company's largest retail customers had delayed promotions
of the Company's products, which negatively impacted the Company's
sales; (f) the Company's growth rate had slowed and would be
slower for the rest of 2011, if not beyond; (g) the Company would
not meet the financial guidance it provided to investors; and (h)
as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis of fact and
were materially false and misleading when made.

On August 10, 2011, the Company announced its financial results
for the second quarter of 2011, the period ended June 30, 2011.
For the quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $2.0 million
or a loss of $0.10 per share, compared to Company's projections in
May 2011 of earnings ranging from a loss of $0.03 to a gain of
$0.02 per share and analyst projections of a gain of $0.07 per
share.  The Company also revised downward its financial
projections for the third and fourth quarters of 2011 and provided
guidance for the full year of 2012.  Following the Company's
announcements on August 10, 2011, the price of Primo Water common
stock collapsed from $13.92 per share on August 9, 2011 to close
at $5.40 per share on August 10, 2011 -- a one day decline of
$8.52 per share, or 61% -- on extremely heavy volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Primo Water common stock during the Class Period, including all
persons or entities who acquired the common stock of Primo Water
in or traceable to the Company's Offerings.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

On Dec. 6, 2011, Primo Water Corporation disclosed that it intends
to vigorously defend recent allegations against the Company made
in a purported class action securities lawsuit.  The Company
believes the claims are without merit.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is active in major
litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.  The
180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New
York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta.


PRIMO WATER: Shareholder Class Action Likely to Prevail
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that it
appears a role of the dice whether the class-action lawsuit filed
against Primo Water Corp. will be successful for plaintiffs and
shareholders in gaining damages.

Exhibit one for a dour outlook: two high-profile shareholder
lawsuits -- including one in Forsyth County -- filed in October
2009 against Wachovia Corp. were dismissed in February 2011 by a
N.C. Business Court judge.

Exhibit one for a promising outlook: a $91 million settlement
agreed to by Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. in February 2007 to
settle a securities class action and derivative lawsuits filed in
2004 and 2005 against the company and its management.  The
securities class action includes all investors who bought Krispy
Kreme's securities between March 8, 2001, and April 18, 2005.

The settlement included $51.8 million in common stock and warrants
to purchase common stock to be issued by the company, and a cash
payment of $34.9 million from the company's directors' and
officers' insurers.

Bruce McDaniel, a Raleigh attorney for the plaintiffs in the Primo
Water lawsuit, said he was involved in the Krispy Kreme lawsuit
and a securities lawsuit filed in January 2009 against Triad
Guaranty Inc.

Mr. McDaniel expressed confidence that Primo shareholders would
prevail, whether through a settlement or through the legal system
that may take 18 to 24 months to reach a jury trial.

"When it comes to potentially misleading actions involving the
Securities Act, it's more an issue of 'seller beware' than 'buyer
beware,'" Mr. McDaniel said.

"The ultimate question to be resolved by either Primo or a judge
is how bad was it -- were Primo's disclosures and nondisclosures
misleading enough to constitute liability?"

The eight Wachovia plaintiffs claimed, just as in the Primo
lawsuit, that they were misled by management during the bank's
collapse in 2008.

The lawsuits were filed Oct. 1, 2009 -- two days after the
announcement that Citigroup would buy Wachovia and nine days
before Wells Fargo & Co. beat out Citigroup and bought Wachovia
with the blessing of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Both lawsuits had as defendants Wachovia and Wells Fargo, as well
as Ken Thompson, former chairman and chief executive of Wachovia,
and Robert Steel, who succeeded Thompson as chief executive and
was in charge when it was sold to Wells Fargo.

In February 2011, John Jolly Jr., chief special Superior Court
judge for complex business cases in N.C. Business Court, dismissed
the lawsuits.

Judge Jolly agreed with the defendants "that North Carolina does
not permit direct shareholder claims for losses resulting solely
from a drop in stock value and that the plaintiffs' injury was
felt equally by all Wachovia shareholders . . . and the
corporation itself."

Judge Jolly's ruling wasn't a popular one among shareholders,
considering that Tony Plath, a finance professor at UNC Charlotte,
estimated about $1 billion in shareholder value vanished in the
Carolinas from the Wachovia collapse.

"Basically, the Business Court concluded there's no compelling
reason that the plaintiffs should be treated any differently from
any of Wachovia's other shareholders, and we all lost a bunch of
money," Mr. Plath said.

Local and regional shareholders said in 2008 that Wachovia
executives counted on and manipulated their loyalty to what had
been one of the steadiest blue-chip companies in North Carolina.
It had posted dividends that provided an affordable and
comfortable retirement for many employees and investors.

Wachovia executives and well-to-do institutional investors aren't
the only ones who took a severe financial blow.

Also hit were many Winston-Salem residents and the institutions
they support: churches, schools, nonprofits, and foundations.  The
problems also affected residents and potential residents of local
retirement and nursing homes, and those retirees wanting to stay
in their own homes.

Most of those individuals and groups continue to struggle to
recover from the share-price collapse, and hold slim hope of
regaining their investment through Wells Fargo.

"As an old-line, legacy North Carolina company, it's really
difficult to find North Carolina investors who didn't have a
significant piece of their wealth in Wachovia's stock," Mr. Plath
said.  "It's taken a severe toll on retirement savings plans,
401(k) investment resources, college-savings plans, (and) mutual-
fund shares for North Carolina investors."

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed Wachovia and the
executives were negligent and misrepresented the financial status
of the bank, therefore breaching the duty of a corporate director
or officer.

The officers were accused of "publishing allegedly false public
SEC filings, press releases and earnings calls regarding the
financial strength, stability and liquidity of Wachovia, beginning
in January 2007 and concluding in September 2008."

Several Wachovia executives were accused of selling, for a profit,
about 200,000 shares of stock from 2006 to 2008 "based on inside
information about Wachovia's financial status not disclosed to
Wachovia shareholders or the public."

Judge Jolly ruled the plaintiffs did not offer viable claims of
negligence, misrepresentation and breach of corporate duties.  He
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that they could have reduced
their financial damages by selling Wachovia stock before the
Citigroup and Wells Fargo offers were announced had they known
Wachovia's true financial plight.

In the Krispy Kreme case, after the company went public in April
2000, it became an investor favorite by beating earnings
expectations for 13 consecutive quarters.  That performance
spurred a share price that topped out at $108.50 in November 2000.
The stock was split twice in 2001.

In July 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission began a probe
into Krispy Kreme's accounting practices.  On March 4, 2009, the
SEC ordered that Scott Livengood, its former chairman and chief
executive; John Tate, its former chief operating officer; and
Randy Casstevens, its former financial officer, pay a combined
$783,000 for violating accounting laws and for fraud.

Krispy Kreme received only a cease-and-desist order from
committing or causing violations of several provisions of the
Securities Act.  Neither the executives nor the company admitted
or denied wrongdoing.

"The Krispy Kreme case was a far more extreme example of promising
more than you can deliver in an offering circular, and then
committing fraud in order to cover up the poor financial
performance of the company," Mr. Plath said.

"Krispy Kreme had far more merit as a case against management than
Primo, at least based on the information contained in the circular
and the subsequent behavior of management to cover up the true
condition of the company.  Granted, there may be more to Primo's
troubles than a slowly developing distribution network, but right
now, it looks like a completely different case than Krispy Kreme."


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over False Claims on Crest Toothpaste
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Procter
& Gamble falsely advertises that its Crest Sensitivity toothpaste
provides relief from tooth sensitivity pain "within minutes."

A copy of the Complaint in Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Company,
Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 13600 in Case No. 33-av-
00001 on Dec. 13, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/14/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi. Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113


SAN FRANCISCO: K. Dermody Named Pres. of Bar Association
--------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on December 15 announced
the installation of Kelly Dermody as president of the Bar
Association of San Francisco.

Founded in 1872, BASF serves legal professionals and the community
by promoting access to justice and excellence and diversity in the
legal profession, and by providing legal and pro bono services to
disadvantaged and underserved individuals.  A long-time supporter
and volunteer of BASF, Ms. Dermody has served on BASF's Board of
Directors since 2005, and has held the leadership positions of
Secretary, Treasurer, and President-Elect.

"We are extremely proud that our partner Kelly Dermody has been
installed as President to lead one of the nation's premier bar
associations," stated Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser's Managing
Partner.  "Kelly is deeply committed to the work of BASF and is a
passionate advocate for the rights of employees and consumers,
civil rights, human rights, increased access to legal services,
and initiatives to address hiring, retention, and advancement of
attorneys from historically underrepresented groups.  She will
provide BASF the same outstanding leadership that she provides our
firm as a member of our Executive Committee."

The Chair of Lieff Cabraser's employment practice group, Ms.
Dermody is litigating many of the most significant and challenging
employment class action lawsuits in our nation today, including
complaints brought by applicants and employees alleging gender
and/or race discrimination by nationally prominent corporations,
overtime pay lawsuits by workers at leading firms, and ERISA
claims on behalf of employees and retirees who have lost
retirement funds due to pension plan abuses.

Ms. Dermody also represents consumers in consumer protection
cases.  California Lawyer magazine awarded her its California
Lawyer of the Year Award for her successful prosecution of several
class action lawsuits against California's main hospital chains
for charging the uninsured exorbitant and unconscionable prices
for medical care.  Under settlements in these cases, uninsured
patients received over $1 billion in refunds or bill adjustments.

Ms. Dermody has been a leader in organizations devoted to serving
the public interest, improving access to justice, and ensuring
that the rights of historically disenfranchised persons are
protected.  In addition to her service as BASF President, Ms.
Dermody is a Member of the Governing Council of the ABA's Labor
and Employment Law Section and Co-Chair of the Independence of the
Judiciary Committee of the National Association of Women Judges.
Super Lawyers has recognized Ms. Dermody as one of the Top 100
Super Lawyers and Top 50 Female Super Lawyers in Northern
California.  Best Lawyers has selected her as one of the Best
Lawyers in San Francisco for three consecutive years.


SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Another Merger-Related Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonesta International Hotels Corporation is facing another class
action lawsuit arising from its proposed merger with PAC Merger
Corp., according to the Company's December 2, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sonesta International Hotels Corporation entered into a proposed
transaction (the "Transaction") contemplated by an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of November 2, 2011, by and among Sonesta
Acquisition Corp. (f/k/a Property Acquisition Corp.), a Maryland
corporation ("Parent"), PAC Merger Corp., a New York corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, and Sonesta International
Hotels Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company").

On December 1, 2011, a putative class action complaint captioned
GAMCO Investors, Inc. v. Peter Sonnabend, et al., Index No.
653328/2011, was filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York
County, Commercial Division against Sonesta, each member of
Sonesta's Board of Directors, Hospitality Properties Trust, Parent
and Merger Sub.  The action was filed by a purported stockholder
of Sonesta, on its own and on behalf of a putative class of
Sonesta stockholders.  The complaint makes similar allegations to
those alleged in the Broadbased Fund action and seeks a judgment
requiring Sonesta to make corrective disclosures, awarding the
plaintiff and class compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and an
award of all costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.


STATE BANCORP: Gets Final Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case was filed on May 6, 2011, in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Nassau County, on behalf of a putative class of State
Bancorp, Inc. ("State Bancorp") stockholders against State
Bancorp, State Bancorp's directors and Valley National Bancorp
("Valley") challenging the merger of State Bancorp into Valley
(Edith K. Grossman v. State Bancorp, Inc., et al (No.
600469/2011)).  On October 24, 2011, the parties entered into an
agreement in principle to settle the action.  The agreement was
set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties
("MOU").  On October 26, 2011, the Honorable Timothy S. Driscoll
signed a Preliminary Approval Order with regard to the lawsuit and
the MOU, among other things scheduling a hearing on the approval
of the settlement by the court.

On November 29, 2011, following a final settlement hearing, the
Honorable Timothy S. Driscoll, Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Nassau, issued an Order and Final Judgment
dismissing the complaint with prejudice, according to the
Company's December 2, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.


US CONSULATE GENERAL: Faces Class Action in Indonesia Over Wall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kukuh S. Wibowo, writing for TEMPO Interactive, reports that
advocate Muhammad Sholeh, representing six Surabaya residents, has
filed a class action lawsuit against the US Consulate General in
Surabaya as well as the local police chief.  The file was
submitted to the Surabaya District Court on Dec. 13.

The plaintiff protested the construction of a wall in front of the
consulate's office.  The waist-high and 7-meter-long wall was
built four years ago to impede demonstrators.

"The wall must be dismantled because it's built on Indonesia's
legal area and often causes traffic jams," said Mr. Sholeh.
Consulate staffer Esti Durahsanti refused to comment.


WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Juices
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Walgreens 100% Grape Juice and Walgreens 100% Apple Juice "contain
significant levels of arsenic and lead."

A copy of the Complaint in Boysen v. Walgreen Co., et al., Case
No. 11-cv-06262 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/14/Arsenic.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 370
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          J. Kirk Boyd, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
                  kboyd@rocklawcal.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Failure to Protect KH Funding Noteholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Gresser, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:11-cv-06175 (N.D.
Calif., December 8, 2011) is brought on behalf of all persons, who
held KH Funding Company Series 3 Senior Secured Investment Debt
Securities as of February 5, 2010, excluding Wells Fargo and its
affiliates.  Ms. Gresser relates that KH Funding's repeated
failures to pay requested Series 3 Note redemptions outside of the
30-day grace period were continuing events of default under the
Indenture -- a contractual agreement between KH Funding and Wells
Fargo to which the Class members are third-party beneficiaries.

Under the Indenture, upon the occurrence and continuation of an
event of default, Wells Fargo was obligated to exercise its rights
and powers under the Indenture to protect the interest of holders
of the Notes, Ms. Gresser says.  She alleges that Wells Fargo,
however, breached its obligation by its recurrent failure to
exercise its rights and powers under the Indenture despite its
knowledge of the events of default and KH Funding's deteriorating
financial condition.

Ms. Gresser is a resident of Aventura, Florida.  She owns Series 3
Senior Secured Investment Debt Securities issued by non-party, KH
Funding.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association.  Wells
Fargo, or its predecessor by merger, Wells Fargo Bank
Minnesota, N.A., was the Indenture Trustee for the Series 3 Notes
and Series 4 Subordinated Unsecured Investment Debt Securities
issued by KH Funding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Todd Espinosa, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com
                  ecp@girardgibbs.com
                  tie@girardgibbs.com


* Pace of Securities Class Action Filings Steady in 2011
--------------------------------------------------------
The pace of filings of class actions under federal securities and
commodity laws held relatively steady in 2011 as compared to the
previous three years, according to NERA Economic Consulting's
semi-annual report, Recent Trends in Securities Class Action
Litigation: 2011 Year-End Review, released on Dec. 14.  While
shareholder filings continue to be filed at a relatively steady
level as compared to the past three years, there has been a
substantial shift in the composition of suits filed.  A surge in
cases involving Chinese companies listed in the US and in M&A
objection suits, along with a waning of credit-crisis cases, has
been driving this trend.

NERA Trends authors project there will be 232 shareholder class
action filings in 2011, broadly in line with levels observed in
2010 (241), in 2009 (218), and 2008 (245).  Suits objecting to a
merger or an acquisition have accounted for 29% of filings so far
in 2011, and filings against Chinese companies have accounted for
approximately 18%.

Filings against Foreign-Domiciled Firms

Filings against foreign-domiciled issuers reached 64 in 2011, more
than double the annual count observed in recent years.  This surge
in suits is largely attributed to the surge in filings against
Chinese companies.  So far in 2011, there have been a total of 29
filings against Chinese-domiciled firms.  However, this number
understates the number of Chinese firms targeted, as not all
companies based in China are legally domiciled there.  When the
Trends authors included Chinese companies that are either
domiciled in China or have their principal executive offices in
the country, there have been 39 suits against Chinese companies in
2011.

Settlements

Average settlement values of securities class actions fell to $31
million in 2011, well below the 2010 average of $108 million.
However, the annual average settlement figure can be significantly
impacted by large settlement outliers.  Excluding settlements in
excess of $1 billion, as well as 309 small settlements related to
IPO laddering cases that were approved in October 2009, there is
still a substantial decline in average settlements from 2010 to
2011--from $40 million in 2010 to $31 in 2011.  An alternative
metric Trends authors use is median settlements.  In 2010, the
median settlement reached an all-time high of $11 million, but in
2011, this figure fell to $8.7 million--below the previous two
years but still the third highest on record.

Additional Settlement Trends

-- The number of settlements in 2011 also declined as compared to
previous years.

-- 54% of cases that settled or have a scheduled court approval
date in 2011 did so for less than $10 million, well up from the
41% observed in 2010.

-- Only 6% of 2011 settlements were for more than $100 million,
down from 8% in the previous year.

-- Aggregate amount paid out in settlements ($2.6 billion) is at
its lowest level since 2004.

"The year 2011 may be remembered as the year that saw the
explosion of Chinese company-related lawsuits, the continued
dominance of M&A cases alleging breach of fiduciary duty, and the
sunset of credit crisis-related litigation," said NERA Senior Vice
President and report co-author Dr. John Montgomery.  "Looking
ahead, it will be interesting to see how the level of filings may
change or whether new categories of litigation will predominate."

"The number of settlements has declined, with the median
settlement in 2011 falling below last year's high on $11 million,
but still the third-highest on record," said NERA Senior
Consultant Robert Patton.  "Settlement amounts also reflect the
stage of litigation," added NERA Senior Consultant Jordan Milev.
"Settling after a motion for summary judgment is denied could
drive up the settlement amount by an estimated 62%, on average."

Additional Shareholder Class Action Trends

-- Filings by sector: Securities class actions against financial
sector companies accounted for roughly 16% of cases in 2011, as
contrasted with nearly half in 2008 and 2009.

-- Filings against companies in the electronic technology and
technology services sector accounted for the largest percentage in
the year, with 21% of filings.  Health technology and services
companies accounted for 15% of filings.  Filings of credit crisis-
related class actions largely subsided in 2011, with 11 cases
filed.  Such litigation is approximately a third of its level last
year, when it had already declined by about two-thirds from its
2008 peak.

-- Aggregate plaintiffs' attorney fees, at $594 million, fell in
2011 to their lowest level since 2004.  This decline is largely
attributed to the combination of the lower average and median
settlement size, and fewer settlements occurring in 2011.

-- Cases were filed considerably more quickly in 2011--the average
time to file in 2011 was 109 days, as compared to 175 days last
year.

NERA Securities Class Action Trends Report Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 15 years.  Two reports are published per year: a mid-
year study and an annual review at year's end.  This year-end
study was authored by NERA Senior Vice President Dr. John
Montgomery and Senior Consultants Dr. Jordan Milev, Robert Patton,
and Svetlana Starykh and includes data on filings and dismissals
through November 30, 2011, and settlements through December 31,
2011.

For more details, and to read the full report, visit:
http://www.nera.com/recenttrends

                            About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities and the world's leading
law firms and corporations.  With its main office in New York
City, NERA serves clients from more than 20 offices across North
America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.


                           *********

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  * * *