CAR_Public/111226.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 26, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 255

                             Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Settles With Zurich American Over IPO-Related Suit
AMARANTH ADVISORS: Judge Okays $6.6-Bil. Class Action Settlement
ANZ: Maurice Blackburn Files Appeal in Bank Fee Class Action
AUTOZONE INC: Still Face Wage and Hour Violations Suits
BATTERIESPLUS LLC: Recalls 111,800 Replacement Battery Packs

C&D TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Delaware Action Still Pending
CARDIONET INC: Settles "West Palm Beach" Suit for $7.25 Million
CKE RESTAURANTS: Continues to Face Employment Class Action Suits
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Accrued $96.2-Mil. Liability as of Oct. 31
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Israeli Optionholder Class Actions Stayed

COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Settles "Maverick" Class Suit for $9.5-Mil.
COPART INC: Still Defends "Brizuela" Class Suit in California
COPART INC: Still Defends "Ortiz-Torres" Suit in California
COVIDIEN PLC: Defends Suits vs. Unit Over Contrast Agent Products
COVIDIEN PLC: Records 137 Pending Cases Over Pelvic Mesh Product

DEL MONTE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Littlefield" Complaint
DEL MONTE: Court Approves $89.4-Mil. Merger-Related Suits Deal
DEL MONTE: Still Defends FLSA-Violations Class Suit in Minnesota
DISCOVER CARD: Faces TCPA-Violations Class Suit in California
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Settle Class Action for $79 Million

FACEBOOK INC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Class Action
FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, WI: Faces Class Action Over DUI Towing Fees
FIRST PACTRUST: Beach Signs MOU to Settle Acquisition Suits
GOV'T OF THAILAND: Climate Activists File Class Action
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Settlement Order Remains Pending

HEWLETT-PACKARD: March Hearing on Bid to Cert. "Skold" Class Set
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Denies Class Certification in "Fenn" Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit Alleging Design Defect in Printers
INTL FCSTONE: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Unit in Missouri

INTL FCSTONE: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
L & L ENERGY: Faces More Complaints Related to Securities Suit
LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Class Action Over Robosigning Problems
MILLER ENERGY: Defends Five Securities Class Suits in Tennessee
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Nurses Union Sues Over Reduced Pensions

NETWORK ENGINES: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Order Pending
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR, CANADA: Schools Get Class Action Status
OVERHILL FARMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Disqualify Plaintiff
POLY IMPLANT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Breast Implants
RALCORP HOLDINGS: Units Still Defend Class Suits in California

REMINGTON ARMS: Faces Class Action in Tenn. Over Defective Rifle
SIGNATURE GROUP: Court Approved ERISA Suit Settlement in August
SIGNATURE GROUP: Ninth Circuit Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
SOC INC: Iraq Armed Guards File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
STATE OF OKLAHOMA: DHS Agrees to Settle Foster Care Class Action

STATER BROS: Awaits Court Approval of "Martinez" Suit Settlement
TAKEDA PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over ACTOS Bladder Cancer Risk
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Asylum "Clock" Problems
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Redemption of Wachovia Trust Securities
WEST PENN: Meal Break Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action

WPCS INT'L: "McKean" and "Rapozo" Suits Consolidted in October
WSFS FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Overdraft Fees-Related Suit in Del.

* Tightened Fare Ad Rules Won't Affect Class Action v. Airlines




                          *********

ADAMS GOLF: Settles With Zurich American Over IPO-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2011, Adams Golf, Inc. (the "Company") entered
into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the
"Settlement Agreement") with Zurich American Insurance Company
("ZAIC") to settle the Company's insurance coverage lawsuit
against ZAIC, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the same date.

As previously disclosed, the lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that ZAIC wrongfully declined coverage to the Company for a $5
million layer of directors' and officers' liability insurance in
connection with the class action lawsuit arising out of the
Company's initial public offering.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, ZAIC has agreed to pay the
Company $7.65 million in cash no later than January 4, 2012.  In
addition, the Company has agreed to release and indemnify, and
ZAIC has agreed to release, the other and the other's affiliates,
directors, officers and attorneys from any claims related to the
lawsuit or the facts and circumstances at issue in the litigation.
The Company's release and indemnification obligations are
conditioned on receipt of the $7.65 million settlement payment,
and ZAIC's release obligations are conditioned on the execution of
a joint dismissal of the lawsuit.  Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement reached by the Company in the underlying class action
lawsuit, the Company is required to pay the class action
plaintiffs the first $1.25 million from the Company's recovery
against ZAIC in the coverage lawsuit.


AMARANTH ADVISORS: Judge Okays $6.6-Bil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asjylyn Loder at Bloomberg News reports that a federal judge
approved a $77.1 million settlement by Amaranth Advisors LLC, the
hedge fund that collapsed in 2006 after losing $6.6 billion on
natural gas trades, of a class action lawsuit in which it was
accused of market manipulation.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, in an order on Dec. 15,
approved the agreement, which was filed two days earlier in
Manhattan federal court by plaintiff's attorney Christopher Lovell
of Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP.  The parties had reached
a tentative agreement in October.  A hearing on final approval of
the class action accord is scheduled for March 27.

In August 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced
that Greenwich, Connecticut-based Amaranth paid $7.5 million to
settle allegations that the hedge fund tried to manipulate natural
gas futures three years earlier.

In April, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a $30
million civil penalty against Amaranth trader Brian Hunter, who
was accused of manipulating the natural gas market in 2006.

Mr. Lovell and Stephen Senderowitz, a lawyer for Amaranth, didn't
immediately return calls seeking comment on the accord.

The case is In Re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation, 07-
06377, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan.)


ANZ: Maurice Blackburn Files Appeal in Bank Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that an appeal has been
lodged in a class action against ANZ over allegedly unlawful fees.

Justice Michelle Gordon ruled earlier this month that late fees
charged by ANZ on credit cards could be characterized as a penalty
and may be legally unenforceable.

However, honor fees, dishonor fees, overlimit fees and non-payment
fees were not characterized as a penalty but as fees for services
provided by the bank, Justice Gordon ruled.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn said it had lodged appeal papers in the
Federal Court in Melbourne on Dec. 22 against the ruling on honor,
dishonor and overlimit fees.

They said they would seek leave for an appeal to be heard before
the full bench of the Federal Court.

Maurice Blackburn said it would argue Justice Gordon should have
applied a broader test of when a fee can be a penalty, which is a
test that does not first need to establish a breach of contract.

A hearing should be heard in early 2012, the law firm said.

Maurice Blackburn recently launched proceedings against four other
banks, including the other three major Australian lenders, also
relating to fees and charges.


AUTOZONE INC: Still Face Wage and Hour Violations Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
AutoZone, Inc. is involved in various other legal proceedings
incidental to the conduct of its business, including several
lawsuits containing class-action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried employees
who allege various wage and hour violations and unlawful
termination practices.  The Company does not currently believe
that, either individually or in the aggregate, these matters will
result in liabilities material to the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 15,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended November 19, 2011.


BATTERIESPLUS LLC: Recalls 111,800 Replacement Battery Packs
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BatteriesPlus LLC, of Hartland, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary
recall of about 111,800 Rayovac NI-CD Cordless Tool Battery Packs.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The replacement battery pack can explode unexpectedly, posing a
risk of serious injury to consumers.

BatteriesPlus has received five reports of exploding batteries.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves RAYOVAC-branded replacement battery packs
used with cordless power tools.  "RAYOVAC," "NI-CD" and a part
number beginning with "CTL" are printed in white lettering on the
product.  The battery packs were sold in voltages ranging between
2.4 and 18 volts in various sizes and shapes.  They were sold as
replacement batteries to the following brand tools: Black and
Decker, Bosch, DeWalt, Makita, Milwaukee, Panasonic, Ryobi and
Skil.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12063.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at BatteriesPlus retail stores nationwide and online
at http://www.batteriesplus.com/between June 2008 and October
2011 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using and remove the battery
packs from cordless tools.  Consumers can contact BatteriesPlus
for instructions on how to return the product for a store credit.
For more information, contact BatteriesPlus toll-free at (877)
856-3232 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.batteriesplus.com/


C&D TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Delaware Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on June 29, 2011, following the announcement on
June 16, 2011, by Angelo Gordon & Co., L.P. of its proposal to
acquire the outstanding shares of common stock of C&D
Technologies, Inc., not owned by it or its affiliates for cash
(the "Merger"), three putative stockholder class action lawsuits
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, referred to herein
as the "Delaware Actions," and another putative stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, referred to herein as the
"Pennsylvania Action," challenging the proposed Merger.  On August
19, 2011, counsel to the plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions
submitted a proposed order to the court seeking consolidation of
the Delaware Actions into a single action, referred to herein as
the "Consolidated Delaware Action."  On September 8, 2011, the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted that request for consolidation.
On October 11, 2011, an amended class action complaint was filed
in the Consolidated Delaware Action, naming as defendants C&D,
each current member of the C&D Board and Angel Holdings LLC
("Acquiror"), an affiliate of Angelo Gordon & Co., L.P. On October
25, a fourth class action complaint was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.  That action is subject to the Delaware Court
of Chancery's August 19 consolidation order governing the
consolidation of any related newly filed case with the
Consolidated Delaware Action.

On October 26, 2011, a consolidated second amended class action
complaint was filed in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
consolidated second amended class action complaint asserts breach
of fiduciary duty claims against the current members of the C&D
Board and Angelo Gordon & Co., L.P., and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty claims against C&D, Angelo Gordon & Co.,
L.P., Acquiror and Merger Sub premised principally on allegations
that: (i) the individual defendants and the Acquiror breached
their fiduciary duties under Delaware law because the Merger
Agreement was executed without meaningful input from C&D's public
stockholders, (ii) the consideration the Acquiror is proposing to
provide to C&D's public stockholders for their Common Stock is
inadequate, and (iii) the Form PRE 14C (filed by C&D on
October 19, 2011) failed to disclose material information.
Plaintiffs claim that the Form PRE 14C failed to disclose material
information about the selection and appointment of the members of
the Special Committee of the Board of Directors formed to consider
the proposed merger (the "Special Committee"), the criteria used
to select the Special Committee's financial advisor (Perella
Weinberg), certain aspects of the financial analysis performed by
Perella Weinberg, and the sale and negotiation process.  In their
consolidated second amended class action complaint, Plaintiffs
sought to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Merger (or if
the Merger is consummated prior to any final judgment to rescind
the Merger or receive rescissory damages), a declaration that
defendants have violated their fiduciary duties, and an order
directing defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain
a transaction that is in the best interests of the Company's
stockholders.  Plaintiffs further requested the costs of the
action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other
equitable relief as may be just and proper.

At the same time that the consolidated second amended class action
complaint was filed, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction
to enjoin the Merger and for expedition of the proceedings.  On
November 1, 2011, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs'
request for expedited proceedings, arguing that Plaintiffs'
disclosure claims were not colorable and did not provide a basis
for expedition.  On November 3, 2011, the Delaware Court of
Chancery denied Plaintiffs' motion for expedition of the
proceedings.  In light of the Court's
November 3, 2011 ruling, Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed
amended order of consolidation and appointment of co-lead counsel.
Pursuant to that proposed amended order, which defendants do not
oppose, defendants shall answer or otherwise move with respect to
the consolidated second amended class action complaint within 45
days of the closing of the Merger.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 15,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.


CARDIONET INC: Settles "West Palm Beach" Suit for $7.25 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated December 15, 2011, CardioNet, Inc. announced that
it has reached a preliminary agreement to settle the West Palm
Beach Police Pension Fund putative class action litigation filed
in California Superior Court, San Diego County, which asserted
claims against the Company for violations of Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company says the preliminary agreement must be documented and
is subject to certain conditions, including court approval of a
final settlement agreement.  The parties intend to file a
stipulation of settlement and joint motion for preliminary
approval promptly.  Under the terms of the preliminary agreement,
in consideration for the settlement and release of all defendants,
the amount of $7.25 million will be paid by or on behalf of the
defendants (of which management expects approximately $6 million
will be covered by insurance).

Joe Capper, President and Chief Executive Officer, stated in a
statement announcing the settlement: "We are pleased to have
reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter and view it
as a positive result for the Company.  The settlement, once
approved by the Superior Court, will eliminate uncertainties and
expenses associated with this litigation.  With the removal of
this unnecessary drain on resources, the Company is better
positioned to implement its previously announced strategic
initiatives."

CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation that provides continuous, real-time ambulatory
outpatient management solutions for monitoring relevant and timely
clinical information regarding an individual's health.  In
September 1999, the Company began its focus on helping physicians
more rapidly diagnose and more effectively manage therapy for
patients with cardiovascular disease.  The Company began
developing its product platform in April 2000.  The Company then
spent seven years developing a proprietary integrated patient
management platform that incorporates a wireless data transmission
network, internally developed software, Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) cleared algorithms and medical devices, and a
24-hour digital monitoring service center.  The Company is
currently focused on the diagnosis and monitoring of cardiac
arrhythmias, or heart rhythm disorders, through its core Mobile
Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry(TM), event and Holter services.


CKE RESTAURANTS: Continues to Face Employment Class Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc. is currently involved in legal disputes
related to employment claims, real estate claims and other
business disputes.  As of November 7, 2011, the Company's accrued
liability for litigation contingencies with a probable likelihood
of loss was $2,225,000 with an expected range of losses from
$2,225,000 to $10,400,000.  With respect to employment matters,
the Company's most significant legal disputes relate to employee
meal and rest break disputes, and wage and hour disputes.  Several
potential class action lawsuits have been filed in the State of
California, regarding such employment matters, each of which is
seeking injunctive relief and monetary compensation on behalf of
current and former employees.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in these lawsuits; however, the Company is presently unable
to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions.  As of November
7, 2011, the Company estimated the contingent liability of those
losses related to litigation claims that are not accrued, but that
the Company believes are reasonably possible to result in an
adverse outcome and for which a range of loss can be reasonably
estimated, to be in the range of $2,555,000 to $12,780,000,
according to the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended November 7, 2011.

In addition, the Company is involved in legal matters where the
likelihood of loss has been judged to be reasonably possible, but
for which a range of the potential loss cannot be reasonably
estimated.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Accrued $96.2-Mil. Liability as of Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc., had an accrued liability of $96.2
million as of October 31, 2011, in connection with the $165
million settlement of the lawsuits arising from the Company's
Special Committee investigation in 2006, according to the
Company's December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2011.

On March 14, 2006, CTI announced the creation of a Special
Committee of its Board of Directors (the "Special Committee")
composed of outside directors to review CTI's historic stock
option grant practices and related accounting matters, including,
but not limited to, the accuracy of the stated dates of option
grants and whether all proper corporate procedures were followed.
In November 2006, the Special Committee's investigation was
expanded to other financial and accounting matters, including the
recognition of revenue related to certain contracts, errors in the
recording of certain deferred tax accounts, the misclassification
of certain expenses, the misuse of accounting reserves and the
misstatement of backlog.  The Special Committee issued its report
on January 28, 2008.  Following the commencement of the Special
Committee's investigation, CTI, certain of its subsidiaries and
some of CTI's former directors and officers and a current director
were named as defendants in several class and derivative actions,
and CTI commenced direct actions against certain of its former
officers and directors.

           Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture

In July 2006, the U.S. Attorney filed a forfeiture action against
certain accounts of Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, CTI's former Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, that resulted in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District entering an order freezing
approximately $50.0 million of Mr. Alexander's assets.  In order
to ensure that CTI receives the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozen
accounts, in July 2007, CTI filed with the U.S. Attorney a
Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture requesting remission of
any funds forfeited by Mr. Alexander.  The United States District
Court entered an order on November 30, 2010, directing that the
assets in such accounts be liquidated and remitted to CTI.  The
process of liquidating such assets has been completed and the
proceeds from the assets in such accounts have been transferred to
a class action settlement fund in conjunction with the settlements
of the Direct Actions, the consolidated shareholder class action
and shareholder derivative actions.  The agreement to settle the
shareholder class action was approved by the court in which such
action was pending on June 23, 2010.  The agreement to settle the
federal and state derivative actions was approved by the courts in
which such actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and September 23,
2010, respectively.

                    Shareholder Class Action

Beginning on or about April 19, 2006, class action lawsuits were
filed by persons identifying themselves as CTI shareholders,
purportedly on behalf of a class of CTI's shareholders who
purchased its publicly traded securities.  Two actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, and three actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
August 28, 2006, the actions pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York were transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  A consolidated amended complaint under the caption In re
Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV- 1825, was filed
by the court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Menorah Group, on March 23,
2007.  The consolidated amended complaint was brought on behalf of
a purported class of CTI shareholders who purchased CTI's publicly
traded securities between April 30, 2001, and November 14, 2006.
The complaint named CTI and certain of its former officers and
directors as defendants and alleged, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in connection with prior statements made by CTI with respect to,
among other things, its accounting treatment of stock options.
The action sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties to this action entered into a settlement agreement on
December 16, 2009, which was amended on June 19, 2010, and
approved by the court in which such action was pending on
June 23, 2010.  The Company recorded a charge associated with the
settlement during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007.

                      Settlement Agreements

On December 16, 2009, and December 17, 2009, CTI entered into
agreements to settle the consolidated shareholder class action and
consolidated shareholder derivative actions, respectively.  The
agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action was
amended on June 19, 2010.  Pursuant to the amendment, CTI agreed
to waive certain rights to terminate the settlement in exchange
for a deferral of the timing of scheduled payments of the
settlement consideration and the right to a credit (the "Opt-out
Credit") in respect of a portion of the settlement funds that
would have been payable to a class member that elected not to
participate in and be bound by the settlement.  In connection with
such settlements, CTI dismissed its Direct Actions against Messrs.
Alexander, Kreinberg and Sorin, who, in turn, dismissed any
counterclaims they filed against CTI.

As part of the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class
action, as amended, CTI agreed to make payments to a class action
settlement fund in the aggregate amount of up to $165.0 million
that were paid as follows:

   * $1.0 million that was paid following the signing of the
     settlement agreement in December 2009;

   * $17.9 million that was paid in July 2010 (representing an
     agreed $21.5 million payment less a holdback of $3.6 million
     in respect of the then anticipated Opt-out Credit);

   * $30.0 million that was paid in May 2011;

   * $20.0 million that was paid in October 2011; and

   * $91.3 million (representing the remaining $92.5 million less
     the amount by which the Opt-out Credit exceeded the
     holdback) that was paid subsequent to October 31, 2011, of
     which $82.5 million was paid through the issuance of
     12,462,236 shares of CTI's common stock and the remainder
     paid in cash.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if CTI received net
cash proceeds from the sale of certain auction rate securities
("ARS") held by it in an aggregate amount in excess of $50.0
million, CTI was required to use $50.0 million of such proceeds to
prepay the settlement amounts and, if CTI received net cash
proceeds from the sale of such ARS in an aggregate amount in
excess of $100.0 million, CTI was required to use an additional
$50.0 million of such proceeds to prepay the settlement amounts.
In addition, CTI granted a security interest for the benefit of
the plaintiff class in the account in which CTI held its ARS
(other than the ARS that were held in an account with UBS) and the
proceeds from any sales thereof, restricting CTI's ability to use
the proceeds from sales of such ARS until the amounts payable
under the settlement agreement are paid in full.  As of
October 31, 2011, and January 31, 2011, the Company had $14.1
million and $33.4 million, respectively, of cash received from
sales and redemptions of ARS (including interest thereon) to which
these provisions of the settlement agreement applied which were
classified in "Restricted cash and bank time deposits" within the
condensed consolidated balance sheets.  Following the payment by
CTI of the remaining amounts payable under the settlement
agreement, the security interest for the benefit of the plaintiff
class in the Company's account terminated.

In addition, as part of the settlements of the Direct Actions, the
consolidated shareholder class action and shareholder derivative
actions, Mr. Alexander agreed to pay $60.0 million to CTI to be
deposited into the derivative settlement fund and then transferred
into the class action settlement fund.  All amounts payable by Mr.
Alexander have been paid.  Also, as part of the settlement of the
shareholder derivative actions, Mr. Alexander transferred to CTI
shares of Starhome B.V. representing 2.5% of its outstanding share
capital.

Pursuant to the amendment, Mr. Alexander agreed to waive certain
rights to terminate the settlement and received the right to a
credit in respect of a portion of the settlement funds that would
have been payable to a class member that elected not to
participate in and be bound by the settlement.  CTI's settlement
of claims against it in the class action was not contingent upon
Mr. Alexander satisfying his payment obligations.  Certain other
defendants in the Direct Actions and the shareholder derivative
actions have paid to CTI an aggregate of $1.4 million and certain
former directors relinquished certain outstanding unexercised
stock options.  As part of the settlement of the shareholder
derivative actions, CTI paid, in October 2010, $9.4 million to
cover the legal fees and expenses of the plaintiffs.  In September
2010, CTI received insurance proceeds of $16.5 million under its
directors' and officers' insurance policies in connection with the
settlements of the shareholder derivative actions and the
consolidated shareholder class action.

Under the terms of the settlements, Mr. Alexander and his wife
relinquished their claims to the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozen
accounts that were subject to the forfeiture action, and the
United States District Court entered an order on November 30,
2010, directing that the assets in such accounts be liquidated and
remitted to CTI.  The process of liquidating such assets has been
completed and the proceeds from the assets in such accounts have
been transferred to the class action settlement fund.

The agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action,
as amended, was approved by the court in which such action was
pending on June 23, 2010.  The agreement to settle the federal and
state derivative actions was approved by the courts in which such
actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and
September 23, 2010, respectively.

As of October 31, 2011, and January 31, 2011, the Company says it
had accrued liabilities for this matter of $96.2 million and
$146.1 million, respectively.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Israeli Optionholder Class Actions Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits commenced in Israel remain stayed until
actions pending in the United States of America regarding stock
option accounting are resolved, according to Comverse Technology,
Inc.'s December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2011.

CTI and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in
four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel
involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of
purported negligence or breach of contract that allegedly
prevented certain current or former employees from exercising
certain stock options.  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases. To date, the stay has not yet been lifted.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively.
The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on
March 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation
(Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  The Katriel case has been consolidated with the
Katriel case filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number
1334/09) and is subject to the stay.  At the preliminary hearing
in the Tel Aviv District Court in October 2011, the Deutsch case
was also made subject to the stay.

The Company did not accrue for these matters as the potential loss
is currently not probable or estimable.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Settles "Maverick" Class Suit for $9.5-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc. settled for $9.5 million the shareholder
class action lawsuit commenced by Maverick Fund, L.D.C., according
to the Company's December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October
31, 2011.

On September 28, 2010, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the
caption Maverick Fund, L.D.C., et al. v. Comverse Technology,
Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-4436.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were
CTI shareholders who purchased CTI's publicly traded securities in
2005, 2006 and 2007.  The plaintiffs, Maverick Fund, L.D.C. and
certain affiliated investment funds, opted not to participate in
the settlement of a consolidated shareholder class action against
the Company.  The complaint named CTI, its former Chief Executive
Officer and certain of its former officers and directors as
defendants and alleged, among other things, violations of Sections
10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with
prior statements made by CTI with respect to, among other things,
its accounting treatment of stock options, other accounting
practices at CTI and the timeline for CTI to become current in its
periodic reporting obligations.  The action sought compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint in December 2010, and a hearing on the
motion was conducted on March 4, 2011.  On July 12, 2011, the
Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims related to their purchase
of CTI's securities in 2007 and the claims against Andre Dahan,
CTI's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Avi
Aronovitz, CTI's former Interim Chief Financial Officer, and
otherwise denied CTI's motion to dismiss.

In December 2011, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle,
pursuant to which CTI would be required to pay the plaintiffs
approximately $9.5 million.  The Company recorded an additional
liability of $4.9 million in connection with this matter as of
October 31, 2011, representing the amount by which the anticipated
settlement amount exceeds the Opt-out Credit and certain other
credits under the settlement agreement of the consolidated
shareholder class action.


COPART INC: Still Defends "Brizuela" Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 12, 2011, Jose E. Brizuela filed a lawsuit against
Copart, Inc. in Superior Court, San Bernardino County, San
Bernardino District, which purports to be class action on behalf
of persons employed by Copart paid on a hourly basis in California
at any time since the date four years prior to February 14, 2011.
The complaint alleges failure to pay all earned wages due to an
alleged practice of rounding of hours worked to the detriment of
the employees.  Relief sought includes class certification,
injunctive relief, unpaid wages, waiting time penalty-wages,
interest, and attorney's fees and costs of lawsuit.  The Company
believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 12,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

The Company says it provides for costs relating to the matter when
a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.
The effect of the outcome of the matter on the Company's future
results of operations cannot be predicted because any such effect
depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing
of the resolution of such matter.  The Company believes that any
ultimate liability will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.  However, the amount of the liabilities associated with
these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty.  Copart
maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for
claims made against the Company.  There is no assurance that there
will be insurance coverage available when and if needed.
Additionally, the insurance that Copart carries requires that the
Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of
the insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased.


COPART INC: Still Defends "Ortiz-Torres" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed a
lawsuit against Copart, Inc. in Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class
action on behalf of persons employed by the Company in the
positions of facilities managers and assistant general managers in
California at any time since the date four years prior to
September 21, 2010.  The complaint alleges failure to pay wages
and overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest
breaks, in violation of various California Labor and Business and
Professional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification of
facilities managers and assistant general managers as exempt
employees.  Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive
relief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney's fees
and costs, interest, and punitive damages.  The Company believes
the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 12,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

The Company says it provides for costs relating to the matter when
a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.
The effect of the outcome of the matter on the Company's future
results of operations cannot be predicted because any such effect
depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing
of the resolution of such matter.  The Company believes that any
ultimate liability will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.  However, the amount of the liabilities associated with
these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty.  Copart
maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for
claims made against the Company.  There is no assurance that there
will be insurance coverage available when and if needed.
Additionally, the insurance that Copart carries requires that the
Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of
the insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased.


COVIDIEN PLC: Defends Suits vs. Unit Over Contrast Agent Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company is defending lawsuits involving
its subsidiary, which manufactures gadolinium-based contrast
agents, according to the Company's November 23, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

Mallinckrodt Inc., one of the Company's subsidiaries, is one of
four manufacturers of gadolinium-based contrast agents involved in
litigation alleging that administration of these agents causes
development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, in a small number of
patients with advanced renal impairment.  The litigation includes
a federal multi-district litigation in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio and cases in various state
courts.

Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing defects,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud and violations of
various state consumer protection laws.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
complaints and is vigorously defending against them.  When
appropriate, the Company says it settles cases.  As of
September 30, 2011, there were 28 pending cases in which the
plaintiff has either documented or specifically alleged use of the
Company's Optimark(TM) product.  The Company says it no longer
considers these legal proceedings to be material.

Covidien Public Limited Company develops, manufactures and sells
healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings.  It
manages and operates its business through the following three
segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals, and Medical Supplies.
The Company is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


COVIDIEN PLC: Records 137 Pending Cases Over Pelvic Mesh Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company disclosed in its November 23,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011, that
there are 137 pending cases that it believes involve products
manufactured by its subsidiaries.

The Company is currently involved in litigation in various state
and federal courts against manufacturers of transvaginal pelvic
mesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from the
implantation of those products.  Two of the Company's subsidiaries
have supplied pelvic mesh product to one of the manufacturers
named in the litigation and the Company is indemnifying that
manufacturer on certain claims.  The litigation includes a federal
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state
courts.

Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
claims and is vigorously defending against them.  As of
September 30, 2011, there were approximately 137 cases pending
believed to involve products manufactured by the Company's
subsidiaries.  During fiscal 2011, the Company recorded a charge
of $46 million for all known pending cases and estimated future
claims, net of anticipated insurance recoveries.  The Company
believes that it has adequate amounts recorded relating to these
matters based on current information.  While the Company believes
that the final disposition of all known claims, after taking into
account amounts already accrued and insurance coverage, will not
have a material adverse effect on its results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows, it is not possible at this time
to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these matters
or the effect of potential future claims.

Covidien Public Limited Company develops, manufactures and sells
healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings.  It
manages and operates its business through the following three
segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals, and Medical Supplies.
The Company is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


DEL MONTE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Littlefield" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a putative class action complaint filed by Lydia
Littlefield, according to the Company's December 12, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 30, 2011.

On December 17, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company by Lydia Littlefield, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleging intentional misrepresentation,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust
enrichment.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
engaged in false and misleading representation of certain of the
Company's canned fruit products in representing that these
products are safe and healthy, when they allegedly contain
substances that are not safe and healthy.  The plaintiffs seek
certification of the class, injunctive relief, damages in an
unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.  The Company intends to
deny these allegations and vigorously defend itself.

On April 19, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order consolidating Littlefield with several
similar consumer class actions filed in other jurisdictions (in
which the Company is not a defendant) in U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  On July 29, 2011, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.  A hearing on
this motion was held November 18, 2011.

The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate a
range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.


DEL MONTE: Court Approves $89.4-Mil. Merger-Related Suits Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware court entered an order and final judgment approving Del
Monte Corporation's $89.4 million settlement of merger-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 30, 2011.

On March 8, 2011, Del Monte Foods Company ("DMFC") was acquired by
an investor group led by funds affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co. L.P. ("KKR"), Vestar Capital Partners ("Vestar") and
Centerview Capital, L.P. ("Centerview," and together with KKR and
Vestar, the "Sponsors").  Under the terms of the merger agreement,
DMFC's stockholders received $19.00 per share in cash.  The
acquisition (also referred to as the "Merger") was effected by the
merger of Blue Merger Sub Inc. ("Blue Sub") with and into DMFC,
with DMFC being the surviving corporation.  As a result of the
Merger, DMFC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blue Acquisition
Group, Inc. ("Parent").  DMFC stockholders approved the
transaction on March 7, 2011.  DMFC's common stock ceased trading
on the New York Stock Exchange before the opening of the market on
March 9, 2011.

Del Monte Corporation ("DMC" or the "Company") was a direct,
wholly-owned subsidiary of DMFC.  On April 26, 2011, DMFC merged
with and into DMC, with DMC being the surviving corporation.  As a
result of this merger, DMC became a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of Parent.

Following the announcement of the Merger, fifteen putative class
action lawsuits (the "Shareholder Cases") relating to the
Transactions were filed against DMFC, certain of its now-former
officers and directors, and other parties including (in certain
cases) Blue Sub.

Two previously disclosed cases, which were among the original
fifteen Shareholder Cases arising from the Transactions, were
voluntarily dismissed on June 6, 2011:

   * Heintz v. Wolford, et al.  The Heintz case was filed by
     Sarah P. Heintz on behalf of herself and a putative class of
     shareholders against each of the now-former directors of
     DMFC (together, the "Directors"), DMFC, Parent and Blue Sub
     on December 20, 2010, in the United States District Court,
     Northern District of California; and

   * Faulkner v. Wolford, et al.  The Faulkner case was filed by
     Dallas Faulkner on behalf of himself and a putative class of
     shareholders against the Directors, DMFC, Parent and Blue
     Sub on January 21, 2011, in the United States District
     Court, Northern District of California.

In addition, plaintiffs in two other previously disclosed cases,
which were also among the original fifteen Shareholder Cases
arising from the Transactions, filed requests for dismissal on
March 4, 2011, and June 13, 2011, respectively:

   * Sinor v. Wolford, et al.  The Sinor case was filed by James
     Sinor on behalf of himself and a putative class of
     shareholders against DMFC, the Directors, KKR, Vestar,
     Centerview (named as Centerview Partners; together with KKR
     and Vestar, the "Sponsor Defendants"), Parent and Blue Sub
     on December 1, 2010, in Superior Court in San Francisco,
     California; and

   * Kaiman v. Del Monte Foods Co., et al.  The Kaiman case was
     filed by Libby Kaiman on behalf of herself and a putative
     class of shareholders against DMFC, the Directors, the
     Sponsor Defendants, Parent and Blue Sub on December 1, 2010,
     in Superior Court in San Francisco, California.

As a result of the voluntary dismissals and orders consolidating
other shareholder cases, only two of the original fifteen
Shareholder Cases arising from the Transactions remained pending
as of October 30, 2011:

   * In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholders Litigation (the
     "Delaware Shareholder Case").  The Delaware Shareholder Case
     was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and consolidated
     with other related cases filed in the same court.  The
     latest complaint filed in the case asserted claims on behalf
     of lead Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Pension Fund and a putative
     class of shareholders against the Directors, DMFC's former
     Chief Executive Officer in his capacity as such, Barclays
     Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"), the Sponsor Defendants, Parent,
     Blue Sub and DMC, which was joined as a defendant in the
     litigation as successor in interest to DMFC (together, the
     "Defendants"); and

   * Franklin v. Del Monte Foods Co., et al.  The Franklin case
     was filed by Elisa J. Franklin on behalf of herself and a
     putative class of shareholders against the Directors, DMFC
     and the Sponsor Defendants on December 10, 2010, in Superior
     Court in San Francisco, California.  On February 28, 2011,
     the Court in the Franklin case granted the motion of DMFC
     and the Directors to stay the proceeding pending resolution
     of the Delaware Shareholder Case.

The plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder Case alleged that the
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders by
agreeing to sell DMFC at a price that was unfair and inadequate
and by agreeing to certain preclusive deal protection devices in
the Merger Agreement.  The plaintiff further alleged that the
Sponsor Defendants, Parent, Blue Sub and Barclays aided and
abetted the Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  In
addition, the plaintiff asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against the former Chief Executive Officer of DMFC in his
capacity as an officer.  The plaintiff also alleged that the
Sponsor Defendants violated certain Confidentiality Agreements
with DMFC, and that Barclays induced the Sponsor Defendants to
violate the Confidentiality Agreements, committing tortious
interference with contract.  The plaintiff in the Franklin case
asserted similar claims against the Directors, alleging that they
breached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by, among
other acts, agreeing to sell DMFC at an inadequate price, running
an ineffective sale process that relied on conflicted financial
advisors, agreeing to preclusive deal protection measures, and
pursuing the transaction for their own financial ends.  The
plaintiff in the Franklin case also asserted claims against the
Sponsor Defendants and DMFC for aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

Each of the complaints sought injunctive relief, rescission of the
Merger Agreement, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees.

On February 14, 2011, following expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction hearing in the Delaware Shareholder Case,
the Court of Chancery entered an order preliminarily enjoining the
shareholder vote on the Merger, which was scheduled to occur at a
special meeting on February 15, 2011, for a period of 20 days.  In
addition, the Court of Chancery enjoined the parties, pending the
vote on the Merger, from enforcing various provisions in the
Merger Agreement, including the no-solicitation and match right
provisions in Sections 6.5(b), 6.5(c), and 6.5(h), and the
termination fee provisions relating to topping bids and changes in
the board of directors' recommendations on the Merger in Section
8.5(b).  The Court's order was conditioned upon the lead
plaintiff's posting a bond in the amount of $1.2 million, which
was posted on February 15, 2011.

The scheduled special meeting was convened on February 15, 2011.
At such meeting, a quorum was determined to be present and, in
accordance with the Court's ruling, the meeting was adjourned
until March 7, 2011, without a vote on the Merger proposal.  The
special meeting was reconvened on March 7, 2011.  At such meeting,
a quorum was determined to be present and the Merger was approved.
The Merger closed on March 8, 2011.

Following the closing of the Merger, on March 25, 2011, the
plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder Case filed an application
for an interim attorneys' fee award in the amount of $12 million.
On June 27, 2011, the Court of Chancery awarded the plaintiff's
attorneys an interim fee award in the amount of $2.75 million for
the supplemental disclosures that DMFC made in connection with the
Merger.  The Court of Chancery deferred decision regarding the
balance of the fee application, which sought fees in connection
with the preliminary injunction and suspension of deal
protections.

On July 27, 2011, the Court of Chancery issued an order adding the
Company as a defendant to the Delaware Shareholder Case and
ordering the Company to pay the $2.75 million interim attorney fee
award. The Company paid the $2.75 million interim fee award in
August 2011.

On October 6, 2011, the lead plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder
Case and the Defendants submitted a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise and Settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Proposed Settlement").

On December 1, 2011, after settlement class members were given
notice of the Proposed Settlement and an opportunity to file
written objections, the Court of Chancery conducted a fairness
hearing on the Proposed Settlement and entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the Proposed Settlement (as approved, the
"Settlement").  In approving the Settlement, the Court of Chancery
certified a mandatory, non-opt-out settlement class of certain
former shareholders of DMFC, and granted the Defendants a release
which extinguished all claims of the settlement class arising out
of or relating to the Merger, including claims asserted in the
Franklin case and all other Shareholder Cases, in exchange for a
total payment of $89.4 million (inclusive of $22.3 million of fees
and expenses awarded to plaintiffs' counsel by the Court of
Chancery and of costs of notifying the settlement class and
administering claims).  In connection with the Settlement, the
Company agreed to pay $65.7 million into an escrow account to fund
the Settlement, consisting of (1) the financial contribution to
the Settlement and (2) the payment of previously unpaid Merger-
related fees being contributed to the Settlement. On December 7,
2011, the Company paid $65.5 million into the escrow account ($0.2
million having previously been paid).  As of October 30, 2011, the
Company had accrued in accounts payable and accrued expenses this
$65.5 million.  The Company says it entered into the Settlement to
eliminate the uncertainties, burden, and expense of further
litigation.  In the Settlement, the Company, together with the
other Defendants, denied all allegations of wrongdoing, and the
Court of Chancery's Order and Final Judgment approving the
Settlement provides that it does not constitute an admission of
wrongdoing by any Defendant.

The Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement remains
subject to appeal.  The parties have the right to terminate the
Settlement if the judgment is modified or reversed in any material
respect on appeal.  There can be no guarantee that the Settlement
will not be modified or reversed upon appeal.

In the event of a successful appeal of the court's order approving
the Settlement, the actual costs of resolving the Shareholder
Cases may be substantially higher or lower than the amount the
Company has paid to date.  In such case, the amount that the
Company may ultimately be responsible for in connection with the
Shareholder Cases may vary based on a number of factors,
including, final settlement or award amounts, the allocation of
such amounts among the various parties to the litigation,
insurance coverage and resolution with its carriers,
indemnification obligations, the discovery of new or additional
facts that impact the strength or weakness of the parties' claims
and defenses and other factors.  The Company cannot at this time
reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential
liability in such case.

The Company disclosed that it has $50 million of director and
officer insurance coverage for the Company and the former
directors and officers of DMFC.  The insurers have reserved their
rights with respect to coverage and have not agreed at this point
that coverage is available for losses the Company has sustained as
a result of the Shareholder Cases or the settlement in the
Delaware Shareholder Case.  Notwithstanding the Settlement, the
Company continues to have certain indemnification obligations
relating to the Merger, including the obligation to pay certain
outstanding legal fees and expenses, subject to limitations under
applicable law or contract.


DEL MONTE: Still Defends FLSA-Violations Class Suit in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2010, a putative class action complaint was
served against Del Monte Corporation, to be filed in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, alleging wage and hour violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The complaint was served on behalf
of five named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated at a
manufacturing facility in Minnesota.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company violated the FLSA and state wage and hour
laws by failing to compensate plaintiffs and other similarly
situated workers unpaid overtime.  The plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory and statutory damages.  Additionally, the plaintiffs
sought class certification.  On November 5, 2010, in connection
with the Company's removal of this case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, the complaint was filed along with
the Company's answer.  The Company also filed a motion for partial
dismissal on November 5, 2010.  The parties jointly stipulated
that the causes of action in plaintiff's complaint for unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit would be dismissed without prejudice
and further stipulated that the cause of action under the
Minnesota minimum wage law would be dismissed without prejudice.
The court signed an order dismissing those claims on December 28,
2010.  The Company and the plaintiffs jointly stipulated to a
conditional certification of the class on
April 28, 2011.  The plaintiffs sent out notices to the potential
class on April 28, 2011.  The notice period is now closed, and 53
plaintiffs have opted in to the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 12,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2011.

As of October 30, 2011, the Company says it has accrued an amount
equal to the current estimate of its exposure in this matter.
Given the inherent uncertainty associated with legal matters, the
actual cost of resolving this putative class action may be
substantially higher or lower than the estimated accrual.


DISCOVER CARD: Faces TCPA-Violations Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services is facing a class action lawsuit in
California alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to Discover Card Execution Note Trust's December
15, 2011, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the monthly distribution period
November 1, 2011 to November 30, 2011.

On November 30, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Discover Financial Services by a Discover Bank cardmember in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Walter Bradley et al. v. Discover Financial Services).  The
plaintiff alleges that Discover contacted him, and members of the
class he seeks to represent, on their cellular telephones without
their express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for
alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief.  The TCPA provides for
statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful
violations).

Discover Bank says it is not in a position at this time to assess
the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this
matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted by the plaintiff.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Settle Class Action for $79 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
John McCrank, writing for Reuters, reports that E*Trade Financial
and its insurers have agreed in principle to pay $79 million to
settle class action lawsuits brought against the online brokerage
as a result of losses in its mortgage and home equity loans
portfolio in 2007.

E*Trade was sued by investors who alleged the company violated
securities law and breached its fiduciary duty to shareholders in
relation to the massive losses it suffered following the collapse
of the subprime mortgage market.

The company said the losses incurred were caused by a "worldwide
economic catastrophe" and that the corporation did not break the
law. It stuck by its position on Dec. 21.

"We continue to believe the claims are without merit," a company
spokesman said in a statement.

"We are committed to moving forward and executing management's
business strategy, a part of which is to continue to remove the
burdens placed on the company during the financial crisis.  We
look forward to putting this matter behind us."

E*Trade's portion of the settlement payment is around $10.75
million and will be reflected as an expense in the current
quarter.

The agreement in principle requires court approval to become
final.  A definitive agreement is expected in the first quarter of
2012.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has ushered forward a class action alleging that Facebook
co-opts users as unpaid spokesmen for paid advertising and
illegally profits when users sponsor products through "likes."
The complaint alleges that Facebook violates California and
federal laws with its "Sponsored Stories" feature, which uses the
names, photos and other profile information of its members in
sponsored advertisements.  The stories are triggered when members
"like" a product or service, and the plaintiffs believe they are
entitled to compensation under California law.

While Facebook's own policies state that users can limit how their
names and personal information are used by Facebook, users aren't
allowed to completely opt out of the social network's commercial
and sponsor-related content.

Pointing to its user terms of service as grounds for dismissal,
Facebook claimed that it is immune from action as an "interactive
computer service" and merely a conduit through which users pass
their own information to friends.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh disagreed, however, citing a
statement from Facebook's own chief operating officer.

"Marketers have always known that the best recommendation comes
from a friend," COO Sheryl Sandberg said, according to the court.
"Making your customers your marketers" is "the illusive goal we've
been searching for."

This evidence supports the plaintiffs' claim that "they have a
right to be paid for their endorsements and can establish how much
these endorsements are worth," Judge Koh wrote.

"Members are unable to opt out of the Sponsored Stories service,
which was introduced after plaintiffs became Facebook members, and
instructions on how to disable an individual post from appearing
on friends' news feeds or as a sponsored story are only available
on a buried Help Center page," the 38-page decision states.

"The court finds plaintiffs have adequately alleged unfair,
unlawful, and fraudulent conduct" under California's Unfair
Competition law, Judge Koh concluded.

Judge Koh dismissed unjust-enrichment claims against Facebook with
prejudice, alluding to recent decision from the state appeals
court that unjust enrichment is a restitution claim, and not a
cause of action in itself.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Fraley, et al. v. Facebook Inc.,
Case No. 11-cv-01726 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/Ta270S

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan Davis, Esq.
          Steven Weinmann, Esq.
          ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
                  jed@arnslaw.com
                  srw@arnslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Jaffe, Esq.
          JONATHAN JAFFE LAW
          Telephone: (510) 725-4293
          E-mail: info@jaffe-law.com


FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, WI: Faces Class Action Over DUI Towing Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
a sixth Metro-East city faces a class action lawsuit allegations
it overcharged for towing fees after arresting drivers accused of
driving under the influence.

Koren Earlin, who had been accused of driving under the influence,
claims that Fairview Heights charged him hundreds of dollars in
fees to retrieve his towed vehicles.  Mr. Earlin claims, however,
if a car is towed under any other circumstances, the city charges
"a fraction of that amount," according to the complaint filed
Dec. 6 in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

On the same day in Madison and St. Clair County, five other
plaintiffs filed nearly identical lawsuits against the cities of
Edwardsville, Collinsville, Granite City, Alton and O'Fallon.

In his complaint, Mr. Earlin says he was cited and arrested on
Jan. 18.  His car was also towed, and Mr. Earlin was also required
to pay a $500 level one administrative fee to Fairview Heights
before he could retrieve his vehicle, according to the complaint.

Mr. Earlin is seeking a refund for the administrative fee he was
forced to pay, plus costs and other relief the court deems just.

Eric D. Holland and Steven L. Groves of Holland, Groves, Schneller
and Stolze in St. Louis and Brian L. Polinske of Polinske and
Associates in Edwardsville will be representing them.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers: 11-L-665, 11-L-666.


FIRST PACTRUST: Beach Signs MOU to Settle Acquisition Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beach Business Bank, which First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc. proposed
to acquire, entered into a memorandum of understanding to resolve
class action lawsuits arising from the acquisition, according to
the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 13, 2011, Beach Business Bank, a California state-
chartered bank ("Beach"), entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and certain named
defendants regarding the settlement of two putative class action
lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County (the "Court"), as well as the settlement of all related
claims that were or could have been asserted in other actions, in
response to the announcement of the execution of an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of August 30, 2011, as amended on October
31, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and between First PacTrust
Bancorp, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("First PacTrust"), and
Beach.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Beach will merge with a
wholly owned subsidiary of First PacTrust (the "Merger").

A purported shareholder of Beach filed a class action lawsuit in
the Court, captioned Robert K. Stevens v.  James H. Gray, et al.,
Case No.  BC470648 (Cal. Sup. Ct.).  On October 27, 2011, another
purported shareholder of Beach filed a class action lawsuit in the
Court captioned Ronald Durand v.  Robert M. Franko, et al., Case
No.  BC472411 (Cal. Sup. Ct.).  Each Complaint names as defendants
Beach, the current members of Beach's board of directors (the
"Director Defendants") and First PacTrust.  On November 21, 2011,
these two lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit (the
"Consolidated Lawsuit").  On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs
agreed to dismiss First PacTrust as a defendant.

Under the terms of the MOU, Beach, the Director Defendants and the
plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Consolidated Lawsuit and
release the defendants and their related parties (including First
PacTrust) from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to
approval by the Court.  If the Court approves the settlement
contemplated by the MOU, the Consolidated Lawsuit will be
dismissed with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Beach
has agreed to make available additional information to Beach's
shareholders.  In addition, Beach has agreed not to oppose a
request by plaintiffs' counsel for fees, costs and expenses not to
exceed $150,000.  First PacTrust will not be responsible for the
payment of any such fees, costs and expenses.  In return, the
plaintiffs have agreed to dismissal of the lawsuits with prejudice
and to withdraw all motions filed in connection with such
lawsuits.  If the MOU is finally approved by the Court, it is
anticipated that the MOU will resolve and release all claims in
all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosures
made in connection therewith.  There can be no assurance that
Beach, the Director Defendants and the plaintiffs will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will
approve the settlement, even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
Beach's shareholders in connection with the Merger or the timing
of the special meeting of Beach's shareholders, which is scheduled
for December 22, 2011, in Hawthorne, California, to consider and
vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement, among other
things.

First PacTrust, Beach and the Director Defendants deny each of the
allegations in the Consolidated Lawsuit and believe the prior
disclosures in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are adequate under
applicable law.  Beach and the Director Defendants have informed
First PacTrust that they maintain that they have complied with
their fiduciary duty and other applicable legal duties in all
respects in connection with the Merger and any disclosure
obligations in connection therewith.  Beach and the Director
Defendants have agreed to settle the Consolidated Lawsuit in order
to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the
completion of the Merger.  Nothing in this Current Report or any
stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein or therein.


GOV'T OF THAILAND: Climate Activists File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
MCOT reports that Thai climate change activists from the Stop
Global Warming Association on Dec. 21 led 300 flood victims in
suing Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and 10 government
agencies for their inadequate response and mismanagement in the
recent flood crisis.

Environmentalist Srisuwan Janya, who heads the anti-global warming
group, was first plaintiff representing 352 flood victims -- joint
plaintiffs -- in filing suit at Thailand's Administrative Court,
demanding that the defendants financially compensate those
affected by the flood for the actual cost of damages.

Stop Global Warming also demanded the government to ready a Bt2
billion budget annually for a flood victims' rehabilitation fund.
The fund would be increased by 5% annually or in accord with
inflation.

The 11 defendants were the prime minister, the Flood Relief
Operations Centre (FROC) chief, the agriculture and cooperatives
minister, the interior minister, the director-general of the Royal
Irrigation Department, the director-general of the Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation Department, the director-general of the
Water Resources Department, the director-general of the Pollution
Control Department, the director of the National Disaster Warning
Centre, the director-general of the Department of Public Works and
Town & Country Planning and the governor of Bangkok.

The petition was filed with environment section of the Central
Administrative Court.

Mr. Srisuwan said the group was only the first batch of the flood
victims demanding the government to accept responsibility and he
believed similar lawsuits would follow.

He said the complaint was filed on grounds of negligence, delayed
delivery of services and committing acts damaging to the public.

This was the first 'class action' case involving hundreds of
people taking legal action against relevant authorities and
officials, including the prime minister, over the flood crisis.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Settlement Order Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is involved in several lawsuits claiming
breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment,
deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the
plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a
"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge
unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.  The
plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

The lawsuits in the Inkjet Printer Litigation are:

   -- A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer
      Litigation is pending in the United States District Court
      for the Northern District of California where the
      plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution,
      damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief,
      interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On January 4, 2008,
      the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification
      and to add a class representative and HP's motion for
      summary judgment.  On July 25, 2008, the court denied all
      three motions.  On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
      renewed motion for class certification.  A hearing on the
      plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for
      April 9, 2010, was postponed;

   -- A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17,
      2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern
      District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking
      class certification, restitution, damages (including
      enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
      attorneys' fees.  A class certification hearing was
      scheduled for May 21, 2010, but was taken off the calendar;

   -- A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on
      May 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the
      Northern District of California.  The lawsuit alleges that
      HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use
      color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and
      white images and text.  The plaintiffs are seeking to
      certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only
      damages class.  A class certification hearing was scheduled
      for May 7, 2010, but was taken off the calendar; and

   -- Two class actions against HP and its subsidiary,
      Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., are pending in Canada, one
      commenced in British Columbia in February 2006 and one
      commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are
      seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory
      relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory,
      compensatory and punitive damages.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an
agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed
classes, which agreement is subject to approval of the court
before it becomes final.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's Web site.  As part of the proposed
settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members with
additional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionality
and to change the content of certain software and user guide
messaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printer
cartridges.  In addition, class counsel and the class
representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and
stipends.  On March 29, 2011, the court granted final approval of
the settlement.  On April 27, 2011, certain class members who
objected to the settlement filed an appeal of the court's order
granting final approval of the settlement.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 14,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended October 31, 2011.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: March Hearing on Bid to Cert. "Skold" Class Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' motion seeking to certify a nationwide
class in the class action lawsuit captioned Skold, et al. v. Intel
Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is currently scheduled for
March 2, 2012, according to the Company's
December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31, 2011.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is
a lawsuit in which HP was joined on June 14, 2004, that is pending
in state court in Santa Clara County, California.  The lawsuit
alleges that Intel Corporation ("Intel") misled the public by
suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems
that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and
slower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor and
processors made by a competitor of Intel.  The lawsuit alleges
that HP aided and abetted Intel's allegedly unlawful conduct.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and certification of a nationwide class.  On February
27, 2009, the court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
nationwide class certification for a third time.  On August 31,
2011, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's
denial of class certification and remanded the case back to the
trial court for further proceedings.

On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify
a nationwide class asserting claims under the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.  A
hearing on plaintiffs' motion is currently scheduled for March 2,
2012.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Denies Class Certification in "Fenn" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho denied
plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification in the
lawsuit captioned Fenn, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company,
according to Hewlett-Packard Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended October 31, 2011.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on
allegations that various employees of HP's subsidiary, Electronic
Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or in
violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws.  Those
matters include these:

   -- Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed
      on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
      Southern District of New York claiming that current and
      former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing
      and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
      misclassified as exempt employees.  Another purported
      collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007,
      is also now pending in the same court alleging similar
      facts.  The Steavens case has been consolidated for
      pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case.  On
      December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional
      certification of a class consisting of employees in 20
      legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham and
      Steavens matter. Plaintiffs also allege various state law
      class claims for misclassification, but plaintiffs have not
      yet sought class certification for those;

   -- Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation
      is a class action filed in November 2006 in California
      Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information
      technology workers in California were misclassified as
      exempt employees.  The case was subsequently transferred to
      the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
      California, which, on January 7, 2008, certified a class of
      information technology workers in California.  On June 6,
      2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary
      judgment.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with
      the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  A hearing
      on the appeal was held in August 2011, and the decision is
      pending.  Two other purported class actions originally
      filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v.
      Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on
      March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009,
      allege similar facts.  The Karlbom case is pending in San
      Diego County Superior Court but has been temporarily stayed
      based on the pending Steavens consolidated matter.  The
      George case was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
      Southern District of New York and had been consolidated for
      pretrial purposes with the Cunningham and Steavens cases.
      On September 9, 2011, the court granted a request by the
      plaintiffs' counsel in the George matter to amend the
      plaintiffs' complaint and sever the case from the Steavens
      consolidated matter.  The plaintiff thereafter filed his
      first amended complaint on October 21, 2011.  On
      November 23, 2011, the court transferred the George matter
      back to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
      California; and

   -- Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
      collective action filed on February 17, 2011, in the U.S.
      District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming
      that a class of information technology and help desk
      support personnel were misclassified as exempt employees.
      No substantive rulings have been made in the case.

In addition, on May 24, 2011, a purported collective action
captioned Fenn, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho.  The
lawsuit alleges that customer service representatives working in
HP's U.S. call centers are not paid for time spent on start-up and
shut-down tasks (such as booting up and shutting down their
computers) in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  On
December 12, 2011, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is facing a securities class action
lawsuit in California commenced by Richard Gammel, according to
the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31,
2011.

Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., is a putative
securities class action filed on September 13, 2011, in the United
States Court for the Central District of California alleging,
among other things, that from November 22, 2010, to August 18,
2011, the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing material information
and making false statements about HP's business model and the
future of webOS, the TouchPad and HP's PC business.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit Alleging Design Defect in Printers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is facing a consumer class action lawsuit
in California alleging its printers have a design defect,
according to the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 31, 2011.

Goldblatt v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP on
December 1, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that HP printers have a
design defect in the software installed on the printers which
could allow hackers and unauthorized users to gain access to the
printers, steal personal and confidential information from
consumers and otherwise control and cause physical damage to the
printers.  The plaintiff also alleges that HP was aware of this
security vulnerability and failed to disclose it to consumers.
The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of
purchasers of all HP printers and seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and costs.


INTL FCSTONE: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Unit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
pending in Missouri involving its subsidiary, according to the
Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2011.

FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone"), a subsidiary of INTL FCStone
Inc., and certain officers of FCStone were named as defendants in
an action filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.  A consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC") was subsequently filed on September 25,
2009.  As alleged in the CAC, the action purports to be brought as
a class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock
between November 15, 2007, and February 24, 2009.  The CAC seeks
to hold defendants liable under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and concerns disclosures
included in FCStone's fiscal year 2008 public filings.
Specifically, the CAC relates to FCStone's public disclosures
regarding an interest rate hedge, a bad debt expense arising from
unprecedented events in the cotton trading market, and certain
disclosures beginning on November 3, 2008, related to losses it
expected to incur arising primarily from a customer energy trading
account.  FCStone and the named officers moved to dismiss the
action.  Although the Court denied that motion on
November 16, 2010, it limited the action to the public disclosures
made on November 3, 2008, and November 4, 2008, related to the
energy trading account.  As a result of the Court's order and lead
plaintiffs' decision not to amend their complaint, the lead
plaintiffs lost standing to prosecute the action because they were
not shareholders at the relevant time.  Counsel for lead
plaintiffs have since added named plaintiffs who purport to
possess standing.  Motion practice with respect to class
certification is currently pending before the Court pursuant to
which plaintiffs seek to certify a class on behalf of purchasers
of FCStone stock between April 14, 2008, and
February 24, 2009.  The Company and the FCStone defendants
continue to believe the action is meritless, and intend to defend
the action vigorously.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities; debt
origination and asset management.  During the quarter ended March
31, 2011, the Company changed its name from International Assets
Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc., following approval of
the name change by the Company's stockholders.  INTL's businesses,
which include the commodities advisory and transaction execution
firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve more than 10,000 commercial
customers in more than 100 countries through a network of offices
in 12 countries around the world.


INTL FCSTONE: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed against
FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone"), a subsidiary of INTL FCStone
Inc., and certain directors of FCStone in the Circuit Court of
Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.  An amended
complaint was subsequently filed in May 2009 to add claims based
upon the losses sustained by FCStone arising out of a customer's
energy trading account.  On July 7, 2009, the same plaintiff filed
a motion for leave to amend the existing case to add a purported
class action claim on behalf of the holders of FCStone common
stock.

On July 8, 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against FCStone and its directors, as well as the
Company in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.  The
complaint alleged that FCStone and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in
connection with the contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the
Company.  This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated
complaint which does not assert any claims against the Company.
This complaint purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone and
the Company's behalf and against certain of FCStone current and
former directors and officers and directly against the same
individuals.  The Company, FCStone, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on multiple grounds.  That motion is fully
briefed and pending decision.

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

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities; debt
origination and asset management.  During the quarter ended March
31, 2011, the Company changed its name from International Assets
Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc., following approval of
the name change by the Company's stockholders.  INTL's businesses,
which include the commodities advisory and transaction execution
firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve more than 10,000 commercial
customers in more than 100 countries through a network of offices
in 12 countries around the world.


L & L ENERGY: Faces More Complaints Related to Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
L & L Energy, Inc. continues to face complaints related to a
securities class action lawsuit filed in August 2011, according to
the Company's December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October
31, 2011.

On August 26, 2011, a complaint was filed against the Company,
certain officers and directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G.
Robinson) and a former officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang) in
the United States District Court, Western District of Washington
at Seattle on behalf of a single plaintiff Jeff Mills.  The
complaint indicates that the plaintiff's lawyers will seek to have
it certified as a class action (the "Potential Class Action").  It
alleges that the Company filed false and misleading reports with
the SEC from August 13, 2009, to August 2, 2011, primarily based
upon an amendment the Company filed to its 2010 Annual Report on
Form 10-K on July 28, 2010, and a report published by the Glaucus
Research Group on August 2, 2011.

In connection with or related to the Potential Class Action: (A)
On November 4, 2011, a complaint was filed by Larew P. Stouffer,
an individual, in a derivative lawsuit against the Company as
nominal defendant, and against certain existing officers/employees
and/or directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G.
Robinson, Robert W. Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng)
and certain former officers and/or directors (i.e., Edward L.
Dowd, Andrew M. Leitch, Robert Okun, Joseph J. Borich, Jung Mei
Wang and David Lin) in the First Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada for Carson City (the "Stouffer Derivative Suit").
It mainly alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to
the Company and its shareholders, wasted corporate assets by
paying certain officers and directors who breached their fiduciary
duties, were unjustly enriched by accepting compensation while
breaching fiduciary duties, and committed wrongful acts in
concerted action.  (B) On November 15, 2011, a complaint was filed
by Russell L. Bush, an individual, in a derivative lawsuit against
the Company as nominal defendant, and against all existing
directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G. Robinson,
Robert W. Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng) in the
United States District Court, Western District of Washington at
Seattle (the "Bush Derivative Suit", with the Stouffer Derivative
Suit, the "Derivative Suits").  It mainly alleges that the
defendants breached fiduciary duties by failing to install proper
internal control and overseeing system, and were unjustly enriched
by accepting compensation while breaching fiduciary duties.

The Company says it has notified its insurance carrier of the
Potential Class Action and the Derivative Suits, has retained
outside legal counsels, and it intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.


LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Class Action Over Robosigning Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for Vegas Inc., reports that Lender
Processing Services Inc., the company targeted by Nevada's
attorney general in a foreclosure robosigning investigation, has
been hit with a class-action lawsuit filed by Las Vegas and
Henderson homeowners.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based LPS, one of the nation's largest
foreclosure processors, has insisted its robosigning problems in
Nevada involved mere paperwork issues, have been addressed and did
not involve wrongful foreclosures.

But the Dec. 20 homeowner lawsuit said LPS's use of "forged,
fraudulent and/or erroneous" foreclosure documents tainted the
foreclosure process to the point where LPS and banks it worked
with "did not have authority to foreclose or to continue with the
foreclosure process."

The suit filed in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas alleges
violations of Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, seeks to
block pending foreclosures involving allegedly forged LPS
documents and seeks unspecified damages for completed
foreclosures.

Besides the Nevada attorney general's lawsuit filed against LPS
alleging widespread fraud in its foreclosure paperwork operations,
criminal charges have been filed in Las Vegas against two LPS
officers and four notaries in what state prosecutors call a scheme
in which thousands of foreclosure documents were tainted by forged
signatures and bogus notarizations.

Also named as defendants in the Dec. 20 class-action lawsuit were
lenders and foreclosure trustees that work with LPS.  They are
Bank of America, its subsidiary ReconTrust Co.; IndyMac Mortgage
Services, a division of OneWest Bank; and Regional Service Corp.,
which acts as a foreclosure trustee.

The Dec. 20 lawsuit was filed by five homeowners and is proposed
as a class action representing "countless" more plaintiffs, likely
thousands.  Four of the named homeowners face foreclosure and the
fifth has been foreclosed on, the suit says.

The proposed class of plaintiffs is defined as borrowers in Nevada
who received foreclosure documents, called notices of default,
"that were improperly executed by LPS, its predecessors or its
subsidiaries."

The Dec. 20 lawsuit seeks a court declaration that LPS and its
codefendants violated Nevada's law governing foreclosure
proceedings "in that they proceeded with the foreclosure process
despite relying upon forged and falsified notices of default."

"Plaintiffs and consumers have paid the ultimate price through
bankruptcies, evictions and foreclosures that were predicated upon
false, forged, fraudulent and/or inaccurate documents," the
lawsuit charges.

The suit also seeks a declaration that the notices of default
issued by LPS "are null and void" and asks for an injunction
blocking LPS and the codefendants from proceeding with the
allegedly tainted foreclosures.

"Plaintiffs' properties face foreclosure as a result of defendants
violations of NRS 107.080 (the foreclosure law)," the suit says.

The suit also seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages and
attorney's fees.  It was filed by attorneys at the Las Vegas law
firm Callister & Associates LLC.

An LPS spokesman said the company had no immediate comment on the
Dec. 20 lawsuit but reiterated its earlier statement: "LPS
acknowledges the signing procedures on some of these documents
were flawed; however, the company also believes these documents
were properly authorized and their recording did not result in a
wrongful foreclosure."


MILLER ENERGY: Defends Five Securities Class Suits in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. is defending five securities class
action lawsuits pending in Tennessee, according to its
December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

In August 2011, five class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee.  These lawsuits make similar claims, and
the Company expects that they will be consolidated into one case.
The Company has retained DLA Piper to defend it in these actions.
Three motions for consolidation and appointment of a lead
plaintiff have been filed, but have not been heard yet.  Pursuant
to stipulation, no response to the complaint is required until
after a lead plaintiff is appointed and a consolidated complaint
is filed.

On August 12, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The case, styled Ruben Husu, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff, and
Paul W. Boyd was filed on August 12, 2011.   The Plaintiff alleges
two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, (2)
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case seeks
money damages against the Company and the other defendants, and
payment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

On August 16, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The case, styled James D. DiCenso, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller Petroleum, Inc., Deloy Miller, Scott
M. Boruff, and Paul W. Boyd and David J. Voyticky.  The Plaintiff
alleges two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation
of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case seeks money
damages against the Company and the other defendants, and payment
of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

On August 16, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The case is
styled Steven Arlow, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Miller Energy Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller
Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff, and Paul W. Boyd.  The Plaintiff
alleges two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation
of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The cases seek unspecified
money damages against the Company and the other defendants, and
payment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

On August 18, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The case is styled Yingtao Liu, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff,
Paul W. Boyd, Deloy Miller, David J. Voyticky, Herman
Gettelfinger, Jonathan S. Gross, David M. Hall, Merrill A. McPeak,
Charles Stivers, and Don A. Turkleson.  The Plaintiff alleges two
causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case seeks unspecified money
damages against the Company and the other defendants, and payment
of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

On August 19, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The case is
styled Brandon W. Ward, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Miller Energy Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller
Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff, and Paul W. Boyd.  The Plaintiff
alleges two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation
of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The cases seek unspecified
money damages against the Company and the other defendants, and
payment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.


MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Nurses Union Sues Over Reduced Pensions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that Milwaukee
County illegally reduced pensions for members of a nurses union,
the union claims in a class action in Milwaukee County Court.

The Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals Local
5001 AFT AFL-CIO sued Milwaukee County and its Pension Board,
fighting the law the county passed in July, which is to take
effect on Jan. 1, 2012.

The ordinance reduced the years of service multiplier used to
calculate pensions from 2% to 1.6%.

The Milwaukee County Employees' Retirement System was established
in 1938 to provide county workers with retirement, disability and
death benefits.

Before the new law was enacted, nurses union members who were
hired before 1982 were entitled to pensions in "an amount equal to
two (2) percent of his final average salary multiplied by the
number of his years of services as a collective bargaining
member."

Nurses hired after 1982 originally were eligible to only receive a
1.5 percent multiplier, but this was changed in 2001 to give all
union employees a 2 percent multiplier regardless of start date.

On July 28 this year, the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors
changed the rules to say: "A member shall receive an amount equal
to one and six-tenths (1.6) percent of his final average salary
multiplied by the number of his years of service, for service as a
member represented by the Federation of Nurses and Health
Professionals . . . rendered on or after January 1, 2012."

The new ordinance applies to union employees and new hires.

In its complaint, the union says that its collective bargaining
agreement, issued on Aug. 23, contained changed pension benefits,
without their consent.

The changed agreement for 2012 states: "For employee who became
members of the employees retirement system after January 1, 1971,
all pension service credit earned on and after January 1, 2012,
shall be credited in an amount equal to 1.6% of the member's final
average salary, who at the time the service credit is earned, is
covered by the terms of the agreement."

The union says the county must receive individual consents to make
the change because union members have individual benefit
contracts.  Through the contracts, the union members "have vested
rights in the highest level of retirement benefits contractually
established at any time during the course of active County
service," according to the complaint.  "Those rights may not be
diminished or impaired by subsequent legislation or by any other
means without the individual members' consent, even in collective
bargaining with the Union."

The union represents a class of registered nurses, occupational
therapists, music therapists, forensic chemists and other health
care professionals employed by Milwaukee County.  Suzanne Stoker,
an occupational therapist employed since 1982 is the lead
plaintiff.

They seek damages for breach of the collective bargaining
agreement and violation of the Wisconsin Constitution.  They seek
a declaration that the new ordinance and 2012 collective
bargaining agreement are invalid, and an injunction preventing the
decreased pension benefits.

A copy of the Complaint in Stoker, et al. v. Milwaukee County, et
al., Case No. 30704 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/21/MilwNurses.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey P. Sweetland, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          E-mail: jsweetland@hq-law.com


NETWORK ENGINES: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Order Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order relating to Network Engines, Inc.'s
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit remains pending,
according to the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended September 30, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed on December 3, 2001, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and several underwriters of its July 2000
initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing and selling securities
pursuant to the Company's IPO without disclosing to investors that
the underwriter defendants had solicited and received excessive
and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.  The lawsuit
seeks damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of
all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between July 13, 2000, and December 6, 2000.  On July 9, 2003, a
Special Committee of the Company's Board of Directors authorized
the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among the class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.  The parties have negotiated the settlement, which
provides, among other things, for a release of the Company and the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the amended
complaint to be wrongful.

The Company says it would agree to undertake other
responsibilities under the settlement, including agreeing to
assign, or not assert, certain potential claims that the Company
may have against the underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of
the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's
insurers.  Any such settlement would be subject to various
contingencies, including approval by the court overseeing the
litigation.

On February 15, 2005, the District Court issued an Opinion and
Order preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.  The parties agreed to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order, and on August 31, 2005, the District Court
issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting
a public hearing on its fairness, which took place on April 24,
2006.  On December 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit overturned the District Court's certification
of the class of plaintiffs who are pursuing the claims that would
be settled in the settlement against the underwriter defendants.
Thereafter, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings
in all of the lawsuits pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition
to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the
class certification issue.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but clarified that the
plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the
District Court.

On June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminating
the settlement.  On October 5, 2009, the District Court issued an
opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a
proposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the
settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes.  An
Order and Final Judgment was entered on December 30, 2009.
Various notices of appeal of the District Court's October 5, 2009,
order were filed.  On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had
filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the District
Court withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two
remaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals.  On
December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice the
appeal filed by one of the two appellants based on alleged
violations of the Second Circuit's rules, including failure to
serve, falsifying proofs of service, and failure to include
citations to the record.

On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit dismissed one of the appeals
and remanded the one remaining appeal to the District Court for
further proceedings to determine whether the remaining objector
has standing.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court concluded
that the remaining objector lacks standing to object to the
settlement because he was not a class member.  On September 23,
2011, the remaining objector filed a Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's August 25, 2011 Order.  That appeal remains
pending.  The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of
this lawsuit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued as of
September 30, 2011.

Networks Engine Inc., as a system integrator, designs and
manufactures application platforms and appliance solutions on
which software applications are applied to both enterprise and
telecommunications networks.  The Company markets its application
platform solutions and services to original equipment
manufacturers, or OEMs, and independent software vendors, or ISVs,
that then deliver their software applications in the form of a
network-ready hardware or software platform.


NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR, CANADA: Schools Get Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of
Appeal has upheld a lower court decision granting certification of
class-action status to five related residential school class
actions in the province.

The decision was released by the court on Dec. 21.

According to a news release, the legacy of residential schools in
Canada was addressed by political and legal settlement in 2006,
but individuals who attended schools in Newfoundland and Labrador
were excluded from the settlement.

The decision confirms that claims against the Government of Canada
respecting the operation of schools attended by Inuit, Innu and
Metis persons and located in Cartwright, Northwest River, St.
Anthony, Nain and Makkovik, can proceed as class actions.

The claims, which have not yet been proven in court, allege that
the Government of Canada participated in a scheme to obliterate
aboriginal languages, traditions and beliefs in Labrador, through
requirement that school children reside at institutions isolated
from their families and communities.  The claims allege negligence
and breach of fiduciary duty.

Lawyers for the class members estimate the class size at 5,000 to
6,000 living members.  Up to 4,000 class members are constituents
of the Nunatsiavut Government.

Spokesman Danny Pottle, an official with the Nunatsiavut
Government, called on the Government of Canada to come to the
negotiating table and drop its policy of excluding Labrador Inuit,
Innu and Metis from the national reconciliation process.  The
Nunatsiavut Government is not a party to the class actions, but
supports the class actions as being in the interests of a
substantial number of its constituents.


OVERHILL FARMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Disqualify Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Overhill Farms, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on it motion to
disqualify the remaining plaintiff as representative in a class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
December 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended October 2, 2011.

On July 1, 2009, Bohemia Agustiana, Isela Hernandez, and Ana Munoz
filed a purported "class action," captioned Agustiana, et al. v.
Overhill Farms, against the Company in which they asserted claims
for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to furnish wage and hour
statements, waiting time penalties, conversion and unfair business
practices.  The plaintiffs are former employees who had been
terminated one month earlier because they had used invalid social
security numbers in connection with their employment with the
Company.  They filed the case in Los Angeles County on behalf of
themselves and a class which they say includes all non-exempt
production and quality control workers who were employed in
California during the four-year period prior to filing their
complaint.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the conversion claim, and
the motion was granted by the court on February 2, 2010.

On May 12, 2010, Alma Salinas filed a separate purported "class
action" in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company
in which she asserted claims on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated current and former production workers for
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to make payments within the
required time, unfair business practice in violation of Section
17200 of the California Business and Professions Code and Labor
Code Section 2698 (known as the Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA")).  Salinas is a former employee who had been terminated
because she had used an invalid social security number in
connection with her employment with the Company.  Salinas sought
allegedly unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, PAGA penalties,
interest and attorneys' fees, the amounts of which are
unspecified.  The Salinas action has been consolidated with the
Agustiana action.

In about September 2011, plaintiffs Agustiana and Salinas agreed
to voluntarily dismiss and waive all of their claims against the
Company.  They also agreed to abandon their allegations that they
could represent any other employees in the alleged class.  The
Company did not pay them any additional wages or money.

One former employee remains as a plaintiff, Isela Hernandez.  She
has not requested the court to certify her as a class
representative, and no class has been certified.  The Company has
asked the court to disqualify this remaining plaintiff as a class
representative, and her attorneys have asked the court to add four
former employees as plaintiffs and potential class
representatives.  These pending motions are scheduled for hearing
on December 21, 2011.  Three of the four proposed new plaintiffs
are former employees that the Company terminated one month before
this case was filed because they had used invalid social security
numbers in connection with their employment with the Company.  The
fourth proposed plaintiff has not worked for the Company since
February 2007.

The parties are engaged in the discovery phase of the case, and
the court has scheduled a class certification hearing date for
April 2012.  The Company believes it has valid defenses to the
plaintiff's remaining claims and that the Company paid all wages
due to these employees.


POLY IMPLANT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Breast Implants
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Brown, writing for ABC News, reports that British women
launched a class action against the now-defunct makers of faulty
breast implants, as health fears spread across Europe over the
implants.

Up to 250 women are taking legal action against Poly Implant
Prothese (PIP), a French-based breast implant company.

Some women say their implants have ruptured, others are just
worried about potential health risks.

The class action comes as France debates how to handle the
problem.

Up to 30,000 French woman have PIP implants filled not with the
usual material -- medical silicone -- but with industrial grade
silicone, which is cheaper but riskier.

The French government revealed last week it was considering
recalling implants made by PIP, and would announce on Dec. 23
whether it would pay for the women to have the implants removed.

Last year, the Therapeutic Goods Administration reassured women
PIP implants supplied in Australia did conform with international
standards.

Patients are being urged to contact their surgeon to check the
make of their implants.

Former British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons president
Douglas McGeorge says the French regulatory bodies failed to pick
up the problem detected in Britain.

"Everything that was bought by the clinics I'm sure was bought in
good faith, expecting it to adhere to the recognized standards
that were on the packet," he said.

"However the manufacturers decided to do something totally
different and of course there was a lag phase before it was picked
up."

The French media is reporting 10% of these implants are rupturing
in their first year.

Health authorities are investigating whether they are cancerous.

A French patient died of a rare form of lymphoma last year and
eight more patients have been diagnosed with cancer.  An expert
report was set to be released on Dec. 23.

There are suggestions the French government will pay for 30,000
women to have the implants removed.

PIP went into liquidation some time ago.  Another manufacturer
took over its work, but whether that company now also shoulders
past legal liability is unknown.

But the UK's health watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency, says it has found no safety issues
with the implants.

"Both from the point of view of the toxicity of the filler, we did
extensive testing on this and we found no cause for concern in
terms of safety issues or chemical issues," MHRA medical director
Susanne Ludgate said.

"We've also looked at any association with cancer and we can find
no association with any cancer.

"And thirdly because we knew women would be concerned, some of
them have breast-fed their babies, we looked at that very
carefully with experts and again there was no cause for concern."


RALCORP HOLDINGS: Units Still Defend Class Suits in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two subsidiaries of Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. are subject to three
pending lawsuits brought by former employees currently pending in
separate California state courts alleging, among other things,
that employees did not receive sufficient meal breaks resulting in
incorrect wage statements, unpaid overtime and untimely payments
to terminated employees.  Each of these lawsuits was filed as a
class action and seeks to include in the class certain current and
former employees of the respective subsidiary involved.  In each
case, the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, interest,
attorneys' fees, compensatory and other monetary damages and
injunctive relief.  No determination has been made by either court
regarding class certification and there can be no assurance as to
whether a class will be certified or, if a class is certified, as
to the scope of such class.  The Company's liability relating to
these lawsuits cannot be reasonably estimated at this time;
however, the Company does not expect that its ultimate liability,
if any, will exceed $10 million.

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


REMINGTON ARMS: Faces Class Action in Tenn. Over Defective Rifle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the Remington Model 597 17 HMR semiautomatic rifle explodes if
used with co-defendant Cascade Cartridge/CCI Ammunition's ammo,
and that Remington issued an inadequate recall notice.

A copy of the Complaint in Yancey v. Remington Arms Company, LLC,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-00108 (M.D. Tenn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/21/Exploding.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger W. Dickson, Esq.
          MILLER & MARTIN PLLC
          Suite 1000 Volunteer Building
          832 Georgia Avenue
          Chattanooga, TN 37402-2289
          Telephone: (423) 756-6600
          E-mail: rdickson@millermartin.com

               - and -

          James A. Beakes, III, Esq.
          MILLER & MARTIN PLLC
          1200 One Nashville Place
          150 Fourth Avenue, North
          Nashville, TN 37219-2433
          Telephone: (615) 244-9270
          E-mail: jbeakes@millermartin.com


SIGNATURE GROUP: Court Approved ERISA Suit Settlement in August
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California entered a final order and judgment approving Signature
Group Holdings, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class action
lawsuit in August, according to the Company's December 12, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

From April through June of 2007, six complaints seeking class
certification were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against the Company and various
officers, directors and employees by participants in the Company's
prior Investment Incentive Plan, 401(k) and Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (collectively "the Benefit Plans") alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") in connection with Company stock held by the Benefit
Plans.  The six complaints were consolidated in a single
proceeding.  On April 15, 2010, the Court granted the Order for
Class Certification under Rule 23(b)(3).  On March 22, 2011, the
Company entered into a settlement stipulation whereby its
insurance carriers will pay $21.0 million to settle the claims of
the certified class and the Company has no further liability.  On
April 25, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement stipulation.  On August 10, 2011, the Court entered the
Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement.


SIGNATURE GROUP: Ninth Circuit Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of a third amended consolidated class action
securities complaint against Signature Group Holdings, Inc.,
formerly known as Fremont General Corporation, according to the
Company's December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In September 2007, three separate complaints seeking class
certification were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against Fremont and various
officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities
laws in connection with published statements by Fremont regarding
its loan portfolio and loans held for resale during the period
from May 9, 2006, through February 27, 2007.  These three class
action lawsuits were consolidated into a single proceeding and a
consolidated class action complaint was filed on March 3, 2008.
On January 9, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Securities Complaint ("SAC").  Fremont
was not a named defendant in the SAC because of its Chapter 11
bankruptcy filing.  The named defendants in the SAC were former
directors and officers of Fremont: Louis J. Rampino, Wayne R.
Bailey, Patrick E. Lamb, Kyle R. Walker, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr.
and James A. McIntyre.  On November 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed
a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Securities Complaint
("TAC").  Fremont's potential exposure in this matter arises out
of its indemnification agreements and obligations with these
individual defendants.  Fremont previously notified its insurance
carriers and requested coverage under its directors and officers
insurance policies, in which the primary insurance carrier has
accepted coverage under a reservation of rights.  On March 29,
2010, the trial court entered an Order Granting Fremont's Motion
to Dismiss the TAC with prejudice ("Court Order").  Plaintiffs
timely appealed the Court Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

On November 29, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice by the United
States District Court for the Central District of California of
the TAC.


SOC INC: Iraq Armed Guards File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that a private
security guard in Iraq says in a class action that his employer
SOC Nevada made its employees work up to 12 hours a day, seven
days a week, in "ultrahazardous conditions" without overtime pay
or breaks.

"SOC's core mission changed from 'Securing Our Country' to 'Lining
Its Pockets' when it began to recruit employees . . . under false
promises of a fixed salary and scheduled with time off," lead
plaintiff Karl Risinger says in the complaint in Clark County
Court.

"[D]ue to a lack of adequate staffing driven by corporate greed,"
SOC subjected its armed guards to "undue risk by jeopardizing the
physical and psychological condition of the class members in the
course of ultra-hazardous activities," the complaint states.

Mr. Risinger, a California resident, says he was hired in 2010 to
work as an armed guard at a Baghdad military base, on a 1-year
assignment for a flat salary of $65,000.

But when he and others arrived in Iraq, he says they were told
that the salary was "calculated based upon a $17.36 hourly rate,
which hourly rate would dictate class members' actual pay based
upon 'the number of hours on your time sheet.'"

At that hourly rate, without overtime, an employee would earn
$36,108 a year.  A worker would have to work 72 hours a week at
straight time to earn $65,000 a year.

Mr. Risinger says he was forced to work more than 12 hours a day,
7 days a week, "without meal or rest periods, and without any
overtime compensation."

He claims SOC "routinely falsified employee time sheets to reflect
time off when there was none and to show that plaintiff, and
others similarly situated, worked only 12 hours per day when in
fact they worked in excess of 12 hours each day."

SOC Inc., or "Securing Our Country," is a Delaware corporation
doing business in Washoe County, Nev.  It provides worldwide
security for "individuals, domestic facilities, nuclear power
plants and military bases," according to the complaint.

It recruits former military personnel and others to work as armed
guards in Iraq.

According to its Web site, "SOC is the global leader in full-
service security management."

The Web site also features a toll-free "Ethics Help Line . . .
that provides a confidential method to report suspected illegal or
unethical behavior within the company.  There will be no
retributions or reprisals for reporting a suspected violation in
good faith."

Mr. Risinger seeks unpaid wages, including overtime, along with
penalties, interest, attorney's fees, disgorgement or restitution,
and punitive damages.

The defendants are SOC Inc., a Nevada corporation; SOC LLC, a
Delaware LLC dba SOC Nevada.

A copy of the Complaint in Risinger v. SOC, Inc., Case No. A-11-
653426-C (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/21/SOCInc.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott E. Gizer, Esq.
          EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER & MCRAE LLP
          3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 500
          Las Vegas, NV 89169


STATE OF OKLAHOMA: DHS Agrees to Settle Foster Care Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ginnie Graham, writing for Tulsa World, reports that the Oklahoma
Commission for Human Services voted 6-3 late on Dec. 20 to settle
a federal class-action lawsuit over the state's foster care
system.

The suit, filed three years ago, alleges abuses in the state's
child welfare system.

The commission, which governs the Department of Human Services,
began meeting in executive session with Attorney General Scott
Pruitt and federal Magistrate T. Lane Wilson about 6:00 p.m.  At
10:50 p.m., the commission reconvened and voted to settle the
lawsuit.

Voting no were Commissioners Jay Dee Chase, Richard DeVaughn and
Aneta Wilkinson.

Details of the settlement are not being released until the state
Contingency Review Board approves the decisions, said Assistant
Attorney General Melissa Houston.  She said the federal magistrate
has issued a confidentiality order over the settlement, which
remains in place.

The Contingency Review Board's approval of settlements costing the
state more than $25,000 is required before they are final.

DHS Director Howard Hendrick issued a statement late on Dec. 20,
saying: "While the terms of the settlement remain confidential, I
can say that the terms are unique in this kind of litigation.
Both sides were willing to entertain a new approach to resolving
class action civil rights claims involving child welfare systems.

"The strength of our defense and the excellent work our child
welfare workers do every day changed the conversation about how
these kinds of cases should be resolved.  The future improvements,
the details of which must yet be developed, are outlined in a
framework that both sides hope will satisfy our shared desire to
meet the needs of vulnerable children and families."

Commission Chairman Brad Yarbrough said he was satisfied with the
settlement, adding: "It was in the best interest of the commission
to do so."

Mr. Chase, in voting against the settlement, said: "It presented
more questions than answers."

The suit was filed in February 2008 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma by Children's Rights, a New
York-based national child-advocacy group that has filed similar
class-action suits across the country for the past two decades.

Children's Rights seeks a variety of reforms such as caseload
limits, education and training, additional placement options for
foster children, improved monitoring, quality assurance and the
appointment of a neutral monitor.

The case will not result in an award of monetary damages to the
original plaintiffs or the class.

A nonjury trial was scheduled to begin Feb. 21.

DHS has spent about $7 million on outside attorneys to defend the
lawsuit, and commissioners approved another $2 million for future
costs.  Because it agreed to the settlement, DHS likely will have
to pay some or all of the plaintiffs' legal fees.

The original plaintiffs were nine children, ages 4 months to 16
years, who allegedly suffered abuse while in DHS foster care
placements.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell expanded the lawsuit in May
2009 into a class action, which has been upheld by appellate
courts.  The class is defined as current and foster children; DHS
reports having more than 8,000 children in the foster care system.

Through numerous attempts to have the lawsuit dismissed, the scope
was narrowed.  On Dec. 1, Judge Frizzell threw out two of three
civil rights claims in the complaint.

However, the plaintiffs' side said it was happy with the decision
because its "core claim" dealing with foster children's due-
process rights survived.

On Dec. 16, Judge Frizzell rejected a DHS motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, which DHS attorneys had argued is improper because
children involved are part of ongoing juvenile proceedings in
Oklahoma district courts.

Judge Frizzell stated that most of the measures requested by the
plaintiffs do not interfere with state court proceedings.

In court filings, Children's Rights claimed that foster children
were scalded in bath water, sexually molested, beaten with tree
switches and belts and hit in the face.

In his earlier order certifying the case as a class action, Judge
Frizzell pointed to allegations of the commission's lack of
monitoring efforts, with many references to depositions of the
commissioners.

Commissioners testified they meet for two to three hours a month
and do not set the agenda, but consider information "selected and
provided" by Mr. Hendrick and senior DHS managers, the order
states.

Mr. Hendrick testified no commissioners in recent history have
asked him for a report on anything related to child welfare and
none approached him about any data "troubling to them," it states.

Commissioners said they were not told the DHS child welfare
division after 2002 lost its national accreditation, which is
required by statute.  They also could not recall being given or
asking for information related to caseloads, shelter population
numbers or visitation numbers.

Mr. DeVaughn, a former commission chairman, testified that he
could not remember if the oversight board was given reports on
rate of abuse in care, number of placements per child, lengths of
stay in custody, out-of-county placements, family separations and
shortage of foster-care homes.

Commissioners came under criticism earlier this year after some
high-profile child deaths where DHS workers were involved.

Gov. Mary Fallin appointed two new members -- former Oklahoma
County District Attorney Wes Lane of Oklahoma City and Yarbrough,
a businessman who took over as commission chairman in October.

The lawsuit points to high caseloads as leading to abuses, and it
alleges that the commission failed to provide enough oversight to
protect children.

Accrediting body standards call for no more than 18 children per
caseworker, or eight per caseworker in the case of special needs
children.

Caseloads reported by DHS in March ranged from between 20 children
and more than 30 children per worker.

DHS has 1,327 employees in its Child Welfare Division and 1,117 of
those are front-line workers who carry caseloads.  An order by
Judge Frizzell last month noted that "defendants' own expert,
Robin Arnold-Williams, concluded that DHS does not accurately
measure caseloads and that its caseloads exceed professionally
accepted standards."

"The court finds that plaintiffs have presented 'significant
proof' that DHS has a policy or practice of failing to adequately
monitor the safety of plaintiff children causing significant harm
and risk of harm to their safety," his order states.


STATER BROS: Awaits Court Approval of "Martinez" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by Diego De Jesus
Martinez, according to the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended September 25, 2011.

On November 5, 2010, an action by Diego De Jesus Martinez was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles against Markets ("Martinez Case") seeking
individual and potential class action monetary damages for alleged
discrepancies between the actual time worked by certain employees
and the amounts recorded on Markets' time clock reports on payroll
records.  On October 26, 2011, following a mediation, the Martinez
Case was settled subject to court approval of the settlement and
the full settlement amount has been recorded in the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended
September 25, 2011.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/--
through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets,
operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout
Southern California.


TAKEDA PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over ACTOS Bladder Cancer Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 21, 2011, the law firm of Rochon Genova LLP issued a class
action on behalf of users of a diabetes drug ACTOS (pioglitazone
hydrochloride) against the manufacturers and distributors of
ACTOS, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, and its affiliates, and Eli
Lilly.

ACTOS was approved for sale in Canada in August, 2000 to control
blood sugar levels in people with Type 2 (non insulin-dependant)
diabetes.  A June 2011 study reported to the FDA found a clear
link between pioglitazone and increased bladder cancer risk.  As a
result, the FDA in the U.S. issued a warning, now incorporated on
the drug's label, that use of ACTOS for more than one year may be
associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.  French and
German drug regulators suspended sales of ACTOS entirely following
the results of similar studies in those countries.

The class action, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges, among other things, that the defendants knew or
ought to have known that ACTOS materially increases the risks of
bladder cancer and failed to disclose those risks in a timely
manner and have failed to recall the drug.

The proposed Representative Plaintiff for users of ACTOS is the
Estate of a Toronto woman who passed away in April 2011 after an
over two-year battle with bladder cancer. She had been prescribed
ACTOS in 2002.  Her daughter, a nurse in Toronto, is the proposed
Representative Plaintiff representing the family members of those
who are suffering or have died from bladder cancer attributable to
ACTOS. "My mother suffered greatly and was often in excruciating
pain from the time of her cancer diagnosis to her death.  Given
the other widely available alternatives to control Type 2
diabetes, my mother never would have taken ACTOS had she known
that it would increase her risks of developing bladder cancer."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.  The plaintiff and the prospective class members are
represented by the Toronto based law firm of Rochon Genova LLP.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Asylum "Clock" Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit against U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services and the Executive Office for Immigration
Review in federal court in Seattle.  The lawsuit alleges
widespread problems with the asylum "clock" -- the system that the
government uses to determine when immigrants with pending asylum
applications become eligible to obtain work authorization in the
United States.  The class certification motion describes the
nationwide impact of these policies.

The complaint, co-filed with the Northwest Immigrants Rights
Project, Gibbs Houston Pauw, and the Massachusetts Law Reform
Institute, was submitted on behalf of untold numbers of asylum
applicants wrongfully denied work authorization due to unlawful
agency policies and practices.  The named plaintiffs include
asylum seekers who have pursued their cases for years without work
authorization--including a man from China who initially filed his
asylum application in 2003.

With limited exceptions, federal law requires USCIS to grant work
authorization to any person with an asylum application pending for
180 days.  In calculating this period, however, USCIS relies on
determinations made by immigration judges who work for EOIR.  As a
result, arbitrary EOIR policies on when the "clock" should start
and stop--combined with growing backlogs in U.S. immigration
courts--have unlawfully prevented asylum seekers from working.  The
suit alleges these policies violate the Constitution, federal
statutes, and governing regulations.

"This lawsuit targets a problem that has plagued asylum applicants
for far too long," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of
the American Immigration Council.  "Asylum seekers who have fled
persecution in their native countries and have made good faith
efforts to comply with the asylum process should not be
arbitrarily deprived of the ability to earn a living while their
applications are pending.  This lawsuit challenges the
longstanding disregard for basic due process protections for this
vulnerable population."


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Redemption of Wachovia Trust Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Turkle Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-06494 (N.D. Calif., December 20,
2011) arises out of the redemption by Wells Fargo of the Wachovia
Capital Trust X 7.85% Trust Preferred Securities on October 3,
2011.  On December 31, 2008, as a result of its merger with
Wachovia Corporation, Wells Fargo agreed to assume all outstanding
guarantee obligations of the TruPS.

Pursuant to the terms of the February 1, 2006 Indenture, Wachovia
(and subsequently Wells Fargo) was required to make quarterly
interest payments to Wachovia Capital Trust X, which payments
would then be distributed to owners of the TruPS, including
Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff, as a third party beneficiary of the
Indenture, asserts class action claims against Wells Fargo for
breach of the Indenture and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing contained therein.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Mulvane, Kansas, and owned 100
shares of Wachovia Capital Trust X TruPS on October 3, 2011.
Wells Fargo is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.  Non-party Wachovia Capital
Trust X is a statutory trust organized under the laws of Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          Jason A. Pikler , Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
                  jpikler@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Lagorio, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. LAGORIO
          63 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 367-4200
          Facsimile: (617) 227-3384
          E-mail: plagorio@gmail.com


WEST PENN: Meal Break Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports that
in separate decisions on Dec. 20, two federal judges ruled that
there wasn't enough evidence to show that either of the area's two
major hospital companies failed to pay employees who worked
through their meal breaks.

The rulings by U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose in the West
Penn Allegheny Health System lawsuit and U.S. District Judge Cathy
Bissoon in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center lawsuit
means that any employees who want to pursue their claims will have
to do so in individual lawsuits.

The basic claim in both class-action lawsuits was that the
hospitals automatically deducted a half hour from an employee's
time records even when he or she worked through a meal break, in
effect forcing the employee to work without compensation.

The judges said that many randomly selected plaintiffs dropped out
of the lawsuits when asked to document that they had been forced
to work through meal breaks and many of those who remained in the
lawsuit demonstrated that the hospitals were crediting the extra
time when employees notified supervisors that they had not taken
meal breaks.

Gloria Kreps, spokeswoman for UPMC, said the hospital system had
no immediate comment on the ruling.  A West Penn spokesperson and
Nelson Thomas, the lawyer whose Rochester, N.Y., law firm
represents the plaintiffs, couldn't immediately be reached for
comment.


WPCS INT'L: "McKean" and "Rapozo" Suits Consolidted in October
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Pennsylvania court granted in October 2011 WPCS International
Incorporated's motion to transfer the class action lawsuit
commenced by Edwin M. McKean and consolidate it into the lawsuit
captioned Rapozo vs. WPCS, according to the Company's
December 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the Company
and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The case is
Ralph Rapozo v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., Docket
No. 11-06837.  In this action, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
proposed transaction in which Multiband would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the consideration to be paid for such
acquisition by Multiband Corporation is inadequate, and that the
individual board members failed to engage in an honest and fair
sales process for the Company and failed to disclose material
information for the purposes of advancing their own interests over
those of the Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the
plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Company's board of directors.  In the event that the proposed
transaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.
The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company and
Multiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for
which he seeks unspecified money damages.  WPCS' time to answer or
move with respect to the Complaint has not yet expired.  However,
the Company and its directors deny the material allegations of
this complaint and intend to vigorously defend this action.

On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the Company
and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The case
was Robert Shepler v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al,
Docket No. 11-06838.  On August 11, 2011, the Shepler case was
consolidated into the Rapozo vs. WPCS case.

On June 30, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, against the
Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The
case is Edwin M. McKean v. WPCS International Incorporated, et
al., Civil Action No. 3085.  WPCS filed a motion to transfer this
case to Chester County and consolidate into the Rapozo vs. WPCS
case, which the Court granted on October 18, 2011.


WSFS FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Overdraft Fees-Related Suit in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of WSFS Financial Corporation is facing a purported
class action lawsuit in Delaware over its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees on checking accounts, the Company
disclosed in its December 12, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 18, 2011, a purported class action ("Joy v. Wilmington
Savings Fund Society, FSB" (WSFS Bank, a subsidiary of WSFS
Financial Corporation) Case N. N11C-11-185 JRJ) was filed in the
Delaware Superior Court for New Castle County.  The Complaint
challenges WSFS Bank's practices relating to its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees on checking accounts.  Damages are
sought for the statute of limitations period applicable to the
claims made in the lawsuit, and include restitution of overdraft
fees paid to the Company, actual damages allegedly sustained by
customers, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.  This case is
nearly identical to numerous other lawsuits that have been brought
by a small handful of class action litigators.  The Company has
discovered more than 120 other overdraft lawsuits that recently
have been brought against US banks.

The Company strongly believes that its overdraft practices are
fair to its customers and comply fully with all applicable laws
and regulations.  The Company believes this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the pending action.


* Tightened Fare Ad Rules Won't Affect Class Action v. Airlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Seyd, writing for North Shore News, reports that the
government of Canada said it was moving to add more transparency
to the way airlines tack fees on to their ticket prices.  The
change to the law, however, is unlikely to affect a class action
suit already launched in North Vancouver that takes aim at what
complainants say are misleading pricing practices.

Class-action lawsuits against several airlines launched by North
Vancouver law firm Poyner Baxter this year likely won't be
affected by recently-announced changes to the way airlines are
allowed to advertise their fares.

On Dec. 16, the federal government announced it will bring in new
regulations in 2012 forcing airlines to list the full cost of
airline tickets -- including extra fees, surcharges and taxes --
in their ads.

The move comes four years after the passage of the Canada
Transportation Act, which essentially paved the way for the new
rules and passed in June 2007.

Since then, consumer groups have complained about the delay in
putting new advertising rules into practice.

It likely won't be until the end of next year, however, that the
changes are obvious to consumers -- after the government finishes
consulting with the airlines.

Lawyer Jim Poyner, who has launched lawsuits against several
airlines for misleading travellers about the nature of fees added
to their ticket price, said it's unlikely the new rules will
change anything for his clients.

While the class action suits targeted added fees, Mr. Poyner said
the cases have focused mainly on the airline practice of calling
the additional charges "taxes" -- implying the money was going to
government or a third party -- while in many cases the airlines
just kept them.

"We say what they were doing was misleading and deceptive," said
Mr. Poyner.

Cases still before the courts include those against British
Airways, Air Canada, Lufthansa, Cathay Pacific, Delta Airlines and
Japan Airlines.

The federal government said on Dec. 16 changes to the way fares
are advertised will result in greater transparency for consumers
in the future.



                           *********

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  * * *