CAR_Public/111227.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, December 27, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 256

                             Headlines

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in "Kassin" Suit Remains Pending
ALLEN STANFORD: Faces Class Action Over Investor Losses
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal in IPO Suit Deal Ruling Pending
BROOKLYN FEDERAL: Awaits OK of MOU Resolving Merger-Related Suits
BRP US: Recalls 1,600 Can-Am ATVs Due to Loss of Control Hazard

BUGABOO AMERICAS: Recalls 64,000 Bugaboo Car Seat Adapters
BUGABOO AMERICAS: Recalls 7,260 Bee Strollers Due to Fall Hazard
CEDAR TOWING: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Towing Fees
CITY OF NAMPA, ID: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Fee
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final Hearing on Revised Fuel MDL Deal in March

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Illinois Court Denies Answer in "Robles" Suit
CPSC: Reminders to Check for Winter-Related Recalled Products
FANNIE MAE: Foreclosed Homeowners File Class Action
FEDEX CORP: 7th Circ. Denies Bid to Return 8 Cases to MDL Court
FEDEX CORP: Awaits Approval of Paystub-Related Suit Settlement

FEDEX CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Taylor" Class Settlement
FEDEX CORP: "Anfinson" Class Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
FEDEX CORP: "Rascon" Class Suit Still Pending in Colorado
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Two Product Liability Class Suits Pending
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Has Already Paid "Robertson" Settlement Dues

LEE ENTERPRISES: Newspaper Guild Litigation Pending in Missouri
LEE ENTERPRISES: Unit's Class Certification Reversal Bid Pending
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Settles Outstanding Claims in 1997 Class Suit
META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend CD-Related Suit vs. MetaBank
META FINANCIAL: Reaches Tentative Settlement of Securities Suit

NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in Retiree Health Care Litigation Pending
NAVISTAR INT'L: New Case Mgmt. Meeting Expected in Early 2012
NAVISTAR INT'L: Unit Dismissed From 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine MDL
OILSANDS QUEST: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Two Securities Suits in Calif.

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
PALL CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Extend Discovery Into 2012
PATHEON INC: Customers Seeks Indemnification Over Product Recall
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Faces Securities Class Action in Calif.

SINO-FOREST CORP: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Class Actions
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Trial in "Engel" Suit to Commence on Oct. 9
SONESTA INT'L: Supplements Proxy Materials Under Suits Deal
SUFFOLK BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
SYNOPSYS INC: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Magma Acquisition

TARGET CORP: Recalls 139,000 Circo 17" Children's Travel Cases
UCLA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
VERINT SYSTEMS: "Deutsch" Parties to Update Court by April 2011
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Appeals From "Cassese" Suit Settlement Pending
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Certified Class in Pass-Through Suit

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Gets Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Gets Prelim. Okay of South Ferry Suit Deal
WELLCARE HEALTH: Repurchased $112.5-Mil. Notes Issued Under Deal
WELLS FARGO: Accused of Offering Illusory Trial Loan Modification
WINN-DIXIE: Shareholders File Class Action to Block Bi-Lo Sale




                          *********

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in "Kassin" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2001, a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent
Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639, was
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Court") against certain investment bank
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"),
Agilent and various of its officers and directors at the time of
the IPO.  In 2003, the Court granted Agilent's motion to dismiss
the claims against Agilent based on Section 10 of the Securities
Exchange Act, but denied Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims
based on Section 11 of the Securities Act.  On June 14, 2004,
papers formalizing a settlement among the plaintiffs, Agilent and
more than 200 other issuer defendants and insurers were presented
to the Court.  Under the proposed settlement, plaintiffs' claims
against Agilent and its directors and officers would be released,
in exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be
paid by Agilent's insurer) and an assignment of certain potential
claims.  However, class certification of plaintiffs' underlying
action against the underwriter defendants was a condition of the
settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
(the "Second Circuit") reversed the Court's order certifying such
a class in several "test cases" that had been selected by the
underwriter defendants and plaintiffs.  On January 5, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the full bench of the
Second Circuit.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit issued an
order denying rehearing but noted that plaintiffs are free to
"seek certification of a more modest class."  On June 25, 2007,
the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement
between plaintiffs and the issuer defendants based on a
stipulation among the parties.  Plaintiffs have amended their
allegations and filed amended complaints in six "test cases" (none
of which involve Agilent).  Defendants in these cases have moved
to dismiss the amended complaints.  On March 26, 2008, the Court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The parties have again
reached a global settlement of the litigation and filed a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement on April 2, 2009.
Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to Agilent, and Agilent would bear no
financial liability.  Agilent, as well as the officer and director
defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant
to tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the
case.

On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement.  Four objectors appealed the Court's
order to the Second Circuit.  Two withdrew their respective
appeals.  Of the remaining two appeals, the Second Circuit
dismissed one and remanded the other to the Court for a
determination of whether this objector is a proper member of the
plaintiff class.  The Court found this objector was not a proper
class member, but this objector has now appealed that decision to
the Second Circuit.  That appeal remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 16,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended October 31, 2011.


ALLEN STANFORD: Faces Class Action Over Investor Losses
-------------------------------------------------------
Antigua Observer reports that a class action lawsuit was recently
filed against the United States, for the billions in losses
suffered by investors in the Allen Stanford international Ponzi
scheme.

The case, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida seeks to hold the SEC responsible for
its failure to stop Stanford and his registered investment advisor
and broker/dealer company Stanford Group Company ("SGC"), who the
SEC investigated several times between 1997 and 2004.

The suit claims that the SEC was grossly negligent in its actions
following each investigation in failing to take any action to stop
Stanford, whom SEC official had determined was operating a Ponzi
scheme.  The class action against the SEC was filed December 13,
the day after the SEC filed suit against the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation ("SIPC") for its refusal to reimburse
investors for their losses.

"This case is unique because the SEC knew all along that this was
a fraud and did nothing," said lead attorney Dr. Gaytri Kachroo of
Kachroo Legal Services, PC (KLS), who is representing investors in
the class action.

"If the SEC had simply refused to register SGC for any of its
various securities laws violations or reported to SIPC that SBC
was a Ponzi scheme and insolvent, the SEC could have stopped this
scheme over a decade ago."

In government investigations in 1997, 1998, 2002, and 2004, the
SEC determined that Stanford was operating a Ponzi Scheme, but
failed to take action to prevent his fraud.

After increasing pressure from the Madoff collapse, the SEC
finally acted in 2009, filing a case in federal court against
Stanford and his companies, but only after investors had been
defrauded of over $7 billion.

The suit also alleges that the court-appointed SEC receiver has
only been able to recover $100 million, net of expenses, out of
the $7 billion investors lost because of the SEC's negligence.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal in IPO Suit Deal Ruling Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an August 2011 ruling related to a settlement of an
Initial Public Offering case remains pending, according to Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc.'s December 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 29, 2011.

On July 20, 2001, the first of a number of putative class actions
for violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Brocade, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of the underwriters for Brocade's initial public offering
("IPO") of securities.  A consolidated amended class action
captioned, In re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 6613, was filed
on April 19, 2002.  The complaint generally alleges that various
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
related to the allocation of shares in Brocade's initial public
offering and seeks unspecified damages for claims under the
Exchange Act on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
common stock from May 24, 1999, to December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit
against Brocade was coordinated for pretrial proceedings with a
number of other pending litigations challenging underwriter
practices in over 300 cases as In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), including actions against
McDATA Corporation, Inrange Technologies Corporation ("Inrange")
(which was first acquired by Computer Network Technology
Corporation ("CNT") and subsequently acquired by McDATA as part of
the CNT acquisition), and Foundry (collectively, the "Brocade
Entities"), and certain of each entity's respective officers and
directors, and initial public offering underwriters.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation, under which the insurers will pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Brocade Entities, and the
Brocade Entities will bear no financial liability.  In 2009, the
Court granted final approval of the settlement.  Certain objectors
subsequently filed appeals, a number of which were dismissed by
agreement or by the appellate court.  In August 2011, the district
court issued an order determining that the last remaining
appellant was not a class member and thus lacked standing to
object to the settlement.  Currently on appeal is the district
court's August 2011 ruling that the remaining appellant lacks
standing.


BROOKLYN FEDERAL: Awaits OK of MOU Resolving Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. is awaiting approval of a
memorandum of understanding settling class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed merger with Investors Bancorp, Inc., according
to the Company's December 19, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended September
30, 2011.

On August 16, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and between (i) Investors
Savings Bank ("Investors Bank"), Investors Bancorp, Inc.
("Investors Bancorp"), and Investors Bancorp, MHC ("Investors
MHC"), and (ii) the Bank, the Company and BFS Bancorp, MHC.  The
Merger Agreement provides, among other things, that as a result of
the merger of the Company into Investors Bancorp, or a newly-
formed subsidiary thereof (the "Mid-Tier Merger"), each
outstanding share of the Company's common stock (other than shares
owned by BFS Bancorp, MHC), will be converted into the right to
receive $0.80 in cash, and potentially an additional $0.07 per
share pursuant to settlement of certain litigation relating to the
Mergers.

On August 24, 2011, Joseph Underwood, a shareholder represented by
the law firm of Brower Piven, a Professional Corporation, filed a
purported class action lawsuit ("Lawsuit") in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Kings, against Brooklyn Federal
Bancorp, Inc., BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal Savings Bank and
their respective directors, and Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors
Bancorp, MHC, and Investors Bank (formerly known as Investors
Savings Bank).  The Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties and
obligations to the Company's minority shareholders ("Public
Shareholders") and that Investors participated, aided and abetted
in such alleged breaches, by failing to obtain the highest
available value for the Company and to take steps to maximize its
value when facilitating its acquisition by entering into the
Merger Agreement.  The Lawsuit seeks, among other things, an
injunction against the Company and the other defendants from
consummating the Mergers, rescissory and compensatory damages and
attorney's fees.  The parties to the Lawsuit began settlement
discussions shortly after receiving notice of the existence of the
Lawsuit.

On September 16, 2011, Russ Bastin, a shareholder represented by
the law firm of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, filed a similar and
substantially identical shareholder action against the same
defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Kings (the "Bastin Matter").  On October 18, 2011, the parties
to the Bastin Matter and the Lawsuit filed a Stipulation and
Proposed Order Consolidating Related Shareholder Actions and
Appointing Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs with the
court.  The parties' stipulation provides for, among other things,
the consolidation of the Bastin Matter, the Lawsuit, and any other
shareholder action filed in or transferred to the court that
involves similar questions of law or fact.  The Proposed Order is
awaiting approval by the court.

On September 20, 2011, plaintiffs to the Lawsuit served defendants
with a settlement demand letter requesting, among other things,
that additional consideration be paid to the Public Shareholders.
After protracted negotiations over the course of approximately ten
days, on September 30, 2011, the parties reached an oral agreement
in principle to settle the Lawsuit.  That agreement was later
memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding, executed on or
about October 28, 2011.  Pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding and in exchange for certain actions, the following
actions are expected to be or have been taken by the defendants:

   -- Investors Bancorp, Inc. without admitting any liability or
      wrong doing, will pay the Public Shareholders of record as
      of the effective date of the Mergers an additional $0.07
      per share, upon consummation thereof, in consideration for
      settlement of all claims in the Shareholder Actions and
      certain releases, provided, however, that such shareholders
      do not opt out of the settlement;

   -- Section 10.02(b)(iii) of the Merger Agreement has been
      modified to provide that the Investors Bancorp Fee, as
      defined in the Merger Agreement, will be reduced to
      $300,000, subject to the condition that the Stipulation of
      Settlement, to be prepared by the parties, is approved by
      the appropriate court.  If the Stipulation of Settlement is
      not approved by the court, the Investors Bancorp Fee shall
      be equal to $460,000, plus out-of-pocket expenses not to
      exceed the sum of $50,000 less any loan inventory expenses
      paid by Brooklyn Federal Savings pursuant to Section 5.03
      of the Merger Agreement; and

   -- The plaintiffs have been provided with a copy of the proxy
      statement before issuance for their review, and the
      defendants considered in good faith any changes thereto
      proposed by plaintiffs up prior to the time the definitive
      proxy was filed.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties
contemplate entering into a Stipulation of Settlement that will
settle and release all claims that were asserted and/or could have
been asserted by the parties in connection with the Shareholder
Actions.  The Stipulation of Settlement will include terms
proposing the certification of a non-opt out class with respect to
all claims for injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief.
Non-New York resident members of the class may opt out solely to
preserve any right to pursue potential claims for monetary damages
but will otherwise be bound by terms of the settlement.  Investors
Bancorp may terminate the settlement if class members holding an
agreed-to percentage or number of Company shares opt out of the
settlement, as set forth in a supplemental agreement to be
executed by the parties.

The Memorandum of Understanding also contemplates that the
Stipulation of Settlement will be subject to, among other things,
the satisfactory completion of confirmatory discovery and the
plaintiffs not having any objection to the Proxy Statement on the
grounds that the Proxy Statement contains any material
misstatement or omission.  The Memorandum of Understanding and the
Stipulation of Settlement will be conditioned upon class
certification and final approval by the Supreme Court of New York,
County of Kings.  Plaintiffs intend to petition the court for an
award of expenses and fees in connection with its approval of the
Stipulation of Settlement.

The Company says there can be no assurances that the Stipulation
of Settlement will be approved by the court, or the timing of any
such approval.  One of the conditions to the closing of the
Mergers is that none of the parties may be subject to any order,
decree or injunction of a court or agency that enjoins or
prohibits the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement.  Accordingly, if the proposed settlement does
not proceed, and, thereafter, if a plaintiff is successful in
obtaining an injunction prohibiting completion of the Mergers,
then such injunction may prevent the Mergers from becoming
effective, or from becoming effective within the expected
timeframe.  Alternatively, if the Mergers are not approved by the
regulators and the shareholders, or close prior to any approval of
the settlement, there can be no assurance that the settlement will
be approved by the court.


BRP US: Recalls 1,600 Can-Am ATVs Due to Loss of Control Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 1,600 Can-Am ATVs were voluntarily recalled by distributor,
BRP US Inc., of Sturtevant, Wisconsin, and manufacturer, BRP
Mexico S.A. de C.V., Ciudad Juarez, Mexican state of Chihuahua, in
cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The Dynamic Power Steering (DPS) main shaft can crack and pieces
can detach.  Those pieces inside the DPS can block gears and cause
limited steering ability, posing a loss of control hazard with
risk of serious injury or death to the operator.

BRP has received two reports of broken DPS resulting in limited
steering ability.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 2010 and 2011 Can-Am Outlander and Renegade
model ATVs.  The ATVs were sold in black, yellow and red and have
"Can-Am" and the model name printed on the side panels.  Models
included in the recall are:

   Model Year 2010: Can-Am(R) OUTLANDER(TM) 500, 650 and 800R,
                    packages XT, XT-P and Ltd; on MAX and one-Up
                    models Can-Am(R) RENEGADE(TM) 800R, package X
                    xc only

   Model Year 2011: Can-Am(R) OUTLANDER(TM) 500, 650, 800R,
                    packages XT, XT-P, X xc, X mr and Ltd; on MAX
                    and one-Up models Can-Am(R) RENEGADE(TM) 800R
                    package X xc only

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12709.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold
exclusively at Can-Am dealerships nationwide between September
2009 and November 2011 for between $6,800 and $13,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ATVs and
contact their local Can-Am ATV dealer to schedule a free repair.
BRP will contact registered owners directly.  For additional
information, contact BRP toll-free at (888) 638-5397 between 8:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.can-am.brp.com/


BUGABOO AMERICAS: Recalls 64,000 Bugaboo Car Seat Adapters
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bugaboo Americas, of El Segundo, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 64,000 units of Car Seat Adapter.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

When the adapter is used on a stroller that also has a wheeled
board accessory attached for transporting a standing toddler, and
the car seat is positioned so the child faces forward, the car
seat can disconnect from the adapter and fall.

Bugaboo received one report of the car seat disconnecting from the
adapter and stroller frame, causing a minor injury.

This recall involves the Bugaboo car seat adapter models 80400GC01
and 80401GC02.  The adapters are devices designed to attach car
seats to stroller frames.  They are made of silver aluminum tubing
and black plastic connecting parts.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12067.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Babies "R" Us, Buy Buy Baby, Neiman Marcus, other department
stores and independent juvenile stores, Bugaboo.com and other
online retailers nationwide from December 2005 to July 2011 for
about $45.

Consumers should immediately stop using the adapter and contact
Bugaboo for a free service kit and decals.  For additional
information, contact Bugaboo at serviceus@bugaboo.com or (800)
460-2922 between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.bugaboo.com/


BUGABOO AMERICAS: Recalls 7,260 Bee Strollers Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Bugaboo Americas, of El Segundo, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 7,000 Bugaboo Bee Strollers
in the United States of America and 260 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The front swivel wheels can lock while the stroller is in motion,
causing the stroller to tip and posing a fall hazard.

Four incidents have been reported where the stroller's swivel
wheels locked and the stroller tipped over.  In two of these
incidents, a baby and a toddler suffered minor injuries.

The recalled strollers are made for newborns and toddlers up to 37
pounds.  They are sold in two frame colors: silver and all black.
The stroller's seat comes in black or denim colors and canopy
colors include yellow, black, khaki, blue, pink and red, plus
special collections colors such as tangerine, soft pink, light
green, dark purple, denim and the Missoni print collection.
Production dates from January 2011 through September 2011, which
are printed with the month abbreviated and year, i.e "Jan. 2011",
the "Bugaboo Bee" name and company address are printed on the date
code label located on the stroller frame under the seat unit.
"Bugaboo Bee" is also printed on the side of the seat backrest.  A
picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12066.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by Toys
R Us, Buy Buy Baby and other baby product stores nationwide,
online at Bugaboo.com and other online retailers between February
2011 and September 2011 for about $650.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and
contact Bugaboo or the retailer where the stroller was purchased
to receive free replacement swivel wheels.  For additional
information, contact Bugaboo at serviceus@bugaboo.com or at (800)
460-2922 between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.bugaboo.com/non-swiveling-wheels/


CEDAR TOWING: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Towing Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Norfleet, writing for Star Tribune, reports that a Ramsey
County man is suing Cedar Towing & Auction after he said the tow
operator overcharged him and forced him to pay in cash, both in
violation of city ordinance.

The lawsuit accusing Cedar Towing of fraud and deceptive business
practices comes in the midst of a police investigation of the
company, the city's largest tow operator.

The lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court, which seeks class-
action status, describes how Wayne Spar parked his car Sept. 18 in
a shopping center lot on LaSalle Avenue north of Groveland Avenue.

According to the complaint, after several hours, Mr. Spar saw a
Cedar Towing truck near his car.

He asked if he could move the car before being towed.  The driver
demanded $100 cash, the complaint said.  Mr. Spar said he could
get the money from his friend's house, but the driver said he
couldn't wait.

When Mr. Spar went to get his car at the Cedar Towing lot, he was
charged "more than the maximum allowed for a tow by the
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances in order to retrieve his vehicle"
and was told to pay cash, when city ordinance allows payment by
credit cards, check and money orders, the complaint said.

"Getting your car towed is a huge hassle," said Michelle Drake,
Spar's attorney, in a statement.

"Being hijacked for excessive fees makes an already bad situation
both intolerable and illegal.  By filing this lawsuit, we hope to
get peoples' money back."

A representative of Cedar Towing would not comment on Dec. 22, but
the company posted a statement on its Facebook page in November,
the same day the Star Tribune reported the police investigation:
"We make every effort to follow the Minneapolis City Ordinances &
Minnesota State Statutes.  Several years ago the towing industry
in Minneapolis was regulated by a price cap, due to a mis-reading
of the City Ordinance, we may have inadvertently charged excess
storage for vehicles towed from the City of Minneapolis."

In 2008, the city passed an ordinance limiting the fees that
towing companies may charge.  After adjustment for inflation, the
service fee for the towing is now capped at $212 and the daily
storage fee is capped at $28, according to the complaint.  Towing
companies may start charging storage fees the day after a vehicle
is towed.

According to a police search warrant, the city's licensing
department conducted a spot inspection of Cedar Towing's impound
lot in August and found that it had charged vehicle owners with a
storage fee on the day the vehicles were towed, a violation of the
ordinance.

In the Facebook statement, Cedar Towing wrote: "In our defense if
the City Licensing Inspector thought we were doing something wrong
he should have notified us at once telling us to cease whatever
action we were doing."

After the inspection, the licensing department referred the case
to the police, who in October seized two boxes of employee records
and a digital record of all tows this year from Cedar Towing.  The
alleged overcharges could amount to $100,000 this year alone,
according to the search warrant.  Police spokesman Sgt. Steve
McCarty said the investigation is continuing.


CITY OF NAMPA, ID: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Fee
---------------------------------------------------------
John Funk, writing for Idaho Press-Tribune, reports that a group
of property owners has filed a class action lawsuit against the
city of Nampa, arguing that its recent stormwater fee constitutes
an illegal tax.

The complaint, filed on Dec. 20 by attorneys E. Don Copple and
Heather Cunningham of Davidson, Copple, Copple & Copple, cites an
Idaho Supreme Court case which struck down a similar stormwater
fee in Lewiston.  According to the Dec. 20 complaint, Lewiston's
fee -- charged of all property owners whether they used the
stormwater system or not -- "contained no provisions of
regulation, provided no product, and rendered no service based on
user consumption . . . the fee served the purpose of providing
funding for a public service previously funded out of the city's
general tax revenues, and did not benefit the consumers directly."

Republic Storage earlier filed a lawsuit against the city of Nampa
for similar reasons.

Nampa city officials have previously argued that their stormwater
program differs from Lewiston's -- Nampa's stormwater fees are set
up as an enterprise fund utility, and represent services rendered
to specific properties.  The complaint filed on Dec. 20, however,
describes Nampa's fees as "almost identical" to the Lewiston
program.

According to attorney Don Copple, it's a tax disguised as a fee.
"All these things were there before, and being supported by the
general tax that's collected," he said.  "They thought it would
generate an additional $1.6 million a year, and that's a lot of
money."

The plaintiffs -- Ronald W. Van Auker; JBR, LLC; RVRV, LLC; Hogan,
LLC; Deere 1, LLP; Par 3; Idaho Industrial Development; and "all
others similarly situated" -- seek to have Nampa's ordinance
declared invalid and require the city to refund all fees collected
under the program.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final Hearing on Revised Fuel MDL Deal in March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on final approval of a revised settlement in
the multidistrict litigation against motor fuel retailers,
including Costco Wholesale Corporation, will be held on March 22,
2012, according to the Company's December 16, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended November 20, 2011.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.  The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
On February 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 12, 2009, the Company
agreed to a settlement involving the actions in which it is named
as a defendant.  Under the settlement, which is subject to final
approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the extent allowed
by law, to install over five years from the effective date of the
settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of
Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, and Virginia.  Other than payments to class representatives,
the settlement does not provide for cash payments to class
members.  On August 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  On August 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement.  On February 3, 2011,
a revised settlement agreement was submitted for court approval.
On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved the
revised settlement.  The court will hold a fairness hearing on
final approval of the settlement on March 22, 2012.  In the
meantime, the Company is required to send an additional notice to
class members.  Plaintiffs have moved for an award of $10 million
in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to
class representatives.  The Company has opposed the motion.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Illinois Court Denies Answer in "Robles" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois denied Costco Wholesale Corporation's answer refuting the
material allegations of the complaint filed by Robles, et al.,
according to the Company's December 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended November 20, 2011.

On March 15, 2011, Robles, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
was filed as a purported class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 11-
CV-1785.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a class composed of all
disabled persons with ambulatory impairments who depend upon the
use of a wheelchair and are allegedly unable to obtain optometry
services at the Company.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company has
failed to remove architectural barriers that prevent full and
equal enjoyment of and access to its eye examination services.
They allege violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  They seek
injunctive relief and compensatory damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.  The Company has filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the complaint which the court denied on December 7,
2011.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


CPSC: Reminders to Check for Winter-Related Recalled Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission posted a reminder for
consumers to check their homes for certain winter weather-related
recalled products:

Winter weather has arrived in much of the United States.  Play it
safe by checking if your cold weather-related products have been
previously recalled before you use them this season.  It could
save your life or that of your family.

The recalled products are:

                            Recall Press
   Product                     Release         Hazard
   -------                  ------------       ------
   Meijer Touch Point         11-277(1)    The oscillating
   Oscillating Ceramic                     mechanism in the
   Heaters (13,000 units)                  heaters can short out,
                                           posing a fire hazard
                                           to consumers.

   Flow Pro, Airtech,         11-069(2)    The heaters can
   Aloha Breeze & Comfort                  malfunction resulting
   Essentials Heaters                      in overheating,
   (2.2 million units)                     smoking, burning,
                                           melting and fire.

   Lasko Portable Electric    11-121(3)    An electrical
   Heaters (107,500 units)                 connection in the base
                                           of the unit can
                                           overheat, causing it
                                           to melt and expose the
                                           electrical connection,
                                           posing a fire hazard
                                           to consumers.

   Honeywell Electric         11-289(4)    The thermostats can
   Baseboard and Fan                       overheat, causing them
   Heater Thermostats                      to melt and smoke.
   (77,000 units)                          This poses a burn
                                           hazard to the
                                           consumer.

   GE Zoneline Air            11-247(5)    An electrical
   Conditioners and Heaters                component in the
   (90,600 units)                          heating system can
                                           fail, posing a fire
                                           hazard to consumers.

   (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11277.html
   (2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11069.html
   (3) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11121.html
   (4) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11289.html
   (5) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11247.html

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12065.html

Find out more about these recalled products and others that may be
in your home by visiting http://www.saferproducts.gov/


FANNIE MAE: Foreclosed Homeowners File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, foreclosed homeowners sued Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
and other "leading providers of residential real estate
mortgages," claiming their disregard for underwriting standards
caused the mortgage meltdown, which brought more than 930,000
foreclosure filings in the third quarter of 2010 alone.

IndyMac Bank and Countrywide Financial are among the host of
mortgage originators named in the 101-page complaint, which seeks
damages for the 11 named plaintiffs whose "credit ratings and
histories were damaged or destroyed."

"The fraud perpetrated by the originator defendants from 2000
through 2009 was willful and pervasive," the complaint states.
"It began with simple greed and then accelerated when said
defendants discovered they could not sustain their businesses,
unless they systematically and significantly reduced their
underwriting standards and created increasingly complex, esoteric,
and high-risk loan products to induce plaintiffs and other
borrowers into ever larger loans on increasingly risky terms.  As
the originator defendants knew from no later than 2004, these
loans were unsustainable for the borrowers and to a certainty
would result in a crash that would destroy the equity invested by
plaintiffs and other California borrowers.  Further, those actions
would cause the high risk pools of mortgages the originator
defendants had sold to Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits
(REMICs) and/or trusts to default on a nationwide scale. . . .

"It is now all too clear that this was one of the ultimate high-
stakes fraudulent schemes of the last decade.  Couched in banking
and securities jargon, the originator defendants deceptive gamble
with consumers' primary assets -- their homes -- was nothing more
than a financial fraud perpetrated by the originator defendants
and others on a scale never before seen."

The complaint adds: "Over the last four years, the United States
has been in a foreclosure crisis.  In late 2009, a congressional
oversight panel noted that one in eight U.S. mortgages was in
foreclosure or default.

"For the third quarter of 2010, national foreclosure filings --
default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions -- were
reported on 930,437 properties in the 3rd quarter.  One in every
139 U.S. housing units received a foreclosure filing in that
quarter."

The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of "purposefully hindering"
mortgage modifications under the Home Affordable Modification
Program, "to exploit a given pool of mortgages for maximal
profitability."

In addition, the plaintiffs say, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
foreclosed on properties "knowing that under California Law no
default to the holder of plaintiffs' and others notes actually
existed."

"In typical mortgage securitizations, mortgages are added together
with other mortgages and a pool of mortgages is created.  The
resultant pool of mortgages is then sold to a trust and/or REMIC
which becomes the actual owner/holder of the note and/or mortgage.

"As such, the note-holder cannot enforce the default provisions of
said note unless a default to said note-holder exists.  . . .

"As such the plaintiffs' and others mortgage payments were in fact
received by the actual note-holders and no enforceable defaults
existed at time of foreclosures."

Lead plaintiff Tom Casault claims that IndyMac made a loan that
placed him in "a financial position of extreme likelihood of
failure."

Mr. Casault describes himself as a "professional real estate
investor [who] owned 150 approximately 150 properties across the
United States, all of which were mortgaged."

He claims that IndyMac knew that "Conventional underwriting
standards at the time would not allow plaintiff to own more than
12 mortgaged properties at once and no cash-out refinance
transactions were allowed on investment properties being used as
security for a mortgage loan."

They seek damages for violations of California's Predatory Lending
Law, of the California Business & Professions Code, of the
California Civil Code and its Commercial Code.

A copy of the Complaint in Casault, et al. v. Federal National
Mortgage Association, et al., Case No. 11-cv-10520 (C.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/22/CalMorts.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Khinh V. Yam, Esq.
          1511 E. Anaheim Street #6
          Long Beach, CA 90813
          Telephone: (562) 443-4360
          E-mail: lawpro3370@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Dion, Esq.
          1319 Cranston Street
          Cranston, RI 02920
          Telephone: (401) 663-0699
          E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com


FEDEX CORP: 7th Circ. Denies Bid to Return 8 Cases to MDL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied FedEx
Corporation's motion to require eight class action lawsuits to be
returned to the multidistrict litigation court for issuance of a
final judgment, according to the Company's December 16, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended November 30, 2011.

One of FedEx Corporation's operating companies, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), is involved in numerous
class-action lawsuits (including 30 that have been certified as
class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other
administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent
contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.  The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.  On
December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee).  In sum, the court has now ruled on the Company's
summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx
Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation
cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the
owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the
law of the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana,
Kansas (the court previously dismissed without prejudice the
nationwide class claim under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 based on the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust
administrative remedies), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and
Wisconsin.  The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these
20 cases.  The Seventh Circuit will hear the appeal in the Kansas
case first.

In the other eight certified class actions in the multidistrict
litigation, the court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on some of
the claims and against FedEx Ground on at least one claim in three
of the cases (filed in Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire) and
then remanded all eight cases back to district court in the
following states for resolution of the remaining claims: Arkansas,
California, Florida, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire and Oregon
(two certified classes).  In January 2011, the Company asked the
court to issue final judgments in these eight cases, and the court
denied the Company's motion.  In July 2011, the Company filed a
petition to the Seventh Circuit asking the appeals court to
require these cases to be returned to the multidistrict litigation
court for issuance of a final judgment so that all appeals of the
December 2010 summary judgment rulings would be heard by the
Seventh Circuit, and in November 2011, the Seventh Circuit denied
the Company's petition.

Other contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of
the multidistrict litigation are in varying stages of litigation.

With respect to the state administrative proceedings relating to
the classification of FedEx Ground's owner-operators as
independent contractors, during the second quarter of 2011, the
attorneys general in New York and Kentucky each filed lawsuits
against FedEx Ground challenging the validity of the contractor
model.

While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by
the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had
been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, the
Company believes that it significantly improves the likelihood
that its independent contractor model will be upheld.  Adverse
determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent
contractors, however, could, among other things, entitle certain
of the Company's contractors and their drivers to the
reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-
hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit
liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the
independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in
certain jurisdictions.  The Company believes that FedEx Ground's
owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors
and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the
company's independent contractors.  While it is reasonably
possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or such
changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's
owner-operators could be material, the Company cannot yet
determine the amount or reasonable range of potential loss.  A
number of factors contribute to this.  The number of plaintiffs in
these lawsuits continues to change, with some being dismissed and
others being added and, as to new plaintiffs, discovery is still
ongoing.  In addition, the parties have not yet conducted any
discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from
plaintiff to plaintiff.  Further, the range of potential loss
could be impacted considerably by future rulings on the merits of
certain claims and FedEx Ground's various defenses, and on
evidentiary issues.  In any event, the Company does not believe
that a material loss is probable in these matters.


FEDEX CORP: Awaits Approval of Paystub-Related Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation is awaiting court approval of its settlement of
a paystub-related class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
December 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2011.

A federal court in California ruled in April 2011 that paystubs
for certain employees in California of one of the Company's
operating companies, Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx
Express"), did not meet that state's requirements to reflect pay
period begin date, total overtime hours worked and the correct
overtime wage rate.  The ruling came in a class action lawsuit
filed by a former courier seeking damages on behalf of herself and
all other FedEx Express employees in California that allegedly
received noncompliant paystubs.  The court certified the class in
June 2011.  The court has ruled that FedEx Express is liable to
the State of California, and there will be a ruling as to whether
FedEx Express is liable to class members who can prove they were
injured by the paystub deficiencies.  The judge has not yet
decided on the amount, if any, of liability to the State of
California or to the class, but has wide discretion.  Prior to any
decision on the amount of liability, the Company reached an
agreement to settle this matter for an immaterial amount in
October 2011, subject to approval by the court.


FEDEX CORP: Awaits Final Approval of "Taylor" Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation is awaiting final approval of its settlement to
resolve a class action lawsuit commenced by drivers in California
against its unit, FedEx Freight, Inc., according to the Company's
December 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing
various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they
were forced to work "off the clock," were not paid overtime or
were not provided work breaks or other benefits.  The complaints
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or
both.  The Company does not believe that a material loss is
reasonably possible with respect to any of these matters.

In September 2009, in Taylor v. FedEx Freight, a California state
court granted class certification, certifying a class of all
current and former drivers employed by FedEx Freight in California
who performed linehaul services since June 2003.  The plaintiffs
alleged, among other things, that they were forced to work "off
the clock" and were not provided with required rest or meal
breaks.

The Company entered into a tentative settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in June 2011 for an immaterial amount.  The order of
preliminary approval of settlement was entered by the court in
September 2011.  Class notices were mailed in October 2011.


FEDEX CORP: "Anfinson" Class Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against one of FedEx Corporation's
operating companies, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is still
pending, according to the Company's December 16, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended November 30, 2011.

In January 2008, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not
part of the multidistrict litigation, Anfinson v. FedEx Ground,
was certified as a class action by a Washington state court.  The
plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of single-route, pickup-
and-delivery owner-operators in Washington from December 21, 2001,
through December 31, 2005, and allege that the class members
should be reimbursed as employees for their uniform expenses and
should receive overtime pay.  In March 2009, a jury trial in the
Anfinson case was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor
of FedEx Ground, finding that all 320 class members were
independent contractors, not employees.  The plaintiffs appealed
the verdict.  In December 2010, the Washington Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including a new
trial.  The Company filed a motion to reconsider, and this motion
was denied.  In March 2011, the Company filed a discretionary
appeal with the Washington Supreme Court, and in August 2011, that
petition was granted.

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


FEDEX CORP: "Rascon" Class Suit Still Pending in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
In August 2010, another one of the contractor-model lawsuits that
is not part of the multidistrict litigation was certified as a
class action by a Colorado state court against one of FedEx
Corporation's operating companies, FedEx Ground Package System,
Inc., Rascon v. FedEx Ground.  The plaintiff in Rascon represents
a class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in
Colorado who drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds at
any time from August 27, 2005, through the present.  The lawsuit
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs, under Colorado law.  The Company's
applications for appeal challenging this class certification
decision have been rejected.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 16,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2011.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Two Product Liability Class Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two product liability class action lawsuits are pending against K-
V Pharmaceutical Company, according to the Company's
December 19, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, ETHEX Corporation,
are named defendants in at least 24 pending product liability or
other lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product recalls
initiated by the Company in late 2008 and early 2009.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege damages as a result of the
ingestion of purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed
in 2007 and 2008.  The lawsuits are pending in federal and state
courts in various jurisdictions.  Six of the 24 pending lawsuits
have settled but have not yet been dismissed.  Of the remaining 18
pending lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege economic harm, 13
plaintiffs allege wrongful death, and the remaining lawsuits
allege non-fatal physical injuries.  Plaintiffs' allegations of
liability are based on various theories of recovery, including,
but not limited to strict liability, negligence, various breaches
of warranty, misbranding, fraud and other common law and/or
statutory claims.  Plaintiffs seek substantial compensatory and
punitive damages.  Two of the lawsuits are putative class actions
seeking economic damages with respect to recalled products, one of
the lawsuits has four unrelated plaintiffs, and the remaining
lawsuits are either individual lawsuits or have two plaintiffs.
The Company possesses third party product liability insurance,
which the Company believes is applicable to the pending lawsuits
and claims.

One of these putative class actions, styled Polk v. KV
Pharmaceutical Company et al., seeks economic damages with respect
to recalled metoprolol succinate product.  During January 2011,
the decision of the U.S. District Court dismissing the case in
favor of the Company was reversed on appeal.  The Company
requested reconsideration by the appellate court, which was denied
in March 2011, and the Company filed a motion for appellate review
en banc, which was denied by the court on
May 12, 2011.  The case has been returned to the district court
for further proceedings and a motion to dismiss is pending.  The
other putative class action, styled Herndon v. KV Pharmaceutical
Company et al., is pending in state court in Missouri.
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was heard by the court
on August 16, 2011, and the parties await a ruling.  In addition
to the 24 pending lawsuits, there are at least three pending pre-
litigation claims (one of which involves a death) that may or may
not eventually result in lawsuits.

In addition to the product liability lawsuits related to the
voluntary product recalls, on September 14, 2011, plaintiffs Lanny
and Angela Jones filed a complaint against the Company and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Ther-Rx Corporation, in the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, styled Lanny and Angela Jones,
individually and as parents and next friends of their minor
children, Landon Jones and Alana Jones, alleging injury to their
minor children as a result of coming in contact with Evamist.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Has Already Paid "Robertson" Settlement Dues
----------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company said in its December 19, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011, that it has made all payments
required under certain settlement agreements resolving a class
action lawsuit against a subsidiary.

A complaint styled Robertson v. Ther-Rx Corporation, U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama, was filed
October 30, 2009, by a Ther-Rx sales representative asserting non-
exempt status and the right to overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for a class of Ther-Rx sales representatives and
under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (with respect to
plaintiff's pregnancy) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (also with respect to termination allegedly due to her
pregnancy and to her complaints about being terminated allegedly
as a result of her pregnancy).  An additional seven Ther-Rx sales
representatives joined as plaintiffs.  On December 22, 2010, a
settlement was reached between the parties for $0.3 million and on
May 12, 2011, the court approved the settlement agreements.  The
Company has made all payments required under the settlement
agreements.


LEE ENTERPRISES: Newspaper Guild Litigation Pending in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The matter known as the "Newspaper Guild Litigation" involving a
subsidiary of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated, is currently pending
in two consolidated cases before one judge in Missouri, according
to the Company's December 16, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 2009 and 2011, the St. Louis Newspaper Guild filed three
separate lawsuits against St. Louis Post-Dispatch LLC ("PD LLC"),
an indirect subsidiary of the Company, in the Eastern District of
Missouri.  In these cases, the St. Louis Newspaper Guild sought to
compel PD LLC to participate in arbitration under two different
union contracts regarding changes made by PD LLC to retiree
medical benefits.  Two cases involving the same union contract
were consolidated into one lawsuit, in which the trial court judge
granted the St. Louis Newspaper Guild's motion for summary
judgment and ordered arbitration.  PD LLC successfully appealed
that decision, and the appellate court remanded the matter back to
the trial court.

Lee Enterprises then filed class action lawsuits under both union
contracts at issue (collectively with the lawsuits initially filed
by the St. Louis Newspaper Guild, the "Newspaper Guild
Litigation"), seeking a declaratory judgment that the medical
benefit rights were not vested under those contracts and that PD
LLC had the right to change the retiree benefits without
arbitration.  The Newspaper Guild Litigation is now currently
pending in two consolidated cases before one judge in the Eastern
District of Missouri.


LEE ENTERPRISES: Unit's Class Certification Reversal Bid Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Lee Publications, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Lee Enterprises, Incorporated, to reverse a class certification
ruling remains pending, according to the Company's December 16,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In 2008, a group of newspaper carriers filed a lawsuit against Lee
Publications, Inc. ("Lee Publications"), which is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "California Litigation"), in which the
plaintiffs claimed to be employees of Lee Publications and not
independent contractors.  The plaintiffs seek relief related to
alleged violations of various employment-based statutes, and
request punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  In July 2010, the
trial court granted the plaintiffs' petition for class
certification.  Lee Publications filed an interlocutory appeal,
which was denied.  After concluding discovery, Lee Publications
filed a motion to reverse the class certification ruling.  This
motion is currently pending before the trial court.

Lee Publications denies the allegations of employee status,
consistent with its past practices and industry practices, and
intends to vigorously contest the action, which is not covered by
insurance.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Settles Outstanding Claims in 1997 Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lufkin Industries, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement on
December 13, 2011, with respect to the outstanding legal claims
related to a May 1997 class action complaint filed against it in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
according to the Company's December 19, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pursuant to the agreement, Lufkin will pay aggregate attorney's
fees of approximately $2.7 million, which amount shall cover all
fees of plaintiff's counsel in respect of work performed prior to
entry of the District Court's final judgment on January 15, 2010,
work performed since January 15, 2010, and all future work
performed in connection with the action.  As previously disclosed,
Lufkin has recorded provisions in the amount of approximately
$900,000 for work performed by plaintiffs' counsel since January
15, 2010.  As a result, the settlement will result in a net pre-
tax impact to Lufkin of approximately $1.8 million in the fourth
quarter of 2011.

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


META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend CD-Related Suit vs. MetaBank
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against one
remaining lawsuit involving the sale of purported MetaBank
certificates of deposit, according to the Company's December 20,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

Lawsuits against the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, MetaBank,
involving the sale of purported MetaBank certificates of deposit
continue to be addressed.  In all, nine cases have been filed to
date, and of those nine, three have been dismissed, and five have
been settled for payments that the Company deemed reasonable under
the circumstances, including the costs of litigation.  Most
recently, the class action, Guardian Angel Credit Union v.
MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB (USDC, District of NH), was
settled.

There is now one remaining lawsuit relating to this matter:
Airline Pilots Assoc Federal Credit Union v. MetaBank, filed in
the Iowa District court for Polk County, Case No. CL-118792.  The
underlying matter was first disclosed in the Company's quarterly
report for the period ended December 31, 2007, which stated that
an employee of the Bank had sold fraudulent CDs for her own
benefit.  The unauthorized and illegal actions of the employee
have since prompted a number of demands and lawsuits seeking
recovery on the fraudulent CDs to be filed against the Bank, which
have been disclosed in subsequent filings.  The employee was
prosecuted, convicted and, on June 2, 2010, sentenced to more than
seven years in federal prison and ordered to pay more than $4
million in restitution.  Notwithstanding the nature of her crimes,
which were unknown by the Bank and its management, plaintiff in
the remaining case seeks to impose liability on the Bank under a
number of legal theories with respect to the $99,000 fraudulent CD
that was issued by the former employee.  The Bank and its insurer,
which has assumed defense of the action and which is advancing
defense costs subject to a reservation of rights, continue to
vigorously contest liability in the remaining actions.


META FINANCIAL: Reaches Tentative Settlement of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc. reached a tentative settlement of the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in Iowa, the
Company disclosed in its December 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2011.

Two former stockholders filed separate purported class action
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers alleging
violations of certain federal securities laws.  The cases were
filed on October 22, 2010, and November 5, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock
between May 14, 2009, and October 15, 2010.  On January 12, 2011,
Judge Mark W. Bennett appointed The Eden Partnership lead
plaintiff and on March 14, 2011, Eden Partnership filed its
amended complaint.  The consolidated lawsuit is styled In re Meta
Financial Group, Inc., Securities Litigation; Case No. C10-
4108MWB.  The amended complaint alleges that the named officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and
misleading public statements made between May 14, 2009, and
October 15, 2010, by the Company and its officers.  Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety but on July
18, 2011, the court denied the motion and ordered that discovery
proceed.  The parties conducted a mediation on
December 5, 2011, and reached a tentative settlement of the
matter.  After the terms of the settlement are reduced to a
definitive settlement agreement, the settlement must then be
reviewed by the court, submitted to the class members for their
consideration and comment, and finally approved by the court
before the matter can be dismissed with prejudice.  As of the
filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, provided that the
amount of the tentative settlement is approved by the court and
the amount of the settlement is paid by the Company's insurance as
expected by the Company, the Company does not expect to incur
losses in addition to the amounts that it has previously expensed
which would be material to its consolidated financial statements.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in Retiree Health Care Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation's appeal from a court order
directing it to reinstate certain prescription drug benefit
remains pending, according to the Company's December 20, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended October 31, 2011.

In April 2010, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America ("UAW") and others ("Plaintiffs")
filed a "Motion of Plaintiffs Art Shy, UAW, et al for an
Injunction to Compel Compliance with the 1993 Settlement
Agreement" (the "Shy Motion") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio (the "Court").  The Shy Motion sought to
enjoin the Company from implementing an administrative change
relating to prescription drug benefits under a healthcare plan for
Medicare-eligible retirees (the "Part D Change").  Specifically,
Plaintiffs claimed that the Part D Change violated the terms of a
June 1993 settlement agreement previously approved by the Court
(the "1993 Settlement Agreement").  That 1993 Settlement Agreement
resolved a class action originally filed in 1992 regarding the
restructuring of the Company's then applicable retiree health care
and life insurance benefits. In May 2010, the Company filed its
Opposition to the Shy Motion.

The Part D Change was effective July 1, 2010, and made the
Company's prescription drug coverage for post-65 retirees ("Plan 2
Retirees") supplemental to the coverage provided by Medicare.
Plan 2 Retirees paid the premiums for Medicare Part D drug
coverage under the Part D Change.

In February 2011, the Court ruled on the Shy Motion (the "February
2011 Order").  The February 2011 Order sustained the Plaintiffs'
argument that the Company did not have authority to unilaterally
substitute Medicare Part D for the prescription drug benefit that
Plaintiffs had been receiving under the 1993 Settlement Agreement.
However, the February 2011 Order denied as moot Plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief to prevent the Company from
implementing the Part D Change, because the change already had
gone into effect.  In February 2011, the Company filed a notice of
appeal concerning the February 2011 Order.

On September 30, 2011, the Court issued an order directing the
Company to reinstate the prescription drug benefit that was in
effect before the Company unilaterally substituted Medicare Part D
for the prior prescription drug benefit (the "September 2011
Order").  The September 2011 Order also requires the Company to
reimburse Plan 2 Retirees for any Medicare Part D premiums they
have paid since the Part D Change and the extra cost, if any, for
the retirees' prescriptions under the Part D Change.  On
October 14, 2011, the Company filed a notice of appeal concerning
the September 2011 Order.  Pending the appeal of the February 2011
Order and the September 2011 Order, Plan 2 Retirees will not pay
premiums for Medicare Part D drug coverage and the prescription
drug formulary available to such retirees will reflect the
prescription drug benefit in effect prior to the implementation of
the Part D Change.

Navistar International Corporation (NYSE: NAV) --
http://www.Navistar.com/-- is a holding company whose
subsidiaries and affiliates subsidiaries produce International(R)
brand commercial and military trucks, MaxxForce(R) brand diesel
engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and commercial buses, Monaco RV
brands of recreational vehicles, and Workhorse(R) brand chassis
for motor homes and step vans.  It also is a private-label
designer and manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck,
van and SUV markets.  The company also provides truck and diesel
engine parts and service.  Another affiliate offers financing
services.


NAVISTAR INT'L: New Case Mgmt. Meeting Expected in Early 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
A new case management conference in the class action lawsuit
against subsidiaries of Navistar International Corporation is
expected at the beginning of 2012, the Company disclosed in its
December 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31, 2011.

On May 20, 2011, 9046-9478 Quebec Inc. ("Quebec") filed a motion
to authorize the bringing of a class action against Navistar, Inc.
and Navistar Canada, Inc. (collectively, "Navistar Defendants"),
as well as Ford and Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
(collectively, "Ford Defendants") in Superior Court in Quebec,
Canada (the "Quebec Action").  The Quebec Action seeks
authorization to bring a claim on behalf of a class of Canadian
owners and lessees of model year 2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by
the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine that Navistar, Inc. previously
supplied to Ford. Quebec alleged that the engines in question have
design and manufacturing defects, and that Navistar Defendants and
Ford Defendants are solidarily liable for those defects.  For
relief, the Quebec Action seeks dollar damages sufficient to
remedy the alleged defects, compensate the alleged damages
incurred by the proposed class, and compensate plaintiffs'
counsel.  The Quebec Action also asks the Court to order the
Navistar Defendants and the Ford Defendants to recall, repair, or
replace the Ford vehicles at issue free of charge.  The motion to
authorize the bringing of the class action was presented in August
2011, and the hearing was continued to an as yet undetermined
date.  A new case management conference is expected at the
beginning of 2012.

Navistar International Corporation (NYSE: NAV) --
http://www.Navistar.com/-- is a holding company whose
subsidiaries and affiliates subsidiaries produce International(R)
brand commercial and military trucks, MaxxForce(R) brand diesel
engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and commercial buses, Monaco RV
brands of recreational vehicles, and Workhorse(R) brand chassis
for motor homes and step vans.  It also is a private-label
designer and manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck,
van and SUV markets.  The company also provides truck and diesel
engine parts and service.  Another affiliate offers financing
services.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Unit Dismissed From 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated lawsuit known as the 6.0 Liter Diesel
Engine Litigation agreed to dismiss Navistar International
Corporation's subsidiary from the case, according to the Company's
December 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31, 2011.

In November 2010, Brandon Burns filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company's subsidiary, Navistar, Inc., and Ford
Motor Company in federal court for the Southern District of
California (the "Burns Action").  The Burns Action sought to
certify a class of California owners and lessees of model year
2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine
that Navistar, Inc. previously supplied to Ford.  Mr. Burns
alleged that the engines in question have design and manufacturing
defects.  Mr. Burns asserted claims against Navistar, Inc. for
negligent performance of contractual duty (related to Navistar's
former contract with Ford), unfair competition, and unjust
enrichment.  For relief, the Burns Action sought dollar damages
sufficient to remedy the alleged defects, compensate the alleged
damages incurred by the proposed class, and compensate plaintiffs'
counsel.  The Burns Action also asked the Court to award punitive
damages and restitution/disgorgement.

After the Burns Action was filed, nineteen additional putative
class action lawsuits making materially identical allegations
against Navistar, Inc. were filed in federal courts in various
parts of the country (the "Additional Actions").  The Additional
Actions sought to certify in several different states classes
similar to the proposed California class in the Burns Action.  The
theories of liability and relief sought in the Additional Actions
were substantially similar to the Burns Action.

In April and May 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred Burns and all but one (the "Saxby Case") of
the Additional Actions to the Northern District of Illinois, where
the Custom Underground case (another similar case pending in
Chicago, where Navistar, Inc. is not a defendant) is pending, for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings ("MDL").

In May 2011, all plaintiffs in the consolidated matter filed a
voluntary Notice of Dismissal dismissing Navistar, Inc. without
prejudice.  In June 2011, the Saxby Case was transferred to the
MDL court.  On September 8, 2011, the parties entered into and
filed with the Court a Stipulation of Dismissal, which confirms
the dismissal of Navistar, Inc. without prejudice from those cases
in which Navistar had filed a responsive pleading, as well as the
Saxby Case.

Navistar International Corporation (NYSE: NAV) --
http://www.Navistar.com/-- is a holding company whose
subsidiaries and affiliates subsidiaries produce International(R)
brand commercial and military trucks, MaxxForce(R) brand diesel
engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and commercial buses, Monaco RV
brands of recreational vehicles, and Workhorse(R) brand chassis
for motor homes and step vans.  It also is a private-label
designer and manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck,
van and SUV markets.  The company also provides truck and diesel
engine parts and service.  Another affiliate offers financing
services.


OILSANDS QUEST: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the securities class action lawsuit
against Oilsands Quest Inc., according to the Company's
December 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

On February 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint (the
"Original Complaint") was filed against the Company and certain
current and former officers of the Company on behalf of investors
who purchased or sold the Company's securities between August 14,
2006, and July 14, 2009, alleging claims of securities fraud under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, and control person liability for such
fraud under Section 20(a) of the same act, arising out of the
Company's accounting for its acquisition of an interest in OQI
Sask in August 2006.  On May 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in that
putative class action filed an amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") alleging the same legal causes of action but making
the following changes from the Original Complaint:  a) expanding
the putative class period so that it runs from March 20, 2006, to
January 13, 2011; b) naming as additional defendants eight
individuals who are current or former directors of the Company as
well as two additional corporate defendants, McDaniel & Associates
Consultants Ltd. and TD Securities, Inc.; and c) basing the
claimed fraud on a new theory that the Company overstated the
value of its mineral rights as a result of misstatements about,
among other things, the potential for extracting bitumen from oil
sands lands for which the Company had exploration and development
permits.  The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.  On June 6, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On June 20, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss.  The
Company filed its reply to the plaintiffs' opposition on June 27,
2011, and on July 29, 2011, the court heard oral arguments and
reserved decision.  On August 5, 2011, the two remaining
defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On
September 16, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On September 29, 2011, the
defendants answered the Amended Complaint.  Discovery is ongoing.
The Company believes the claims are without merit.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Two Securities Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. is facing two securities class
action lawsuits in California, according to the Company's
December 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

On October 26, 2011, a putative class action complaint captioned
Woburn Retirement System v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-5235, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against the Company and
three of its executives, one of whom is a director.  On November
4, 2011, a similar putative class action was filed against the
same defendants in the same Court, Laborers Local 235 Benefit
Funds v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-
5372.  Both complaints allege that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company's business and financial results,
in particular the use of its imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s
iPhone.  The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between August 27, 2010, and October 13, 2011.  No response date
has been set.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these allegations.  At this time, the Company cannot estimate or
predict whether this matter will result in any material loss to
it.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Omnivision
Technologies shares plunged from $36.42 to $14.26 after its
directors' claim to have retained an exclusive supply contract
with Apple was revealed as a sham.

A copy of the Complaint in Carbon County Retirement Board v.
OmniVision Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-06593 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/22/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
          Katherine E. Smith, Esq.
          MURRAY FRANK LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          E-mail: mfrank@murrayfrank.com
                  ksmith@murrayfrank.com


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Primo, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.,
Hugh C. Martin, Susan K. Barnes, and Brian B. Dow, Case No. 4:11-
cv-06599 (N.D. Calif., December 21, 2011) accuses the Defendants
of violating federal securities laws.  The case is brought on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased PacBio common
stock between October 27, 2010, and September 20, 2011, inclusive.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knowingly, or with
severe recklessness, made materially misleading statements, and
failed to disclose information necessary to make various
statements not materially misleading, during the Class Period.  As
a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff contends,
the price of PacBio common stock was artificially inflated during
the Class Period.

Mr. Primo is a shareholder of PacBio.

PacBio is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices in Menlo Park, California.  The Individual Defendants are
officers and directors of PacBio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN WELLING, P.C.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Scott J. Farrell, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  tjm@rigrodskylong.com
                  sjf@rigrodskylong.com


PALL CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Extend Discovery Into 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pall Corporation is awaiting a court decision on lead plaintiff's
motion to extend into 2012 the discovery period in a pending
consolidated class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
December 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

As previously reported in the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
SEC for the year ended July 31, 2011, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain members of its
management team alleging violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the Company's understatement of certain of its U.S.
income tax payments and of its provision for income taxes in
certain prior periods as described in Note 2, Audit Committee
Inquiry and Restatement to the consolidated financial statements
included in the 2007 Form 10-K.  These lawsuits were filed between
August 14, 2007, and October 11, 2007, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.  By Order dated May 28,
2008, the Court consolidated the cases under the caption "In re
Pall Corp," No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ARL), appointed a lead
plaintiff and ordered that the lead plaintiff file a consolidated
amended complaint.  The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint on August 4, 2008.  The lead plaintiff seeks to
act as representative for a class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's stock between April 20, 2007, and August 2, 2007,
inclusive.  The consolidated amended complaint names the Company
and its current chief executive officer and chief financial
officer as defendants and alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  It alleges that the
defendants violated these provisions of the federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading public statements
about the Company's financial results and financial statements,
including the Company's income tax liability, effective tax rate,
internal controls and accounting practices.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses.  The Company
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September
19, 2008, and filed its reply brief to the lead plaintiff's
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on December 2, 2008.
By Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2009, the Court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend the consolidated
amended complaint by filing a second amended complaint.  On
October 9, 2009, the Company moved for certification for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court denied the motion by
Memorandum and Order entered November 25, 2009.  During the fiscal
year ended July 31, 2011, discovery resumed and is currently
expected to be complete by December 31, 2011.  The lead plaintiff
has requested that the Court extend the discovery period into
2012.

The Company says it has assessed the ultimate resolution of these
matters and has reflected appropriate contingent liabilities and
related insurance recoveries of an equal amount in the condensed
consolidated financial statements as of October 31, 2011, and
July 31, 2011.


PATHEON INC: Customers Seeks Indemnification Over Product Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patheon Inc. disclosed in its December 19, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 31, 2011, that a Company customer is facing three
putative class action lawsuits related to a product recall, and
that the customer is seeking indemnification.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, a customer gave notice of
its intent to seek indemnification against the Company pursuant to
a manufacturing service agreement ("MSA") for all costs associated
with a recall and associated defective products.  The Company
accrued $1.7 million, net of expected insurance proceeds, to cover
recall costs and replace the returned products.  In November, the
customer gave further notice of its intent to seek indemnification
pursuant to the MSA for all actual and potential third-party
claims filed against them in connection with the recall, as well
as all costs and expenses of the defense and settlement of such
claims.  To date, three putative class actions related to the
recall have been commenced in the United States against the
customer.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to estimate the
number of potential claimants or the amount of potential damages
in the actions.  To date, the Company has not been named as a
party in any action related to the product recall.


PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Faces Securities Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 7, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Petroleum Development Corporation (doing business as PDC Energy)
and its subsidiary, DP 2004 Merger Sub LLC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  The action,
Schulein v. Petroleum Development Corp., Case No. SACV11-1891 AG
(ANx), was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who owned
limited partnership units in one or more of the following limited
partnerships: PDC 2003-A Limited Partnership, PDC 2003-B Limited
Partnership, PDC 2003-C Limited Partnership, PDC 2003-D Limited
Partnership, PDC 2004-A Limited Partnership, PDC 2004-B Limited
Partnership, PDC 2004-C Limited Partnership, PDC 2004-D Limited
Partnership, PDC 2005-A Limited Partnership, PDC 2005-B Limited
Partnership, and Rockies Region Private Limited Partnership, whose
limited partnership units were cashed out pursuant to merger
transactions in 2010 and 2011.

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts claims against PDC and Merger Sub
for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 in connection with these
mergers.  Plaintiffs allege that the proxy statements used to
solicit limited partners to vote in favor of these mergers made
false and misleading statements and omitted material facts
regarding the value of the assets held by the partnerships. The
complaint further alleges that the limited partners were cashed
out at unfair prices and that PDC was enriched at the expense of
the limited partners.  In addition to securities law violations,
plaintiffs also assert state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty.

If you owned any limited partnership units in the above-listed
partnerships at the time of the cash out mergers and wish to serve
as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must file a motion with the
Court no later than February 20, 2012,requesting that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
prosecuting the lawsuit.  To be appointed lead plaintiff, the
Court must decide that you have the largest financial interest of
any qualified movant, that your claims are typical of the claims
of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the
class.  If there is a recovery in this action and you are part of
the class, you can recover as an absent class member without
moving to be appointed as lead plaintiff or otherwise taking an
active role in the litigation.  You may also choose to retain the
attorneys representing plaintiffs identified in this notice, or
other attorneys, to serve as your counsel in this action, but you
do not need to retain counsel to participate in any recovery as an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact:

          SouthwickSusman Godfrey L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (206) 373-7385
          Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com
          E-mail: PDCClassAction@susmangodfrey.com

Plaintiffs are represented by Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Foley Bezek
Behle & Curtis LLP and Good Wildman Hegness & Walley.  These firms
collectively have substantial experience in prosecuting investor
class actions.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Koven, writing for Financial Post, reports that after
spending a day and a half making their cases, Canada's leading
class-action lawyers now have to wait and see who gets to lead the
action against Sino-Forest Corp., possibly the biggest of its kind
in Canadian history.

Three different class action suits have been filed against Sino
(and its associated underwriters, auditors and consultants) since
the beleaguered Chinese forestry firm was accused of fraud in
June.  In the Ontario Superior Court last week, the lawyers behind
each suit tried to convince Justice Paul Perell that they should
get "carriage" of the Sino affair.

Justice Perell had serious questions about each lawsuit, and
acknowledged he is struggling to make a decision.  "I rather doubt
I'll have a Christmas present for anyone," he said at the
conclusion of the hearing on Dec. 21.

He has a lot to think about, as there are huge differences between
the three suits in such areas as the length of the class period,
the number of defendants and the allegations themselves.

The action filed by Kim Orr Barristers LLC and U.S. firm Milberg
LLP has received the most attention lately, as it signed up three
large institutions as plaintiffs, including B.C. Investment
Management Corp.  Justice Perell was not convinced that this is
appropriate.  He noted these institutions could easily file suit
against Sino-Forest on their own, and class actions are supposed
to provide opportunities for people who have no other legal
option.

The polar opposite of that suit is the one filed by Rochon Genova
LLP.  The lead plaintiff there is a sales manager from Ontario
named Doug Smith, who lost half his portfolio on Sino-Forest.
Rochon partner Joel Rochon stressed that Mr. Smith needs this
action in order to take on the company.

The third suit is a joint effort between Siskinds LLP and Koskie
Minsky LLP.  Koskie partner Kirk Baert noted it has a shorter
class period and fewer defendants than the Kim Orr action, which
he said "bites off more than is possible to chew or digest."

Justice Perell suggested there may be an opportunity to
consolidate the claims in the three lawsuits and assign a
leadership role.  Mr. Baert argued that it is not appropriate in
this case, because there are enormous differences between the
three suits.


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Trial in "Engel" Suit to Commence on Oct. 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for one of the lawsuits originally commenced by Daniel
Herrold against Smithfield Foods, Inc.'s subsidiaries is scheduled
to commence on October 9, 2012, according to the Company's
December 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 30, 2011.

In May 2004, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Daniel
Herrold, et al. and Others Similarly Situated v. ContiGroup
Companies, Inc., Premium Standard Farms (PSF), and PSF Group
Holdings, Inc. was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri.  As a result of various venue transfer rulings and
notices of dismissal, Herrold cases are pending in Chariton,
Clark, DeKalb, Harrison, Jackson, and Linn counties.  Trial for
one of the Herrold cases pending in Harrison County, Engel, et al.
v. PSF, et al., which involves the claims of four plaintiffs, has
been scheduled to commence on October 9, 2012, and discovery is
ongoing.


SONESTA INT'L: Supplements Proxy Materials Under Suits Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to Sonesta International Hotels Corporation's
December 19, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Company filed a supplement to its
definitive proxy materials relating to the previously announced
proposed merger of Sonesta with a subsidiary of Sonesta
Acquisition Corp. (f/k/a Property Acquisition Corp.), an affiliate
of Hospitality Properties Trust pursuant to an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of November 2, 2011.  The proxy supplement has
been filed in connection with the settlement of class action
litigation relating to the proposed merger.

As described in Sonesta's definitive proxy materials (as
previously supplemented), two putative class action lawsuits were
brought against Sonesta, each member of Sonesta's Board of
Directors, Hospitality Properties Trust, Sonesta Acquisition Corp.
and Pac Merger Corp., challenging the proposed merger, in the New
York Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division on behalf
of Sonesta's stockholders.  On December 17, 2011, counsel for the
parties entered into a memorandum of understanding, in which they
agreed on the terms of a settlement of the stockholder litigation.
The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things,
consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the court.  Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum
of understanding, Sonesta has agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the merger, which are contained in the
proxy supplement filed on December 19, 2011.  The settlement will
not affect the amount of the merger consideration that Sonesta's
stockholders are entitled to receive in the merger.

Based in Boston, Sonesta International Hotels Corporation owns,
operates and franchises upscale and upper upscale hotels, resorts
and cruise ships in North America, South America, the Caribbean
and the Middle East.  There are presently 33 "Sonesta"-flagged
properties in Boston, Miami, New Orleans, Chile (3), Colombia (4),
Ecuador, Peru (7), Sint Maarten (2), and Egypt (13).


SUFFOLK BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Bancorp is facing a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit commenced by James E. Fisher in New York, according to the
Company's December 20, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On October 20, 2011, a putative shareholder class action, James E.
Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5114 (SJ), was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against Suffolk, its chief executive officer, and a former
chief financial officer of Suffolk.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly or recklessly making false
statements about, or failing to disclose accurate information
about, Suffolk's financial results and condition, loan loss
reserves, impaired assets, internal and disclosure controls, and
banking practices.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount on behalf of purchasers of Suffolk's common stock between
March 12, 2010, and August 10, 2011.

The Company says the matter is in preliminary phase and it is not
possible to ascertain whether there is a reasonable possibility of
a loss from these matters.  Therefore, the Company concluded that
an amount for a loss contingency is not to be accrued or disclosed
at this time.  Suffolk believes that it has substantial defenses
to the claims filed against it in the lawsuit and, to the extent
that the action proceeds, Suffolk intends to defend itself
vigorously.


SYNOPSYS INC: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Magma Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsys, Inc. is facing shareholder class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed acquisition of Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
according to the Company's December 16, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended October 31, 2011.

In connection with the Company's definitive agreement to acquire
Magma Design Automation, Inc., on December 5, 2011, December 9,
2011, and December 13, 2011, purported Magma stockholders filed
shareholder class action lawsuits against Magma, Magma's directors
and Synopsys.  The lawsuits allege, among other things, that Magma
and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Magma's
stockholders in negotiating and entering into the definitive
agreement and by agreeing to sell Magma at an unfair price,
pursuant to an unfair process and pursuant to unreasonable terms,
and that Synopsys aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, to
enjoin consummation of the acquisition and monetary damages.


TARGET CORP: Recalls 139,000 Circo 17" Children's Travel Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a
voluntary recall of about 139,000 units of Circo 17" Children's
Travel Cases.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The surface coating on the travel cases contain excessive levels
of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The Circo brand label is found on the fabric handle attached to
the top of the travel case.  The girls' version has a
heart/butterfly/daisy pattern on either a pink or teal background
with a plush butterfly attached to the zipper pull.  The boys'
version has a pattern of three jet planes in red/blue/green on a
red or blue airplane-patterned background with a blue plush jet
plane attached to the zipper pull.  Travel cases covered by this
recall include:

   Style Description               UPC Number       Date Codes*
   -----------------               ----------       -----------
   Circo girls' 17" travel case   618842135844   Beginning with
   - pink or teal                              01/11 thru 08/11

   Circo boys' 17" travel case    618842135868   Beginning with
   - red or blue                               01/11 thru 08/11

   * Date codes can be found on either the round Circo hang tag
     underneath the UPC bar code or on the second white tag sewn
     inside the cover of the zippered main compartment of the
     travel case.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12064.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide and Target.com from April
2011 through August 2011 for approximately $21.

Consumers should stop using the product immediately and return it
to any Target store for a refund.  For additional information,
contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.target.com/


UCLA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
California Healthline, citing Modern Healthcare, reports that
attorneys have filed a class-action lawsuit seeking as much as $16
million in damages over a data breach that exposed the personal
information of more than 16,000 patients at the UCLA Health
System.

The Los Angeles-based law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner filed the
suit in Los Angeles County Court against the regents of the
University of California.

                        About the Breach

On Sept. 6, an external hard drive containing personal information
of 16,288 UCLA patients was stolen from the home of a doctor
working with the UCLA Faculty Group.  The records dated from July
2007 through July 2011.

The patient information on the lost hard drive was encrypted.
However, a piece of paper that had the password to decode the data
also is missing.

The patient information included:

First and last names;
Some birth dates;
Addresses;
Health record numbers; and
Health information

                          Lawsuit Details

The suit claims that UCLA Health System violated the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which prohibits health
care providers from disclosing patient data without consent.

Attorneys are seeking damages of $1,000 per member of the class-
action suit, as well as legal fees and certain other costs.


VERINT SYSTEMS: "Deutsch" Parties to Update Court by April 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties of a class action lawsuit pending in Israel against a
subsidiary of Verint Systems Inc. are expected to update the court
on any developments no later than April 4, 2012, according to the
Company's December 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2011.

On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class action lawsuit (the
"Labor Motion"), and the class action lawsuit itself (the "Labor
Class Action") (Labor Case No. 4186/09), were filed against the
Company's subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), by a former
employee of VSL, Orit Deutsch, in the Tel Aviv Labor Court.  Ms.
Deutsch purports to represent a class of the Company's employees
and ex-employees who were granted options to buy shares of Verint
and to whom allegedly damages were caused as a result of the
blocking of the ability to exercise Verint options by the
Company's employees or ex-employees.  The Labor Motion and the
Labor Class Action both claim that the Company is responsible for
the alleged damages due to its status as employer and that the
blocking of Verint options from being exercised constitutes a
default of the employment agreements between the members of the
class and VSL.  The Labor Class Action seeks compensatory damages
for the entire class in an unspecified amount.  On July 9, 2009,
the Company filed a motion for summary dismissal and alternatively
for the stay of the Labor Motion.  A preliminary session was held
on July 12, 2009.  Ms. Deutsch filed her response to the Company's
response on November 10, 2009.  On February 8, 2010, the Tel Aviv
Labor Court dismissed the case for lack of material jurisdiction
and ruled that it will be transferred to the District Court in Tel
Aviv.

On October 11, 2011, the District Court in Tel Aviv ordered a stay
of proceedings until legal proceedings in the United States with
respect to related shareholder claims against Comverse Technology
Inc. are concluded.  The parties are expected to update the
District Court on any developments in the cases no later than
April 4, 2012.  As of October 31, 2011, no amount has been accrued
for this matter as the Company is not able to estimate the
probability or amount of any potential loss at that date.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Appeals From "Cassese" Suit Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the approval of a settlement resolving the class
action lawsuit commenced by Denise Cassese, et al., remain
pending, according to Washington Mutual, Inc.'s December 16, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 6, 2005, in the District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, Denise Cassese, George Rush and Richard Schroer, as
representatives of a nationwide class, filed a class action
lawsuit styled Cassese v. Washington Mutual, Inc., No. 05-cv-2724
(ADS)(ARL)(E.D.N.Y.) (the "Cassese Litigation"), against WMI and
certain of its subsidiaries regarding the servicing of loans by
WMB, or other former subsidiaries of WMI, and the charging of
certain fees in connection with requests for payoff statements or
the prepayment of such loans.  On April 2, 2009, the class
representatives filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for relief
from the automatic stay in order to continue to pursue their
litigation against WMI in the district court, which motion was
opposed by the Debtors.  By order, dated September 10, 2009, the
Bankruptcy Court modified the automatic stay so as to permit the
Cassese Litigation to continue in the district court.

On September 30, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class against WMI.  WMI subsequently filed a
joinder to defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
motion to decertify the class and to its motion for a protective
order to stay discovery, pending the motion to decertify.
Additionally, plaintiffs filed a motion to add a plaintiff to the
case and to substitute or add JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association ("JPMC") as a defendant.

In connection with the claims asserted in the Cassese Litigation,
plaintiffs, their counsel, and counsel for the class filed proofs
of Claim against WMI on their own behalf and purportedly on behalf
of the class (collectively, the "Cassese Claims").  The Debtors
objected to those proofs of Claim to, among other things, preserve
their rights to move to estimate the Cassese Claims for purposes
of allowance pursuant to sections 105(a) and 502(c) of the
Bankruptcy Code.  On April 5, 2010, plaintiffs responded to the
objection, and, on November 17, 2010, WMI filed a motion to
estimate, among other unliquidated Claims, the Cassese Claims.
Plaintiffs also filed objections to the Debtors' Sixth Amended
Plan.  On December 16, 2010, WMI filed a certification of counsel
wherein it revised its estimate of the Cassese Claims.

On May 13, 2010, the district court issued a decision that, among
other things, (1) granted the FDIC's motion to decertify the class
as to WMB/FDIC, but not as to WMI; (2) granted the FDIC's motion
for partial judgment on the pleadings; (3) denied, without
prejudice to renew, plaintiffs' motion to add a plaintiff; and (4)
denied, without prejudice to renew, plaintiffs' motion to
substitute JPMC or add it as a defendant.

On May 27, 2010, the plaintiffs' filed a motion for
reconsideration of their motion to add a plaintiff.  In addition,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) and Fed. R. App. P. 5, the
plaintiffs filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") a request for leave to
appeal the district court's decision granting the FDIC's motion to
decertify the class as to WMB/FDIC.  On August 17, 2010, the
Second Circuit denied this request.

On June 14, 2010, WMI filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
or, in the alternative, to decertify the class.  In its motion,
WMI argued that the district court should dismiss the case on
grounds that plaintiffs fail to state any plausible claim for
relief against WMI under any veil-piercing or indirect theory of
liability.  In addition, because the district court decertified
the WMB/FDIC class, WMI moved alternatively to decertify the WMI
class.  On October 18, 2010, the district court denied WMI's
motion for judgment on the pleadings and, alternatively, its
motion to decertify the WMI class.  WMI timely filed a petition in
the Second Circuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) and Fed. R.
App. P. 5 to appeal the district court's October 18, 2010 decision
and order, which petition was withdrawn without prejudice to WMI's
right to reinstatement in connection with a settlement agreement.

On November 17, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Cassese Litigation
filed their Third Amended Class Action complaint.

Subsequently, on February 15, 2011, WMI and the plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, entered
into an agreement to settle, among other things, the Cassese
Litigation and the Cassese Claims.  Pursuant to the settlement
agreement (and with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court), among
other things, (i) WMI has made a one-time deposit of $13 million
(the "Settlement Fund") into an account for distribution, net of
certain expenses and fees, to members of a class certified by the
district court for settlement purposes only, and (ii) upon
consummation of the settlement agreement, the Cassese Claims will
be deemed reduced and allowed, in the aggregate, in an amount
equal to the Settlement Fund, and disallowed to the extent such
Claims, in the aggregate, exceed the amount of the Settlement
Fund, and each of the Cassese Claims will be deemed satisfied in
full, such that the holders of the Cassese Claims will have no
rights arising under or related to the Chapter 11 plan, including
any right to receive a distribution from WMI pursuant to the plan
or to make elections with respect thereto.  By order, dated March
10, 2011, the district court preliminarily approved the
settlement.   On March 31, 2011, the Debtors filed a motion with
the Bankruptcy Court seeking approval of the settlement, which
settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court, by order, dated
May 2, 2011.  A hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement by the district court was held and, on September 21,
2011, the district court entered a final order and judgment
approving the settlement.  Subsequent thereto, several notices of
appeal were filed with the Second Circuit.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Certified Class in Pass-Through Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington granted in October 2011 a motion for class
certification in the mortgage pass-through litigation involving
Washington Mutual, Inc., according to the Company's December 16,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On August 4, 2008, New Orleans Employees' Retirement System and
MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan (together, the
"Mortgage Pass-Through claimants"), on their own behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons and entities (the purported "Pass-
Through Class") who purchased certain mortgage-backed certificates
issued by twenty-six Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through
Trusts (the "Pass-Through Trusts") pursuant to a registration
statement filed by WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. ("WMAAC"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Washington Mutual Bank ("WMB"), with
the SEC on December 20, 2005, as supplemented on January 3, 2006,
commenced that certain action styled as New Orleans Employees'
Retirement System, et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, et al., No. C09-134RSM (W.D. Wash.) in Washington
state court against WMI, WMAAC, the Pass Through Trusts, and
certain individual defendants alleging violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77a, et
seq. (the "Mortgage Pass-Through Litigation").  Prior to the
Petition Date, WMAAC pooled certain mortgage loans originated by
WMB and securitized them into mortgage-backed securities ("MBS").
WMAAC then sold the MBS to the Pass-Through Trusts which, in turn,
sold certificates representing interests in the monthly
distributions of principal and interest from the underlying
mortgages.  In the Mortgage Pass-Through Litigation, the Mortgage
Pass-Through claimants allege that WMI and WMAAC systematically
and deliberately inflated the appraised values of the properties
that secured the underlying mortgages and that by pooling and
selling mortgages to the issuing trusts, WMI and WMAAC shifted the
undisclosed and increased risk of loss to purchasers of the
certificates including the Mortgage Pass-Through claimants and the
purported Pass-Through Class.

The Mortgage Pass-Through claimants filed an amended complaint in
the Mortgage Pass-Through Litigation on December 16, 2008, which
complaint excluded WMI as a defendant due to the automatic stay.
On January 28, 2009, the state court granted the unopposed motion
of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver, to
substitute in the place of WMB as a party defendant.  On January
29, 2009, defendant FDIC filed a notice of removal in the state
court, requesting that the action be removed to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington (the
"Washington District Court").  Concurrently, on January 12, 2009,
Boilermakers National Annuity Trust Fund ("Boilermakers") filed a
complaint in the Washington District Court captioned Boilermakers
National Annuity Trust Fund v. WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, et al., Case No. 09-0037 (the "Boilermakers'
Complaint").  Like the original complaint filed by the Mortgage
Pass-Through claimants, the Boilermakers' Complaint asserted
claims under the Securities Act in connection with certain
certificates.  On February 19, 2009, the defendants moved to
consolidate their lawsuit with the Mortgage Pass-Through
Litigation, and, on August 14, 2009, the Washington District Court
ordered consolidation of three related cases -- the Boilermakers'
action, the original Mortgage Pass-Through claimants' action, and
a third related action (as consolidated, the "Boilermakers
Consolidated Action").  The court appointed The Policemen's
Annuity and Benefit Fund for the City of Chicago (the "Chicago
PABF") as lead plaintiff for the Boilermakers Consolidated Action
on October 23, 2009.

Thereafter, on October 30, 2009, a fourth action was filed by
Doral Bank Puerto Rico ("Doral Bank") in the Washington District
Court as a related case to the Boilermakers Consolidated Action
(the "Doral Action").  The allegations set forth in the Doral
Action are substantially similar to the collective complaints
consolidated in the Boilermakers Consolidated Action.  The Doral
Action asserted the same violations of the federal and state
securities acts and the same common law claims against certain of
the same defendants in the Boilermakers Consolidated Action, but
alleged those violations in connection with Washington Mutual
Pass-Through Trusts that were not included in the Boilermakers
Consolidated Action.  The Doral Action was transferred to Judge
Pechman because it was related to the Boilermakers Consolidated
Action.

Because of the substantial similarities and relatedness between
the Doral Action and Boilermakers Consolidated Action, Doral Bank
and Chicago PABF filed a joint motion to consolidate the Doral
Action and Boilermakers Consolidated Action on November 19, 2009.
Thereafter, on November 23, 2009, a Consolidated First Amended
Securities Class Action Complaint was filed in the Boilermakers
Consolidated Action, naming Doral Bank as an additional named
plaintiff and incorporating the allegations asserted in the Doral
Action.

By order, dated December 18, 2009, the district court denied the
motion to consolidate the Doral Action and Boilermakers
Consolidated Action pending issuance of notice in the Doral Action
and the appointment of lead plaintiff therein.  Thereafter, on
December 31, 2009, a First Amended Securities Class Action
Complaint was filed in the Doral Action.  On
March 24, 2010, the district court consolidated the Doral Action
and the Boilermakers Consolidated Action into a single
consolidated action, and appointed Chicago PABF and Doral Bank as
co-lead plaintiffs in that action.  On April 1, 2010, Chicago PABF
and Doral Bank filed the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act.  On September 28, 2010, the district court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss that had
been filed by certain defendants.

On March 30, 2009, the Mortgage Pass-Through claimants filed a
proof of claim against WMI in these Chapter 11 Cases in the
approximate amount of $39.8 billion.  On January 18, 2010, Chicago
PABF filed an amended proof of claim against WMI, reflecting the
then-current Claims based upon the causes of action alleged in the
Boilermakers Consolidated Complaint.  The amended proof of claim
superseded the March 30, 2009 proof of claim.  The Debtors have
objected to the amended proof of claim on various grounds
including that the state law claims are preempted, that the
claimants have failed to establish loss causation, that WMI was
not a controlling person to any entities that committed securities
violations, that there were no underlying securities law
violations, that the federal claims are barred by the statute of
limitations, and that because WMI was removed as a defendant in
the Mortgage Pass-Through Litigation, which litigation gives rise
to the proof of claim, neither WMI nor WMI Investment have any
liability with respect to the allegations contained in the
lawsuit.

On March 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification
of a class of all persons or entities that purchased MBS sold in
one hundred twenty three (123) separate tranches of securities in
six (6) separate offerings.  Plaintiffs themselves purchased
securities in only thirteen (13) of the one hundred twenty three
(123) tranches.  On June 30, 2011, certain defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims with respect to the one hundred ten (110)
tranches of securities that plaintiffs did not purchase, on the
basis that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue such claims.  By
order, dated October 21, 2011, the Washington District Court (i)
granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings,
finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue claims tied to
the MBS tranches that they did not purchase and dismissing such
claims, and (ii) granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification with respect to a class of entities and persons who
purchased certificates from the thirteen (13) tranches of MBS that
the plaintiffs actually purchased.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Gets Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington entered a final order approving Washington Mutual,
Inc.'s settlement resolving a consolidated securities litigation,
according to the Company's December 16, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 28, 2007, WMI moved before the Federal Judicial Panel
on Multi-District Litigation for an order to consolidate multiple
ERISA, securities, and derivative actions, and transfer the
consolidated actions to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington (the "Washington District Court").
As a result of the November 28th motion, all the federally filed
cases pending outside the Western District of Washington were
transferred to the Washington District Court and assigned to Judge
Marsha J. Pechman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the actions pending in the district.  On May 7,
2008, Judge Pechman entered an order consolidating the ERISA
actions into a single case, In re Washington Mutual, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, No. C07-1874 MJP (the "Consolidated ERISA
Litigation"), and the securities actions into a single case, In re
Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C08-387 MJP
(the "Consolidated Securities Litigation").  Judge Pechman also
consolidated the federally-filed derivative actions on May 21,
2008, into two tracks:  In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Derivative
Litigation (Demand Made Actions), No. C08-566 MJP, and In re
Washington Mutual, Inc. Derivative Litigation (Demand Futile
Actions), No. C07-1826 MJP (collectively, the "Consolidated
Federal Derivative Actions").  Thus, the multi-district
litigation, In re Washington Mutual, Inc., Sec., Deriv. & ERISA
Litig., No. 2:08-md-1919 (MJP) (the "MDL"), aggregated the
Consolidated ERISA Litigation, the Consolidated Securities
Litigation, and the Consolidated Federal Derivative Actions.  A
scheduling order issued on November 25, 2009, set the discovery
and trial-related schedule for both the Consolidated ERISA
Litigation and the Consolidated Securities Litigation.  On January
23, 2009, Judge Pechman dismissed the Consolidated Federal
Derivative Actions, without prejudice, for lack of standing to
bring a lawsuit.

                    Securities Class Actions

Beginning in November 2007, certain securities class actions were
filed against WMI and certain other defendants, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Washington District Court
consolidated these actions, along with any related pending or
subsequently filed actions, into the Consolidated Securities
Litigation, Lead Case No. C08-0387 MJP, proceeding as part of the
MDL.  The Washington District Court appointed Ontario Teachers'
Pension Plan Board ("Ontario Teachers") as lead plaintiff in the
Consolidated Securities Litigation.  On May 13, 2008, Brockton
Contributory Retirement System ("Brockton") commenced an action
alleging claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against certain of
WMI's former officers and directors, underwriters and WMI's former
auditor, which action was subsequently consolidated into the
Consolidated Securities Litigation.  As a result of the
commencement of these Chapter 11 Cases, the Consolidated
Securities Litigation has been stayed as to WMI, while proceeding
against other defendants.

On June 15, 2009, lead plaintiff filed the Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), which included
Brockton, Pompano Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement
System, Harlan Seymour, and Police and Fire Retirement System of
the City of Detroit as additional named plaintiffs.  The Amended
Complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based upon
alleged misstatements and omissions by WMI and certain of its
former officers and directors, between October 19, 2005, and
July 22, 2008, regarding, among other things, the financial
condition of WMI and WMB.  The Amended Complaint also asserted
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 against WMI, numerous underwriters and WMI's former auditor
in relation to alleged untrue statements and omissions in the
registration statement and offering documents for four public
offerings WMI conducted during the class period.

On July 17, 2009, defendants (other than WMI, against which the
action had been stayed) filed motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.  By order, dated October 27, 2009, Judge Pechman
sustained the Exchange Act claims against all the defendants
against whom they were asserted and dismissed certain of the
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) claims for failure to establish standing,
but sustained all other Securities Act claims.

In connection with the claims asserted in the Consolidated
Securities Litigation, Ontario Teachers and Brockton filed
individual proofs of claim in these Chapter 11 Cases, and Ontario
Teachers filed an additional class claim (collectively, the
"Securities Plaintiffs' Claims").  WMI objected to the Securities
Plaintiffs' Claims on the ground that, among other things, they
are subject to mandatory subordination pursuant to section 510(b)
of the Bankruptcy Code.  Subsequent to the filing of that
objection, WMI and the plaintiffs agreed to a consensual
resolution of that objection whereby the plaintiffs would
stipulate to the subordination of their claims consistent with
section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The stipulation was
approved by the Bankruptcy Court, by order, dated May 19, 2010.

On April 30, 2010, Ontario Teachers filed a motion for class
certification, which was fully briefed and argued to the
Washington District Court.  By order, dated October 12, 2010, the
district court granted in part and denied in part the motion for
class certification.  Coordinated merits depositions commenced on
October 4, 2010.

Subsequently, the lead plaintiff and the individual defendants
engaged in extensive arm's length negotiations that included
mediation sessions in February and March 2011.  On June 30, 2011,
the lead plaintiff, the individual defendants and WMI entered into
an agreement to settle the Consolidated Securities Litigation and
the Securities Plaintiffs' Claims on terms that include the use of
the proceeds of certain directors and officers insurance policies
to fund payment of the $105 million settlement amount.  The
Washington District Court preliminarily approved the settlement,
by order, dated July 21, 2011.  On August 4, 2011, the Debtors
filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking approval of the
settlement and requesting that the Securities Plaintiffs' Claims
be deemed withdrawn, with prejudice, in their entirety, upon the
effective date of the settlement agreement.  The Bankruptcy Court
approved the settlement by order, dated September 6, 2011.  A
hearing to consider final approval of the settlement by the
Washington District Court was held on
November 4, 2011, and, on the same day, the Washington District
Court entered an order finally approving the settlement.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Gets Prelim. Okay of South Ferry Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington preliminarily approved Washington Mutual, Inc.'s $41.5
million settlement of the South Ferry Securities Litigation, the
Company disclosed in its December 16, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beginning on July 20, 2004, several securities class actions were
filed against WMI and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of purchasers of certain WMI securities during the period
from April 15, 2003, through June 28, 2004 (the "South Ferry Class
Period").  On November 15, 2004, Judge Coughenour of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the
"Washington District Court") consolidated the securities actions
into a single case, South Ferry LP #2 v. Killinger, et al., Master
File No. CV04-1599 JCC (the "South Ferry Securities Litigation").
On November 30, 2004, Judge Coughenour appointed lead plaintiffs.
On March 1, 2005, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The
claims asserted in the South Ferry Securities Litigation are based
on different factual allegations and involve a different class
period than those asserted in the Consolidated Securities
Litigation, and the cases are not related.

On November 17, 2005, Judge Coughenour denied defendants' motion
to dismiss with respect to WMI and certain individual defendants
and granted the motion to dismiss with respect to other individual
defendants.  On February 3, 2006, the remaining defendants filed
an answer to the complaint.  Subsequent to Judge Coughenour's
ruling on the motion to dismiss, the defendants additionally
sought and were granted permission to seek an interlocutory
appeal, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit heard and, on September 9, 2008, decided, ultimately
remanding the case to Judge Coughenour.  On October 1, 2009, Judge
Coughenour denied the defendants' post-remand motion to dismiss
the action.

The South Ferry Securities Litigation has been stayed as to WMI
due to WMI's bankruptcy filing.  On March 30, 2009, plaintiffs
South Ferry LP #2, Metzler Investment GmbH, and Walden Management
Co. Pension Plan individually filed proofs of claim against WMI in
the Chapter 11 Cases, in addition to a class claim (collectively,
the "South Ferry Claims").  WMI objected to the South Ferry Claims
on the ground that, among other things, they are subject to
mandatory subordination pursuant to section 510(b) of the
Bankruptcy Code.  Subsequent to the filing of that objection, WMI
and the plaintiffs agreed to a consensual resolution of that
objection whereby the plaintiffs agreed to the subordination of
their claims consistent with section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy
Code.  The stipulation was approved by the Bankruptcy Court, by
order, dated May 19, 2010.

On March 15, 2010, South Ferry LP #2 voluntarily withdrew as lead
plaintiff for lack of standing.  On March 22, 2010, lead
plaintiffs Metzler and Walden filed a motion seeking to certify a
class consisting of all persons who purchased the common stock of
WMI during the South Ferry Class Period and who were damaged
thereby.  On January 6, 2011, the Washington District Court
certified the proposed class and certified Walden as class
representative, but denied appointing Metzler as class
representative.

Lead plaintiffs and the individual director and officer defendants
engaged in mediation and, after additional extensive arm's length
negotiations, on October 5, 2011, lead plaintiffs, the individual
defendants and WMI entered into an agreement to settle the South
Ferry Securities Litigation and the South Ferry Claims on terms
that include the use of the proceeds of certain directors and
officers insurance policies to fund the payment of the $41.5
million settlement amount.  The settlement was preliminarily
approved by the Washington District Court on December 2, 2011, but
remains subject to Bankruptcy Court approval and final approval by
the Washington District Court.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Repurchased $112.5-Mil. Notes Issued Under Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2011, WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (the "Company")
repurchased for cash all $112.5 million of its outstanding 6.0%
Subordinated Notes due December 31, 2016 (the "Notes") at a
purchase price equal to 90% of the principal amount thereof,
according to the Company's December 19, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The purchased Notes were then canceled.  As a result, the
Indenture, dated as of September 15, 2011, between the Company, as
issuer, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
trustee (the "Indenture"), relating to the Notes, has been
terminated.  The Notes were originally issued on September 30,
2011, pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
entered into in December 2010 between the Company and a group of
five public pension funds appointed by the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida to act as lead plaintiffs
in the consolidated securities class action Eastwood Enterprises,
L.L.C. v. Farha, et al., Case No.8:07-cv-1940-VMC-EAJ.

The Company says it will record in the fourth quarter of 2011 a
gain due to the repurchase of the Notes.  The Company estimates
the gain will be approximately $0.16 in net income per diluted
share as reported under generally accepted accounting principles.
The Company also reports certain financial information on an
adjusted basis to exclude income and expenses related to
previously disclosed government investigations and related
litigation that the Company believes are not indicative of long-
term business operations.  Because the Notes resulted from
litigation associated with the government investigations, the
Company expects to exclude the gain on the repurchase of the Notes
from adjusted net income for the fourth quarter and year 2011.


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Offering Illusory Trial Loan Modification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki and Richard Sutcliffe, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a national
bank, for itself and d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a division
of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
3:11-cv-06595 (N.D. Calif.) (December 21, 2011) arises from the
alleged fraudulent, unfair, and unconscionable debt collection
practices of the Defendants whereby they, together with mortgage
loan servicers and mortgagees, induce borrowers facing foreclosure
to enter into illusory trial loan modification and forbearance
programs with the hope that the borrowers will be offered
permanent loan modifications.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants had and have no
intention of offering loan modifications, however, permanent
modifications are either denied outright or offered on terms so
substantially similar to the unmodified mortgage as to render any
modification illusory.  They assert that the trial modification
proposals are offered to induce the homeowner into making
thousands of dollars of additional payments that could not
otherwise be collected, after which Defendants foreclose anyway.

The Sutcliffes are a married couple residing in Kansas City,
Missouri.  They are the borrowers under a note evidencing a loan,
and the grantors under a Deed of Trust, relating to a home in
Kansas City.  The original lender under the Sutcliffe Note and the
Sutcliffe Deed of Trust was Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.

Wells Fargo is a national banking association with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California.  The Plaintiffs
are currently not aware of the true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah Rosenthal, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          455 Market Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 536-3986
          Facsimile: (415) 537-4120
          E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
          Jayne Conroy, Esq.
          Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP
          112 Madison Ave., 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6401
          Telephone: (212) 784-6402
          Telephone: (212) 784-6403
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: phanly@hanlyconroy.com
                  jconroy@hanlyconroy.com
                  abierstein@hanlyconroy.com
                  mbreit@hanlyconroy.com

               - and -

          Bradford D. Barron, Esq.
          Zachary T. Barron, Esq.
          GIBBON, BARRON & BARRON, P.L.L.C.
          20 East 5th Street, Suite 1000
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 745-0687
          Facsimile: (918) 745-0821
          E-mail: bbarron@gbbfirm.com
                  zbarron@gbbfirm.com

               - and -

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          Anna M. Kohut, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com
                  ekirk@simmonsfirm.com
                  akohut@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: jterrell@mmlaw.net


WINN-DIXIE: Shareholders File Class Action to Block Bi-Lo Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Conte, writing for Jacksonville Business Journal,
reports that a dissident group of shareholders would like to put
the brakes on Bi-Lo LLC's purchase of Winn-Dixie Stores Inc.

A group of Winn-Dixie shareholders have filed a class action
lawsuit against the grocer and of members of the board of
directors potentially blocking the proposed sale to the South
Carolina grocer, which was announced on Dec. 19.

The suit states, in part, that the company and its board locked up
the proposed transaction with deal protections that preclude other
bidders from making a competing offer.

The class action lawsuit also alleges that Winn-Dixie and its
board of directors breached their fiduciary duty to the
shareholders in the $560 million deal with Bi-Lo, according to a
press release from one of the law firms representing the
plaintiffs, Jacksonville-based Jimerson & Cobb PA.  Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP, of New York City, is working with Jimerson & Cobb
in representing the Winn-Dixie shareholders.

Under the proposed acquisition, Winn-Dixie's shareholders would
only receive $9.50 per share of Winn-Dixie stock, which is less
than the $11 target price, the press release stated.

As of December 19, 2011, Winn-Dixie has approximately 56.23
million shares outstanding.

The suit states, in part, that "given the challenging economic
environment, the price of Winn-Dixie common stock has been trading
at a huge discount to its intrinsic value.  As a result, Bi-Lo is
seeking to acquire Winn-Dixie at the most opportune time, and a
price that significantly undervalues the company."

The deal value of $560 million is less than the Company's
shareholders' equity.  As of September 21, 2011, the Company's
shareholders' equity was $841.98 million.

"The defendants have knowingly and recklessly violated legal
duties of care, loyalty, good faith and independence owed to the
shareholders of Winn-Dixie.  This is a circumstance where personal
interests were placed ahead of interests of Winn-Dixie
shareholders," said attorney Charles Jimerson.

News of the deal broke on Dec. 19.  The sale to the South
Carolina-based grocer is expected to close in the first half of
2012.  The proposed transaction values Winn-Dixie at 3.9 times
earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization in
the past 12 months.  That compares with a median of 7.9 times for
supermarket deals globally since 2000, according to data compiled
by Bloomberg.

The also suit states that there is a provision in the purchase
agreement that requires Winn-Dixie to pay Bi-Lo a termination fee
of $19.6 million to enter into a transaction with a higher bidder.
Winn-Dixie operates approximately 480 retail grocery locations,
including approximately 380 in-store pharmacies, in Florida,
Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia and Mississippi; Bi-Lo operates 207
supermarkets in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and
Tennessee.

The combination of Winn-Dixie and Bi-Lo will create a company with
about 690 grocery stores in the southeastern U.S. and 63,000
workers.

Lone Star Funds, based in Dallas, bought Bi-Lo Holdings LLC in
2005 for total cash proceeds of up to $660 million, according to
Bi-Lo company press release.  At the time Bi-Lo Holdings operated
Bi-Lo stores and Bruno's Supermarkets throughout the Southeast.


                           *********

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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
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  * * *