CAR_Public/121108.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, November 8, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 222

                               Headlines

AETNA INC: Aetna UCR Litigation Still Pending in New Jersey Ct.
ALCOA INC: Appeal From ERISA-Violation Suit Dismissal Pending
AMERICAN HOME: Court Rules in Favor of Fastsigns in Class Action
AT&T CORP: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
BLACK LANE: Judge to Rule on Towing Class Action in 30 Days

BP: Oil Spill Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled Today
BP: April 2014 Oil Spill Claims Filing Deadline Set
C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Numerous Product Liability Suits
CMS ENERGY: Oral Argument in Gas Index Price Cases Held in Oct.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still in Discussions to Settle New York Suit

COMCAST: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Pennsylvania
CONSUMER LAW: Faces Suit Alleging Georgia Debt Act Violations
ENVIVIO: Faces Investor Class Action Over EUR42-Mil. IPO
EQUIFAX INC: Appeals From Calif. Suit Deal Approval Still Pending
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Over EPA Ratings

INGREDION INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
INTERNAP NETWORK: Two Claims in "Anastasio" Suit Still Pending
JDA SOFTWARE: Being Sold to RedPrairie for Too Little, Suit Says
LINN ENERGY: Briefing in Royalty Payments Suit Remains Deferred
MATTEL INC: Hearing on Appeal From Damages Award Set for Dec. 10

MF GLOBAL: Law Firms File Amended Class Action Complaint
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Rulings in "Silverman" Suit Appeals
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Faces More Securities Class Suits in California
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: 9th Circuit Upheld Facebook Beacon Suit Deal
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Still Awaits "Hines" Suit Dismissal Bid Order

PANERA BREAD: Awaits Final Approval of "Sotoudeh" Suit Settlement
PENNSYLVANIA: Class Action Challenges Inmate Execution Protocol
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: "Higgins" Class Suit Still Pending in Tenn.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Seeks Reconsideration in Suit vs. Celera
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Dismissal Bid Pending in Sales Rep.'s Suit

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Suit Alleging NJLAD Violations Still Pending
RADEC CORP: Judge Cuts Attorneys' Fees in FLSA Class Action
SAFEWAY: Faces Overtime & Minimum Wage Class Action
SENOR FROG: Faces Class Action Over Employee Sexual Harassment
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Suit Deal Became Effective in Oct.

SOUTHERN COPPER: Received $2.1 Billion Payment in Suit vs. AMC
STANDARD AND POOR'S: To Appeal Class Action Ruling
STEVE MADDEN: Settlement Notification Program Underway
TENNESSEE COMMERCE: Top Executives Face Class Action
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Class Action Hearing Scheduled This Month

TOWN SPORTS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Cruz" Suits vs. Unit
TOWN SPORTS: James Labbe's New Class Suit vs. Unit Pending
UNITIL CORP: Suit vs. Fitchburg Remains Pending in Massachusetts


                          *********

AETNA INC: Aetna UCR Litigation Still Pending in New Jersey Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. is named as a defendant in several purported class
actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices
related to the payment of claims for services rendered to its
members by health care providers with whom the Company does not
have a contract ("out-of-network providers").  Among other things,
these lawsuits allege that the Company paid too little to its
health plan members and/or providers for these services, among
other reasons, because of its use of data provided by Ingenix,
Inc., a subsidiary of one of its competitors ("Ingenix").  Other
major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or
have settled similar litigation.

Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the Company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs
who are members in the Company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of its members who received services from out-
of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present.
Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the Company violated
state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone
or in concert with the Company's competitors.  The purported
classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation
and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified
damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and
declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and
seek to disqualify the Company from acting as a fiduciary of any
benefit plan that is subject to ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that
generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have
been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").  In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

Discovery is substantially complete in MDL 2020, several motions
are pending, and briefing on class certification has been
completed.  The court has not set a trial date or a timetable for
deciding class certification.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself against the claims brought in these cases.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


ALCOA INC: Appeal From ERISA-Violation Suit Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. said in its October 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012, that an appeal from the dismissal of a class
action lawsuit initiated in Tennessee alleging violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, is still pending before
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees.  Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.  During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury
demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a
trial date of September 17, 2008.

In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009
and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to September 22, 2009.
In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an
advisory jury at trial.  Trial in the matter was held over eight
days commencing September 22, 2009, and ending on October 1, 2009,
in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee, before the Honorable
Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.  At the conclusion of
evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for
submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by
the parties and for replies to the same.  Post trial briefing was
submitted on December 4, 2009.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  On March
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay.  Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  Alcoa filed its opposition
to both motions on April 11, 2011.

On June 11, 2012, the court issued its memorandum and order
denying plaintiffs' motion for clarification and/or amendment to
the original judgment order.  On July 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal of the court's March 9, 2011 judgment.  On
July 12, 2012, the trial court stayed Alcoa's motion for
assessment of costs pending resolution of plaintiffs' appeal.  The
appeal is docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit as case number 12-5801.  On July 26, 2012, the
appellate court issued a briefing schedule requiring briefing to
be complete by the end of October 2012.  On August 29, 2012, the
trial court dismissed plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees
without prejudice to refiling the motion following the resolution
of the appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Plaintiffs
filed their brief on September 7, 2012, and Alcoa filed its
response brief on October 10, 2012.  Plaintiffs' reply brief was
due on October 29, 2012.  No further schedule has been established
by the court.


AMERICAN HOME: Court Rules in Favor of Fastsigns in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rankin, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports
that the Georgia Supreme Court on Nov. 5 ruled in favor of a
Norcross company in a case that could lead to a $459 million
judgment involving junk faxes.

The court ruled unanimously against American Home Services, which
in 2002 and 2003 had sought to build its siding, window and gutter
installation business.  At the time, it hired a Texas company that
sent out 306,000 unsolicited faxes of advertisements across the
metro area.

Fastsigns, a Norcross firm that received one, filed a class-action
lawsuit that accused American Home Services of violating federal
consumer laws.

The state Supreme Court's decision means American Home Services
could be on the hook for a massive judgment.  At issue was whether
the company could be held liable for only the junk faxes that were
received during the solicitation or, which the court ruled, the
hundreds of thousands that were sent.

During arguments before the court in May, a lawyer for American
Home Services said only six recipients of the company's junk faxes
had been identified.  But a lawyer for Fastsigns said the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 was enacted to punish
companies that clogged up people's fax machines by sending
unsolicited ads.

Justice Robert Benham, writing for the court, said the 1991
consumer law is clear: "A sender is liable for the unsolicited
advertisements it attempts to send to fax machines, whether or not
the transmission is completed or received by the targeted
recipient."

The court sent the case back to the Court of Appeals for
consideration of other claims.

A Fulton County judge has already ruled that American Home
Services violated the consumer protection law and issued a $459
million judgment -- $1,500 for each of the 306,000 faxes it sent.

Michael Jablonski, a lawyer for Fastsigns, said the state Supreme
Court's ruling was not unexpected because other courts had issued
similar opinions.  "We will continue to fight on behalf of the
thousands of people in the Atlanta area that received junk faxes,"
he said.

Celeste McCollough, a lawyer for American Home Services, said
there are other compelling reasons for overturning the $459
million judgment, saying the fact that only six targets of the
faxes have been identified does not justify such a penalty.  The
company will pursue these issues in the appeals court, she said.


AT&T CORP: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T failed to provide
employees with meal breaks, and it failed to pay overtime, a class
claims in Alameda County Superior Court.

The suit is Cathy Birdsong v. AT&T Corp.; AT&T Services fka SBC
Services; AT&T Management Services.


BLACK LANE: Judge to Rule on Towing Class Action in 30 Days
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that Madison County Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs is
expected to make a ruling in an East Alton woman's class action
lawsuit against a Caseyville towing company in 30 days.

On Oct. 31, attorneys argued a motion to dismiss in plaintiff
Tiffany A. Craycraft's case against Black Lane Auto Parts.

Ms. Craycraft claims the company towed her 2000 Ford Taurus from
Highway 157 in Caseyville on April 11 without her consent.  She
seeks damage for alleged violations of the Illinois Vehicle Code
under its Anti-Theft Law and Abandoned Vehicles chapter, as well
as under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, because when she
retrieved her vehicle, she claims she did not receive a detailed,
signed receipt, showing the legal name of the towing service.

Plaintiff's attorney Thomas Maag requested Judge Stobbs deny the
defense motion to dismiss, filed by Black Lane Auto Part's
attorney Thomas Frenkel.

Judge Stobbs said he would have an order out in 30 days.

"The plaintiff's vehicle was not creating a traffic hazard at the
time it was towed," Mr. Maag said.  "There has been no allegation
about the appearance of my client's vehicle."

"We've presented evidence the vehicle was not creating a traffic
hazard."

Mr. Frenkel told Judge Stobbs the plaintiff suffered no damages.

According to Mr. Frenkel, the plaintiff has argued that an
appropriate waiting time for the tow was not allowed.

"My client took his direction from the police officers," Mr.
Frenkel said.

Court documents show Ms. Craycraft was arrested by Caseyville
Police at 2:30 a.m., after she was observed disobeying a traffic
light. By 8:30 a.m., she had retrieved her vehicle, Mr. Frenkel
said.

Mr. Maag argued his client's vehicle was not creating a hazard.

"She paid for a service she didn't want that was done in violation
of the law," he said.  "They violated the law.  You should deny
the defense motion to dismiss."

According to Mr. Frenkel's motion to dismiss, Ms. Craycraft's Ford
Taurus was properly towed as the tow was ordered by the police
from a public highway to a police impound lot.

"And because the tow was a police tow from a public highway, the
Code's receipt requirement, which applies only to towing or
removal of a vehicle from private property, does not apply," Mr.
Frenkel said.

The plaintiff's request for class certification should be denied
because the plaintiff lacks standing, according to Mr. Frenkel's
motion.

"The documentation for the police tow is in the record," Mr.
Frenkel said.  "There is no unfair practice which could have
ensued. The police were the authorized party to conduct the tow."

"All of the arguments by the defense are a complete red herring or
are disputed facts," Mr. Maag told Judge Stobbs.

Madison County case number 12-L-641.


BP: Oil Spill Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled Today
---------------------------------------------------------
Claire Taylor, writing for TheAdvertiser.com, reports that more
than $907 million worth of award letters went out between June 4
and Nov. 1 to individuals and businesses affected by the BP spill.

But those payments could come to a halt if a federal judge,
following a hearing this week, decides the preliminary settlement
agreement between BP and plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit is
not fair, reasonable and adequate.

Attorneys for BP and individuals and businesses in a class action
lawsuit against the oil company for the April 2010 Deepwater
Horizon explosion and oil spill negotiated a settlement that was
filed in April. U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier gave the
agreement preliminary approval.

Patrick Juneau, a Lafayette attorney, was appointed administrator
of the claims process in March and has been overseeing the payout
of claims even though the settlement agreement isn't final.  BP
and the plaintiffs agreed to the early payouts, which started July
1.

Since Mr. Juneau took over transition of the claims process on
June 4, $1.4 billion in award letters has been distributed within
five coastal states.  That includes $405 million under the prior
Gulf Coast Claims Program and $907 million under the current
program, he said.

Louisiana claimants received award letters totaling nearly $400
million, Mr. Juneau said.

Today, Nov. 8, Judge Barbier is holding a fairness hearing in New
Orleans to hear arguments from those objecting to the settlement.
He has already received volumes of written arguments, all of which
he will consider before deciding if the settlement should receive
final approval.

"If he then says, 'I do not approve the settlement,' we go back to
square 1," Mr. Juneau said.  That means a lengthy legal process
which, like in the Exxon Valdez spill case, may take years, even
decades.

"That's the importance of this hearing," he said.

Mr. Juneau again encouraged every business owner in Louisiana to
review the claim criteria online and consider submitting an
application, which costs nothing.  The entire state is part of the
class eligible for payment, he said.

You may not think you qualify, but some of those who received
awards included a farmer in the Monroe area, a clothing store in
the Baton Rouge area, a lawn care service in central Louisiana, a
medical practice in the Lake Charles area and a dental clinic in
the Lafayette area, Mr. Juneau said.

In the Acadiana region, "there are literally thousands of
potential claims that can be compensated in this case," Mr. Juneau
said.


BP: April 2014 Oil Spill Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------
Sarah Eddington, writing for The News Star, reports that
Northeastern Louisiana residents have until April 2014 to file a
claim for possible compensation as part of a class-action
settlement related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The Economic and Property Damages Settlement resolves certain
economic loss and property damage claims related to the 2010
Deepwater Horizon incident.

Patrick Juneau, the court-appointed claims administrator for the
program, said he is trying to get the word out to residents living
northeastern Louisiana that they could be entitled to compensation
from the spill.

"We think it's important, especially for residents of the impacted
states, that they understand the opportunities and rights they
have," Mr. Juneau said.  "The entire state of Louisiana, including
the northeast portion of the state, is included in this
settlement."

Mr. Juneau said 75,000 claims have been filed from five states in
the Gulf Coast area since June 4.

He said a number of northeastern Louisiana residents, including
area farmers and business owners, have already been compensated.

The cut-off date for most claims is April 22, 2014.

To learn more about the settlement or to file a claim, visit
http://www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com


C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Numerous Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. continues to defend numerous product liability
lawsuits pending in U.S. and Canada, according to the Company's
October 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

As of October 18, 2012, approximately 1,505 federal and 755 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 2,400
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and three putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, have been filed or asserted against the Company with
respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia
repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product
Claims").  One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates ten
previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits.  The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical
monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages,
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.  Approximately 730 of the state lawsuits,
involving individual claims by approximately 830 plaintiffs, are
pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with
the remainder in various other jurisdictions.  The Hernia Product
Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the products.  The Company voluntarily recalled
certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products
beginning in December 2005.

In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in
federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court
subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of
the Company in the MDL proceeding.  The first MDL trial was
completed in April 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the Company
based on the jury's finding that the Company was not liable for
the plaintiff's damages.  The second MDL trial was completed in
August 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff of $1.5
million.  On June 30, 2011, the Company announced that it had
reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms
to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims.
Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs.  In addition, the Company
continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law
firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product
Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims
that do not settle, including through litigation.  Additional
trials are scheduled in the first quarter of 2013.  Based on these
events, the Company recorded to other (income) expense, net, a
charge of $184.3 million ($180.6 million after tax) in the second
quarter of 2011, which recognized the estimated costs of settling
all Hernia Product Claims, including asserted and unasserted
claims, and costs to administer the settlements.  The charge
excludes any costs associated with pending putative class action
lawsuits.  The Company cannot give any assurances that the actual
costs incurred with respect to the Hernia Product Claims will not
exceed the amount of the charge together with amounts previously
accrued.  The Company cannot give any assurances that the
resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled,
including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class
action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity.

As of October 18, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 1,580 plaintiffs have been
filed or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of certain of the Company's surgical continence products for
women, principally its Avaulta(R) line of products.  In addition,
four putative class actions in the United States and one putative
class action in Canada have been filed against the Company (all
lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's Health Product Claims").  The
Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical
monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages,
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.  With respect to certain of these claims, the
Company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to
defend and indemnify the Company.  In October 2010, the JPML
transferred the Women's Health Product Claims involving solely
Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide into an
MDL for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.  In
February 2012, the JPML expanded the scope of and renamed the MDL
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia to include lawsuits involving all
women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or
distributed by the Company.  In total, approximately 1,195 of the
Women's Health Product Claims are pending in federal courts and
have been or will be transferred to the MDL in West Virginia, with
the remainder of the Women's Health Product Claims in other
jurisdictions.  Trial dates have been scheduled in the MDL
beginning in March 2013.  The first trial in one of these other
jurisdictions was completed in July 2012 and resulted in a
judgment against the Company of approximately $3.6 million.  The
Company has appealed this decision.  The Company does not believe
that this verdict is representative of the potential outcomes of
other Women's Health Product Claims.  While the Company intends to
vigorously defend the Women's Health Product Claims, it cannot
give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

As of October 18, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 60 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's vena cava filter products.  In addition, three
putative class actions have been filed against the Company in
various state courts on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged to
have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").  The putative class actions, none of which has
been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive
damages; (iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or
(iv) attorneys' fees.  The first Filter Product Claim trial was
completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the Company
based on the finding that the Company was not liable for the
plaintiff's damages.  The Company expects additional trials of
Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months.
While the Company intends to vigorously defend the Filter Product
Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.

In most product liability litigations of this nature, including
the Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims and
the Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of
claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the
products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the
absence of any injury.  In many of these cases, the Company has
not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the
plaintiffs and their medical conditions, and consequently, is
unable to fully evaluate the claims.  The Company expects that it
will receive and review additional information regarding the
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product
Claims, the Filter Product Claims and related matters as these
cases progress.

The Company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well
as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are
or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability
insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers.
In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights
with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has
occurred with respect to certain claims.  When this occurs, the
Company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its
insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of
its insurance policies, and accordingly, will record receivables
with respect to amounts due under these policies, when recovery is
probable.  Amounts recovered under the Company's product liability
insurance policies may be less than the stated coverage limits and
may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to
claims.  In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay
claims or that coverage will otherwise be available.

The Company's insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia
Product Claims has been depleted.  In connection with the Hernia
Product Claims, the Company is in dispute with one of its excess
insurance carriers relating to an aggregate of $25 million of
insurance receivables.

In connection with the Women's Health Product Claims, the Company
is in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating
to an aggregate of $50 million of insurance coverage.

Founded in 1907 and headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey, C.
R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- and its subsidiaries
design, manufacture, package, distribute, and sell medical,
surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The
Company markets its products to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities.


CMS ENERGY: Oral Argument in Gas Index Price Cases Held in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on appeals filed in the Gas Index Price Reporting
Litigation was held in October, according to CMS Energy
Corporation's October 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(now known as CMS Energy Resource Management Company), CMS Field
Services Inc., Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company,
are named as defendants in various lawsuits arising as a result of
alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications
that report trade information.  Allegations include manipulation
of The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") natural gas futures
and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade,
and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.  The details of the proceedings
are:

   * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
     named as defendants in a putative class action filed in
     Kansas state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc.,
     et al.  The complaint alleges that during the putative
     class period, January 1, 2000, through October 31, 2002,
     the defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas
     Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking
     statutory full consideration damages consisting of the full
     consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas allegedly
     purchased from defendants.

   * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional
     Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in
     Missouri state court alleging violations of Missouri
     antitrust laws.  Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field
     Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
     Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas
     reporting activities.

   * Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition
     Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought
     on behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in
     Colorado, was filed in Colorado state court in 2006.
     Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and
     CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the Colorado Antitrust
     Act of 1992 in connection with their natural gas reporting
     activities.  Plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages.

   * A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
     Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state
     court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that
     purchased natural gas between January 1, 2000, and
     October 31, 2002.  The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS
     ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have violated
     Wisconsin's antitrust statute.

     The plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus
     exemplary damages and attorneys' fees.  After dismissal on
     jurisdictional grounds in 2009, plaintiffs filed a new
     complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
     District of Michigan.  In 2010, the MDL judge issued an
     opinion and order granting the CMS Energy defendants' motion
     to dismiss the Michigan complaint on statute-of-limitations
     grounds and all CMS Energy defendants have been dismissed
     from the Arandell (Michigan) action.

   * Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v.
     CMS ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood
     County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas
     Company, and others.  The plaintiff is seeking full
     consideration damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and
     attorneys' fees.

   * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as
     Trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in
     Kansas state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field
     Services, and others.  The complaint alleges various claims
     under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiff is
     seeking statutory full consideration damages for its
     purchases of natural gas in 2000 and 2001.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to the MDL.  CMS Energy was dismissed from the Learjet, Heartland,
and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other CMS Energy defendants
remained parties.  All CMS Energy defendants were dismissed from
the Breckenridge case in 2009.  In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera
Gas Company were dismissed from the Newpage case and the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM.  In July 2011,
all claims against remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL
cases were dismissed based on FERC preemption.  Plaintiffs have
filed appeals in all of the cases.  The issues on appeal are
whether the district court erred in dismissing the cases based on
FERC preemption and denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to
amend their complaints to add a federal Sherman Act antitrust
claim.  The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy
as a defendant in these cases, but other CMS Energy entities
remain as defendants.  Oral argument on the appeal was held before
the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco in October 2012.

The Company says these cases involve complex facts, a large number
of similarly situated defendants with different factual positions,
and multiple jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability
would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible
loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested
in this context.  If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable,
these cases could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's
liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still in Discussions to Settle New York Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company disclosed in its October 25, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it is still in
discussions via non-binding mediation to determine whether a
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in New York can be
settled.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Specifically, Proesel, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et
al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age
discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to
Plan participants.

Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman,
et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income
Plan, et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of Abelman,
claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, were
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA
Litigation.  The complaint in the consolidated action alleges
improper calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to
satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim
for age discrimination.  The relief sought includes recalculation
of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment
interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  This action has
not been certified as a class action as yet.

The parties are in discussions via non-binding mediation to
determine whether the action can be settled.  The Company and the
Plan intend to contest this action vigorously should the parties
be unable to reach a settlement.

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


COMCAST: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Supreme Court will let
Comcast file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under
seal in an antitrust class action over rates in greater
Philadelphia.


CONSUMER LAW: Faces Suit Alleging Georgia Debt Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley Dyches, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Consumer Law Associates, LLC, Case No. 2012CV223057
(Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., October 23, 2012) is a consumer
class action lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals subjected to
the Defendant's alleged violations of the Georgia Debt Adjustment
Act.

The provisions of the GDAA strictly regulate the business of debt
adjusting and specifically limit the charges, fees, contributions,
or combinations thereof that debt adjusters may charge to
consumers like herself, Ms. Dyches asserts.  She alleges that the
Defendant violated the GDAA by failing to comply with its annual
requirements for debt adjusters, and by charging fees in excess of
those authorized under the GDAA.

Ms. Dyches is a resident of Augusta, in Columbia County, Georgia.

Consumer Law Associates is a Maryland corporation in the business
of debt adjusting, budget counseling, debt settlement and debt
management.  The firm is headquartered in Towson, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          Jean G. Mangan, Esq.
          345 West Hancock Avenue
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com
                  jmangan@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          G. Rick Digiorgio, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
          CORY, WATSON, CROWDER & DEGARIS, PC
          2131 Magnolia Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: rdigiorgio@cwcd.com
                  jtapley@cwcd.com
                  jconlin@cwcd.com

               - and -

          David E. Hudson, Esq.
          Christopher A. Cosper, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT
          Post Office Box 1564
          Augusta, GA 30903-2426
          Telephone: (706) 722-4481
          E-mail: dhudson@hullbarrett.com
                  ccosper@hullbarrett.com


ENVIVIO: Faces Investor Class Action Over EUR42-Mil. IPO
--------------------------------------------------------
Roisin Burke, writing for Independent.ie, reports that Envivio,
the listed company backed by big Irish investors, is being sued
over claims that it gave "false and misleading" information ahead
of its stock exchange float.

If successful, the case would cost the company millions.

Backed at IPO by Denis O'Brien, Dermot Desmond and Bill McCabe
through Brian Long's Atlantic Bridge, Envivio provides online
video streaming technology to nine of the world's 10 biggest
broadband providers.

Atlantic Bridge invested EUR4.6 million in an eight per cent
stake, according to SEC documents.

Since its EUR42 million Nasdaq listing, Envivio has seen its share
price crash and burn, from EUR7 at float to just EUR1.66 at close
on Nov. 2.

Investor Michael Toth filed the class action against Envivio with
the Superior Court of California two weeks ago.  Pre-IPO documents
were "false and misleading" Mr. Toth alleges, and omitted to flag
a significant slowdown in customer spending and longer sales
transaction timelines.

Atlantic Bridge's Kevin Dillon is also named as a defendant in the
suit.  The former Microsoft head of European operations is on
Envivio's board.

Mr. Toth blames Envivio and other named defendants for the 75 per
cent stock price plummet and wants damages and compensation.

Envivio declined to make any comment.


EQUIFAX INC: Appeals From Calif. Suit Deal Approval Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al. , plaintiffs asserted that Equifax Inc. violated federal
and state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and
the California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow
reasonable procedures to determine whether credit accounts are
discharged in bankruptcy, including the method for updating the
status of an account following a bankruptcy discharge.

On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement
Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the
procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy
on consumer credit files.  That settlement resolved claims for
injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for damages.  On May
7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims.  The
District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the
settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-
notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.
Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011.  The deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or
to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.  On July 15,
2011, following another approval hearing, the District Court
approved the settlement.  Several objecting plaintiffs
subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which are currently pending.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Over EPA Ratings
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov. 2, the consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman filed a
proposed class-action lawsuit against Hyundai Motor America, owned
by Hyundai Motor Company of Korea, and Kia Motors America, owned
jointly by Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Motor Company of Korea,
after regulators announced the companies overstated the fuel
economy for many vehicles they sold in the United States.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Central California, seeks to represent all consumers who own or
lease Hyundai and Kia vehicles whose EPA fuel economy ratings were
less than the fuel economy rating produced by the applicable
federal test in that model's year.

Hyundai Motor Corporation admitted it overstated the fuel-economy
estimates after independent tests by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) showed a discrepancy.

According to published reports, Hyundai will lower fuel-
consumption estimates on most Hyundai and Kia models produced in
2012 and 2013.  It will reportedly lower estimates by as much as
five miles-per-gallon for its Kia Soul Eco, and by one or two
miles-per-gallon for most other models.

The automaker apologized to consumers, according to published
reports, and blamed the issue on what the South Korean company
called "procedural errors" in its testing, which was done by a
Korean lab.

"Many who purchased Kia and Hyundai automobiles did so because of
the claims of fuel economy the company made to consumers," said
Rob Carey, the attorney representing the proposed class and
managing partner of the Phoenix office of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro.

"Regardless of how the errors occurred, the end result is the same
-- consumers overpaid for what they received, and a very slight
difference on the low-end of fuel efficiency can make a big
difference over the course of a year," Mr. Carey added.

Hyundai also announced plans to reimburse purchasers through a
complex plan requiring owners to visit a dealership to verify
mileage.  The company intends to reimburse owners for the
difference in the company's reported fuel economy rating and the
EPA rating based on local fuel prices.

"While we think there are some laudable aspects to the company's
approach to addressing the issues, we feel that consumers have
rights under California law not yet addressed by the automakers,"
Mr. Carey added.

The suit was filed for a Seattle woman who purchased a 2012
Hyundai Accent; an Arizona man who purchased a Hyundai Genesis
sedan; an Arizona woman who purchased a Hyundai Genesis sedan; and
an Illinois man who purchased a 2012 Kia Sorento, all relying on
the fuel-economy numbers provided by the car manufacturer.

The suit contends that Hyundai violated California's Unfair
Competition Law, its false advertising law and its consumer legal
remedy act.  The suit also claims that Hyundai committed a breach
of express warranty, and committed fraud and negligent
misrepresentation under California Common Law, among other
violations.

Hagens Berman has a long, successful record of representing
consumer interests in litigation against Hyundai.

Individuals who purchased a 2012 or 2013 Hyundai or Kia vehicle
are encouraged to contact Hagens Berman to discuss the case.
Consumers can contact an attorney by calling (206) 623-7292 or by
e-mailing rob@hbsslaw.com

More information about this lawsuit is available at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/hyundaifuelefficiency

                        About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm, with offices
in ten cities.  Founded in 1993, the firm represents plaintiffs in
class actions and multi-state, large-scale litigation that seek to
protect the rights of investors, consumers, workers and
whistleblowers.


INGREDION INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco labor lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
filed a class action Complaint against Ingredion Incorporated on
October 22, 2012, alleging that the company violated the
California Labor Code by failing to pay their employees the
correct amount of vacation wages owed to them upon their
termination with Ingredion.  Wagner, et al. v. Ingredion
Incorporated, Corn Products International, National Starch LLC,
Case No. C12-02478 is currently pending in the Contra Costa
Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the vacation pay complaint, even though employees
earned and accrued vacation time during their employment at the
company, Ingredion allegedly utilized a deceptive scheme to avoid
paying out the correct amount of vacation wages earned at the time
of employment termination.  Under the California Labor Code, all
earned and accrued vacation time must be paid out at the time that
the employment terminates and must be paid out at the employees'
regular rate of pay unless otherwise specified in writing.

If you were formerly employed by Ingredion Incorporated, Corn
Products International, and/or National Starch LLC in California
and were not paid all of the vacation pay you earned and accrued
during your employment, call (866) 771-7099 to find out if you are
eligible to join the class action lawsuit and make a claim for
unpaid vacation time.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back
against unfair business practices.


INTERNAP NETWORK: Two Claims in "Anastasio" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against Internap Network Services Corporation
and its former chief executive officer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned
Catherine Anastasio and Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network
Services Corp. and James P. DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-
3462-JOF.  The complaint alleges that the Company and the
individual defendant violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and that the individual
defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a
"control person" of Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to bring these
claims on behalf of a class of the Company's investors who
purchased its common stock between March 28, 2007, and March 18,
2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream,
which the Company acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and
related credits due to services outages and (c) the Company's
previously reported 2007 revenue that the Company subsequently
reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs assert
that the Company and the individual defendant made these
misstatements and omissions to maintain its share price.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint").  The Amended
Complaint added a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act based on alleged misrepresentations in the Company's
proxy statement in connection with its acquisition of VitalStream.
The Amended Complaint also added the Company's former chief
financial officer as a defendant and lengthened the putative class
period.

On September 11, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.  On December 7, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an
alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the
VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported
confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.  With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended
Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs'
one final opportunity to amend the complaint.  On October 26,
2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
On December 10, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint.  On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in large part
the motion to dismiss.  The two remaining claims involve certain
alleged misstatements concerning the progress of the integration
of VitalStream and the stability of the Company's content delivery
network ("CDN") platform.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Internap Network Services
Corporation -- http://www.internap.com-- provides information
technology (IT) infrastructure services.  The Company operates
through two segments, Data Center Services and Internet Protocol
(IP) Services.


JDA SOFTWARE: Being Sold to RedPrairie for Too Little, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that JDA Software Group is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to RedPrairie Corp.,
for $45 a share or $1.9 billion, shareholders claim in Maricopa
County Court.


LINN ENERGY: Briefing in Royalty Payments Suit Remains Deferred
---------------------------------------------------------------
The briefing and hearing on class certification in a statewide
class action lawsuit over royalty payments remain deferred,
according to Linn Energy, LLC's October 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits,
including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty
payments and royalty valuations.  The Company has established
reserves that management currently believes are adequate to
provide for potential liabilities based upon its evaluation of
these matters.  For a certain statewide class action royalty
payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the
Company has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has
raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will
result in no loss to the Company.  Discovery related to class
certification has concluded.  Briefing and the hearing on class
certification have been deferred by court order pending the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of interlocutory appeals of
two unrelated class certification orders.  As a result, the
Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible loss, if any.  In addition, the Company is involved in
various other disputes arising in the ordinary course of business.
The Company is not currently a party to any litigation or pending
claims that it believes would have a material adverse effect on
its overall business, financial position, results of operations or
liquidity; however, cash flow could be significantly impacted in
the reporting periods in which such matters are resolved.

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


MATTEL INC: Hearing on Appeal From Damages Award Set for Dec. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc.'s appeal from a district court ruling in favor of MGA
Entertainment, Inc., awarding $170 million in damages and $140
million in attorney's fees and costs, is scheduled for oral
argument on December 10, 2012, according to the Company's
October 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant ("Bryant"), a former Mattel
design employee.  The lawsuit alleges that Bryant aided and
assisted a Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc. ("MGA"),
during the time he was employed by Mattel, in violation of his
contractual and other duties to Mattel.  In September 2004, Bryant
asserted counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in
which Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees.  Bryant also removed
Mattel's lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  In December 2004, MGA intervened
as a party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting
that its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the
litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed lawsuit against Mattel in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
MGA's action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade
dress dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition,
and unjust enrichment.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television
commercials in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon
products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for
various MGA product lines, including Bratz.  The complaint also
asserts that various alleged Mattel acts with respect to
unidentified retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged
MGA and that various alleged acts by industry organizations,
purportedly induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.  MGA's lawsuit
alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach
or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive
damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its CEO Isaac Larian,
certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.  The RICO claim
alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by recruiting and hiring
key Mattel employees and directing them to bring with them Mattel
confidential and proprietary information, unfairly competed
against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets, confidential
information, and key employees to build their business.  On
January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to file these
claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases, which Mattel
did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works.  On May 19, 2008, Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation.  In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed
that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future
Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement,
including the Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008, in favor of
Mattel.  The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel,
aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to
Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary
duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their
own use.  The same jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian,
and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights
in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded
Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million against the
defendants.  On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of
orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's
motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA
party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain
Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name.  The Court
stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until
further order of the Court and entered a further specified stay of
the injunctive orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel.  Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver.  On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights.  The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting of
post-trial Bratz sales.  The Court further vacated the stay of the
December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by the
Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion -- if
not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.  The Ninth Circuit also
concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire
brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court
should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself,
whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the
scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz
designs and sculpt was outside of his employment.  The Court then
went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a
retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed
jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt.  The Ninth Circuit
stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin"
copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the
Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against
substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection,
however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in
failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of
Bryant's sketches.  This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower
court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar
to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter.  After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims.  Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several
new claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended
Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade
secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and
wrongful injunction.  Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these
claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's
motives for filing lawsuit.  The Court granted that motion as to
the wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice,
and as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck.
The Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret
misappropriation claim and its claim for violations of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010.  Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011.  During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for
aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion.  The
Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of
Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to
thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.

The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The jury ruled for MGA on
its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its claimed
trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages.  The jury
ruled against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets.  The jury
found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.

In early August 2011, the Court ruled on post-trial motions.  The
Court rejected MGA's unfair competition claims and also rejected
Mattel's equitable defenses to MGA's misappropriation of trade
secrets claim.  The Court reduced the jury's damages award of
$88.5 million to $85.0 million.  The Court awarded MGA an
additional $85.0 million in punitive damages and approximately
$140 million in attorney's fees and costs.  The Court entered a
judgment which totals approximately $310 million in favor of MGA.

Mattel has appealed the judgment and challenges on appeal the
entirety of the district court's monetary award in favor of MGA,
including both the award of $170 million in damages for alleged
trade secret misappropriation and approximately $140 million in
attorney's fees and costs.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has
scheduled Mattel's appeal for oral argument on December 10, 2012.

Mattel does not believe that it is probable that any of the
damages awarded to MGA will be sustained based on the evidence
presented at trial and, accordingly, a liability has not been
accrued for this matter.


MF GLOBAL: Law Firms File Amended Class Action Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. on Nov. 5 disclosed that law firms and
Class Plaintiffs -- former MF Global Inc. Customers --
representing the former commodity customers of MF Global Inc. and
others on Nov. 5 filed a consolidated amended class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine, other former MF
Global directors and officers, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and
CME Group.

The complaint, filed by the Court-appointed interim co-lead
counsel for the class and the Court-appointed executive committee
consisting of counsel from Berger & Montague, Entwistle &
Cappucci, Susman Godfrey, Nisen & Elliot, Grant & Eisenhofer, and
Fleischman Law Firm, includes allegations of: violations of the
Commodity Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
tortious interference of contract and business advantage, and
conversion, among other causes of action.

"The defendants in this lawsuit acted wrongfully by not fulfilling
their common law and statutory duties to protect property and
segregate funds owned by the former customers of MF Global Inc.,"
said interim co-lead counsel Merrill Davidoff.  "Through this
lawsuit, we aim to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in
damages from those who are responsible for this atrocity to return
to the victims of their actions, MF Global's former customers.
Our suit also seeks recoveries on behalf of the general creditors
of MF Global Inc., who were also injured as a result of the
misconduct of the defendants."

The consolidated amended class action complaint alleges causes of
action against Mr. Corzine, former CFO Henri Steenkamp, former COO
Bradley Abelow, former General Counsel Laurie Ferber, former
Assistant Treasurer Edith O'Brien, former CFO Christine Serwinski,
former Global Treasurer David Dunne, former Global Treasurer Vinay
Mahajan, MF Global's former independent auditor PwC, and MF
Global's former regulator CME Group.

"We are pleased that our lawsuit is moving forward with the filing
of this consolidated amended complaint," said interim co-lead
counsel Andrew Entwistle.  "Over a year ago, the management of MF
Global employed recklessly permissive procedures and directed,
caused, authorized or allowed transfers of over $900 million in
customer property for use by the firm, while PwC and CME Group
enabled this behavior.  It is time that these parties pay for
their improper behavior."

In addition to detailing the unlawful actions of Mr. Corzine and
other former directors and officers of MF Global, which led to an
unprecedented invasion of customer property, the complaint details
how PwC failed to adequately audit the internal controls over
customer funds as required by law and CME Group failed to
adequately regulate and supervise MF Global Inc. while knowing it
was not complying with obligations regarding customer funds
segregation.

Plaintiffs' counsel has entered into a cooperation agreement with
James W. Giddens, the Trustee for the liquidation of MF Global
Inc., approved by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Under the cooperation
agreement, the Trustee assigned to plaintiffs' counsel and Class
Plaintiffs -- on behalf of customers and creditors of MF Global
Inc. -- certain claims against MF Global's former directors and
officers and PwC, which plaintiffs' counsel are pursuing along
with class action claims.  Plaintiffs' counsel are continuing to
cooperate with the Trustee, and any recoveries will be distributed
through the Trustee's claims process.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Rulings in "Silverman" Suit Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Solutions, Inc. is awaiting court decisions in connection
with two appeals from a court-approved settlement of a securities
class action lawsuit captioned Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et
al., according to the Company's October 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 29, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006, and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The operative amended complaint primarily alleges
that the defendants knowingly made incorrect statements concerning
Motorola's projected revenues for the third and fourth quarter of
2006.  The complaint also challenges Motorola's accounting and
disclosures for certain transactions entered into in the third
quarter of 2006.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and
other relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of
Motorola shares during the class period.  On August 25, 2009, the
district court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On February 1, 2012, the parties in the Silverman litigation
signed a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in that case
for $200 million, $150 million of which is being paid by the
Company's insurance carriers.  The district court approved the
settlement agreement on May 9, 2012.  Two appeals have been filed
from the judgment entered pursuant to the settlement -- one
challenging the court's approval of certain terms of the
settlement, and the other challenging the fee award to the
attorneys for the class.  Those appeals are pending and oral
argument was scheduled for November 1, 2012.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Faces More Securities Class Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Jegen, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. OCZ Technology Group, Inc.; Ryan M. Peterson; and
Arthur F. Knapp, Jr., Case No. 3:12-cv-05476 (N.D. Calif., October
23, 2012) is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of OCZ
between July 10, 2012, through October 11, 2012, inclusive.

The Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose certain
adverse facts, which were known to them or recklessly disregarded
by them, including the fact that the Company was providing
customer incentive programs that were negatively impacting
revenues, the Company was improperly accounting for customer
incentive program, and the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls, Mr. Jegen alleges.

Mr. Jegen is shareholder of the Company.

OCZ is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in San Jose, California.  OCZ engages in the design, manufacture,
and distribution of solid state drives and computer components
primarily in the United States, Canada, Germany, the Middle East,
Africa, and other European countries.  It specializes in high-
speed memory in the enterprise and consumer SSD markets, a
technology that competes with traditional rotating magnetic hard
disk drives.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Punzalan, Esq.
          PUNZALAN LAW, P.C.
          600 Allerton Street, Suite 201
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Telephone: (650) 362-4150
          Facsimile: (650) 362-4151
          E-mail: mark@punzalanlaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          Thomas M. Gottschlich, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
                  tgottschlich@zlk.com


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: 9th Circuit Upheld Facebook Beacon Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld in
September Overstock.com, Inc.'s settlement of a class action
lawsuit over Facebook Beacon, according to Overstock.com's
October 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On August 12, 2008, the Company along with seven other defendants,
were sued in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other
individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a
class action lawsuit, alleging violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Computer Crime Law.  The complaint relates to the
Company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and
provided to the Company by Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon
provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data
among their Facebook friends.  The parties extended by agreement
the time for defendants' answer, including the Company's answer,
and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated
settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case
without requirement of financial contribution from the Company.
On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the
court entered an order accepting settlement.

Various parties appealed and on September 20, 2012, the Federal
Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit upheld the settlement.

The Company says it is unknown whether the parties will seek
further appeal.  The nature of the loss contingencies relating to
claims that have been asserted against the Company are described
in lawsuit.  However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can
be made.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Still Awaits "Hines" Suit Dismissal Bid Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 10, 2009, Overstock.com, Inc. was sued in a class action
filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York.  Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims
for breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer
fraud laws.  The Plaintiff alleges the Company failed to properly
disclose its returns policy to her and that it improperly imposed
a "restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that its
agreement with its customers requires all such actions to be
arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Alternatively, the Company
asked that the case be transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may be
compelled in that district.  On September 8, 2009, the motion to
dismiss or transfer was denied, the court stating that the
Company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient under New York law
to establish an agreement with the customer to arbitrate disputes
in Utah.  On October 8, 2009, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal
of the court's ruling.  The appeal was denied.

On December 31, 2010, Hines filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of
contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah's consumer
protection statute and various other state consumer protection
statutes.  The amended complaint also asks for an injunction.  The
lawsuit is in final discovery stages.  The Company filed motions
to dismiss and to decertify the class.  The court has not ruled on
these motions.  The nature of the loss contingencies relating to
claims that have been asserted against the Company are described
in the lawsuit.  However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss
can be made.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this
action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


PANERA BREAD: Awaits Final Approval of "Sotoudeh" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company is awaiting final approval of its $5 million
settlement of two class action lawsuits in California, according
to the Company's October 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
25, 2012.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick
Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread
Company.  The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court,
County of Contra Costa.  On April 22, 2011, the complaint was
amended to add another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a
plaintiff.  The complaint alleged, among other things, violations
of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and
violations of California's Business and Professions Code.  The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find
just and proper.  On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported
class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed
by David Carter.  Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement,
the parties have agreed to settle this matter for a maximum
aggregate amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to
purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of
administering the settlement.  The Memorandum of Agreement
contains no admission of wrongdoing.  The terms and conditions of
the settlement were preliminarily approved by the Court on
June 8, 2012.  The aggregate settlement amount of $5.0 million is
included in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of September 25, 2012, and December 27, 2011.

                         Carter Lawsuit

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David
Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company,
and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the
Company's franchisees.  The lawsuit was filed in the California
Superior Court, County of San Bernardino. The complaint alleged,
among other things, violations of the California Labor Code,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods
and termination compensation and violations of California's
Business and Professions Code.  The complaint sought, among other
relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and
proper.  This matter was consolidated with the Sotoudeh lawsuit
and is the subject of the Memorandum of Agreement.


PENNSYLVANIA: Class Action Challenges Inmate Execution Protocol
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Gilliland, writing for The Patriot-News, reports that
there's a little-known 6-year-old federal class action lawsuit --
Chester v Beard -- that has the potential to stay all executions
in Pennsylvania until it is resolved.

The suit challenges the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's
execution protocol; the "class" in the action is composed of all
inmates on death row, and there was a hearing in the case on Nov.
5.

The immediate relevance is the pending execution of Hubert
Michael, whose lawyers have asked the judge for a stay.

Mr. Michael is on death row for the July 12, 1993, murder of 16-
year-old Trista Eng near Dillsburg in York County.

Mr. Michael, who was living in a boarding house in Lemoyne at the
time, picked up Ms. Eng as she walked to work at the Dillsburg
Hardee's on Route 15.  He drove her to a remote area of State Game
Lands 242 and shot her three times with a .44 magnum -- twice in
the chest and once in the head.

When Mr. Michael subsequently pleaded guilty to the murder, he
said he had been frustrated with women due to an unrelated rape
charge in Lancaster County.

His attorneys recently asked a federal judge to reopen his appeals
proceedings, citing serious mental health issues as the reason for
Mr. Michael having repeatedly changed his mind on whether or not
he wanted the appeal to proceed.

There's a hearing on that later this week.

But the separate class action suit, in which his attorneys have
also filed a motion for a stay, has the potential to affect all
executions in Pennyslvania.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that death by lethal
injection is not -- in and of itself -- unconstitutional, but the
ruling left open the possibility that individual state protocols
for lethal injection could be challenged on constitutional
grounds.

At issue is the fact that two of the three drugs used in the
procedure can cause excruciating pain if the first drug -- a fast-
acting barbiturate -- is an insufficient dose or improperly
administered.  What's more, the second drug paralyzes the person,
so he would not be able to communicate the fact he's in
excruciating pain.  For this reason, several states have banned
use of the second drug when euthanizing animals.

In an oft-cited concurring opinion in the 2008 decision, Justice
John Paul Stevens wrote, "It is unseemly -- to say the least --
that Kentucky may well kill [inmates] using a drug that it would
not permit to be used on their pets."

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court -- including Justice Stevens --
ruled that Kentucky's protocol passed constitutional muster.

Among the issues raised in the Pennsylvania case is the source of
drugs to be used in the execution.

Certain drug manufacturers have banned the use of their product in
executions, and lawyers for the prisoners argue that if black
market or diluted drugs are used, the procedure could be
unconstitutional.

The Department of Corrections argues that revealing the source of
the drugs could result in the source refusing to sell them the
drugs.

Two federal judges have ruled that the source of the drugs is
pertinent and ordered DOC to reveal the information, but in doing
so, both judges recognized DOC's concern and ordered the
information to be kept confidential.

Last week, Secretary of Corrections John Wetzel, on the advice of
lawyers from the Attorney General's office, refused to divulge the
source of the drugs despite the federal court orders.

The Nov. 5 hearing included a request for sanctions against Mr.
Wetzel and DOC for "clear, flagrant and deliberate" violation of
federal court orders.

With the parties in the case still fighting over discovery, it's
possible there might be no final resolution soon.

Experts in death penalty law say execution stays could be likely
as long as the case is open.

Marc Bookman of the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation
said the judge in the Pennsylvania case -- Yvette Kane -- "is a
thorough judge who wants to do it properly."

He noted that, "Lethal injection litigation has stayed executions
in other states."

Mr. Michael's death warrant is the only one signed by Gov. Tom
Corbett that has not been stayed for some other reason.

If Judge Kane grants a stay, and if Chester v Beard continues its
path through federal court, it could render any future death
warrants moot until the case is settled.

When asked about that, Janet Kelley in the governor's press office
said, "The governor took an oath to uphold the law, and the law in
Pennsylvania includes signing execution warrants."


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: "Higgins" Class Suit Still Pending in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit commenced by John Higgins, et al., in Tennessee,
according to the Company's October 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle Bank's
filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et al.
v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National
Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court against Pinnacle
Bank and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well as on
behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle Bank's customers within
the State of Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle Bank's method of
ordering debit card transactions had caused customers of Pinnacle
Bank to incur higher overdraft charges than had a different method
been used.  In support of his claims, the plaintiff asserts
theories of breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment of unconscionability.
The plaintiff is seeking, among other remedies, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.  Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank are
vigorously contesting this matter.  On January 17, 2012, Pinnacle
Financial and Pinnacle Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The motion to dismiss was denied on April 13, 2012,
and Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank filed an answer on May
30, 2012.

Based on its current knowledge, Pinnacle Financial does not
believe that any liability arising from this legal matter will
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition, operating results or cash flows.

Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. -- http://www.mypinnacle.com/--
operates as the bank holding company for Pinnacle National Bank
that provides various commercial banking services to individuals,
small-to medium-sized businesses, and professional entities
primarily in Tennessee.  The Company was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Seeks Reconsideration in Suit vs. Celera
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated has filed a motion for
reconsideration of the denial of its bid to dismiss a securities
class action lawsuit filed against a subsidiary, according to the
Company's October 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Celera
Corporation, a Company subsidiary, and certain of its directors
and current and former officers.  An amended complaint filed in
October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009,
the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud
investors.  The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add
allegations regarding a financial restatement.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of Celera's stock during the period in which the
alleged misrepresentations were made.  The Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint was denied.  The Company has filed a motion
for reconsideration of the court's denial of the Company's motion
to dismiss.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Dismissal Bid Pending in Sales Rep.'s Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is still awaiting court decisions
on its motions to dismiss, strike class allegations, and compel
arbitration in the class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
female sales representatives, according to the Company's October
24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a
subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed
by the defendants from February 17, 2010, to the present.  The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against
these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in
violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages.
The Company has filed motions to dismiss the complaint, to strike
the class allegations and to compel arbitration with the named
plaintiffs.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Suit Alleging NJLAD Violations Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated and certain former officers of the
Company in New Jersey state court, on behalf of the Company's
sales people nationwide who were over forty years old and who
either resigned or were terminated after being placed on a
performance improvement plan.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants' conduct violates the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among other things,
unspecified damages.  The defendants removed the complaint to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The
Company filed a motion seeking to limit the application of the
NJLAD to only those members of the purported class who worked in
New Jersey and to dismiss the individual defendants.  The motion
was granted.  The only remaining NJLAD claim is that of the named
plaintiff; the ERISA claim remains in the case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 24,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


RADEC CORP: Judge Cuts Attorneys' Fees in FLSA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
New York Law Journal reports that a federal judge has cut by 70
percent the billable hours Rochester attorneys sought in a Fair
Labor Standards Act class action, finding that the matter which
was resolved for $225,000 cannot justify attorney fees and
expenses of $1.7 million.  Western District Judge Michael Telesca
said in Mendez v. The Radec Corporation, 03-cv-6342, dragged on
for seven years in large part because the plaintiffs demanded
substantial attorney fees in any settlement.

Records show that the plaintiffs rejected settlement offers of
$400,000 and $600,000, inclusive of attorney fees, and accepted
the $225,000 after the fee issue was separated from settlement.
Telesca said the case could have been settled much sooner but was
prolonged largely because of the dispute over attorney fees,
generating substantial legal expenses for both plaintiffs and
defendants.

He said the 7,011 hours claimed by plaintiff's attorney's, the
Rochester firm of Thomas & Solomon, a boutique firm specializing
in Fair Labor Standards Act cases, was unreasonable and approved
only 2,100 hours, a 70 percent reduction. Telesca also found the
requested rate, which averaged $230 for partners, attorneys with
various amounts of experience, paralegals and contract law
students, was excessive and the $108,863 cost claim unreasonable.
He awarded $420,000 in attorney fees and $53,793 in costs, for a
total of $473,793.

In opposition to the plaintiffs' fee request, the defendants'
attorney at Harter Secrest & Emery said the case was defended for
$564,577 in fees for 4,149 billable hours, and about $18,900 in
expenses.


SAFEWAY: Faces Overtime & Minimum Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Safeway stiffs assistant
managers for overtime and minimum wages, a class action claims in
Superior Court.


SENOR FROG: Faces Class Action Over Employee Sexual Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Consillio, writing for Star Advertiser, reports that the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Senor
Frog's, saying its CEO, other high-level executives and managers
sexually harassed female employees at its now-closed Waikiki
location.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a
sexual harassment lawsuit against Senor Frog's, claiming the
restaurant chain's owner, CEO and top-level managers groped,
propositioned or demanded sex from subordinate female workers.

The class-action suit, filed on Nov. 1 in Honolulu federal court
against La Rana Hawaii LLC, alleges widespread sexual harassment
at the once-popular Waikiki Mexican bar and restaurant that
abruptly closed in August after failed lease negotiations with the
Royal Hawaiian Center.

The lawsuit, which names five managers and three top executives,
alleges daily groping of at least 10 female servers, hostesses and
bartenders, explicit sexual remarks and propositions, demanding
sexual intercourse and favors and, in one instance, a male manager
exposing his genitals.  The female workers, who were also pushed
to drink alcohol and have sex with top executives visiting the
Waikiki establishment, were in their teens and early 20s, the
complaint said.

"When you have harassment like this happening in every stage of
management all the way up to the highest levels, we are concerned
that there probably are more victims," said Amrita Mallik, a
Honolulu senior trial attorney for the EEOC, adding that more
victims are coming forward.  "This was really rampant sexual
harassment."

In addition, female workers who complained to management were
subject to reduced hours, less favorable working conditions and,
in at least two instances, termination, the lawsuit said.

Senor Frog's had more than 100 employees between June 2007 and
December 2008, the period of the alleged harassment, she said.
The complaint also includes women employed at the restaurant from
January 2009 until its closure this year.

Company officials didn't respond to phone and e-mail messages.
Attorneys for Senor Frog's also didn't return calls for comment.

The suit claims that the behavior was condoned by Senor Frog's
owner, Alejandro Shoer, and CEO David Krouham, who also
participated in the harassment.

Altres Inc., a staffing firm contracted by Senor Frog's to provide
human resources and oversee nonmanagement staff, also is listed in
the complaint, which states the agency is liable for the hostile
work environment.

The suit said that Altres received complaints from four workers
and investigated one case in 2008.  Altres said its investigation
was based on discrimination, not sexual harassment, and that the
findings were different from the EEOC claims.

"Because we were issuing paychecks, that's why we got dragged into
this thing. We're the employer on paper," said Altres President
and CEO Barron Guss.  "We did do an investigation and reported it
to Senor Frog's. From there we have no other role."

Mr. Guss anticipates that his company will be dismissed from the
lawsuit.

Altres' role with the restaurant was "administrative employer
services, so we will naturally be named (in such lawsuits). It's
up to the courts to sort it out, and they always do," he said.

Altres, which handles payroll for about 800 local companies and
also offers staffing services, has not done business with Senor
Frog's for about four years, after the restaurant did not renew
its contract.  Altres was listed in the lawsuit as a joint
employer from 2007 to 2008.

"We provided administrative services only," Mr. Guss told the
Star-Advertiser.  The employees were "hired, directed, controlled,
compensated and sometimes terminated, all by Senor Frog's. The
smoke's on the other side of the fence."

The lawsuit, originally filed in December, was earlier dismissed
by a federal judge, due in part to a lack of details, according to
the EEOC.  The commission said it tried twice in 2011 and 2012 to
resolve the matter without litigation after the case was brought
to its attention in 2008 by an employee.

The Waikiki restaurant, which opened in 2007, was one of more than
a dozen operating in Mexico, the U.S. and the Caribbean.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Suit Deal Became Effective in Oct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class action
lawsuit received final approval on August 23, 2012, and became
effective on October 2, 2012, according to the Company's October
25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that
purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs
and make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.  One of these private civil actions was filed on
November 15, 2004, in South Carolina state court, York County
Court of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and some of
Sonic's South Carolina subsidiaries.  The plaintiffs in that
lawsuit were Misty J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and
Joseph Lee Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class.  The group of
plaintiffs' attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South
Carolina lawsuit also filed another private civil class action
lawsuit against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries on February 14, 2005, in state court in North
Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court, which similarly sought
certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs and alleged
that certain products sold in the finance and insurance
departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal
manner.  The plaintiffs in this North Carolina lawsuit were Robert
Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappelletti and Kelly Cappelletti, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class.  The South Carolina state court
action and the North Carolina state court action were subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration
before the American Arbitration Association (the "Arbitrator").
On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action
including all of the states in which Sonic operates dealerships
except Florida.  Claimants are seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. The
parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification.

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on
Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all
customers who, on or after November 15, 2000, purchased or leased
from a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of
the transaction, but not including customers who purchased or
leased such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida. The
Partial Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision
on the merits of the action.  The merits of Claimants' assertions
and potential damages would still have to be proven through the
remainder of the arbitration.  The Arbitrator stayed the
Arbitration for thirty days to allow either party to petition a
court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award.
On July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on
Class Certification in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln
County Superior Court.  On August 17, 2010, Sonic removed this
North Carolina state court action to federal court, and
simultaneously filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitrator's Partial
Final Award on Class Certification, with both filings made in the
United Stated District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.

On August 12, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina issued an Order granting
Sonic's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award on Class
Certification and denied Claimant's Motion to Dismiss the same.
Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals on September 12, 2011.  The federal
court's stay of the arbitration proceeding remains in force.

At a mediation held January 16, 2012, Sonic reached an agreement
with the Claimants to settle this ongoing dispute in its entirety.
Sonic and the Claimants subsequently entered into a definitive
settlement agreement, the terms of which received preliminary
approval by a North Carolina state court in May 2012. The North
Carolina state court granted its Final Approval on August 23,
2012, and the settlement became effective on
October 2, 2012.  The settlement will not have a material adverse
effect on Sonic's future results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.

Sonic says it is involved, and expects to continue to be involved,
in numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of
the conduct of its business, including regulatory investigations
and private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to
represent a potential class or for which a class has been
certified.  Although Sonic vigorously defends itself in all legal
and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future
proceedings arising out of the conduct of Sonic's business,
including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits,
contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and
actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted
with certainty.  An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these
matters could have a material adverse effect on Sonic's business,
financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or
prospects.  Included in other accrued liabilities at both
September 30, 2012, and December 31, 2011, was approximately $7.3
million in reserves that Sonic has provided for pending
proceedings.  Except as reflected in such reserves, Sonic is
currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss,
or a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount
accrued, for pending proceedings.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Received $2.1 Billion Payment in Suit vs. AMC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation disclosed in its October 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it received a
$2.108 billion payment from Americas Mining Corporation in
compliance with a previous judgment, which was recently affirmed.

Three purported class action derivative lawsuits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (New Castle County) late in December
2004 and early January 2005 relating to the proposed merger
transaction between the Company and Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
(the "Transaction"), which was completed effective April 1, 2005.
On January 31, 2005, the three actions were consolidated into one
action and the complaint filed by Lemon Bay was designated as the
operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  The consolidated
action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its
common stockholders.  The defendants in the consolidated action
were Americas Mining Corporation ("AMC") and SCC's directors.  The
Company was a nominal defendant.  The consolidated complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Transaction was the result
of breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's directors and was
entirely unfair to the Company and its minority stockholders.

On October 14, 2011, the Court issued an opinion on this action
finding that SCC had paid AMC too much stock consideration in the
Transaction.  The Court issued a revised final order and judgment
on December 29, 2011.  The Court decided that the Award, in the
amount of $1.347 billion plus $684.6 million of pre-judgment
interest, was payable by AMC with cash, or with the return of a
number of shares of SCC equal in value to award, or by SCC
cancelling an equivalent number of shares owned by AMC, or by any
combination thereof, so long as the total was equivalent to the
amount of the judgment plus accrued post-judgment interest (post-
judgment interest accrued from October 15, 2011).  The Court also
awarded attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $304.7
million, or 15% of the judgment, plus post-judgment interest,
payable by SCC out of the award and not from existing SCC's cash.

On January 20, 2012, AMC and the other defendants appealed the
Court's decisions.  On the same date, SCC appealed the Court's
decision related to the award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  On
May 3, 2012, the Court accepted the security provided by AMC and
granted a stay of the judgment pending final resolution of the
appeal.  On August 27, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed
the lower court's decision.  On September 21, 2012, the Delaware
Supreme Court rejected the rehearing motion filed by AMC and
ordered AMC to follow the Court's decision.

On October 9, 2012, AMC paid to the Company $2,108.2 million and
the Company paid $316.2 million of legal fees and expenses to the
plaintiff's attorneys.  The effect of this award has been recorded
in the Company's third quarter 2012 results.  The $2,108.2 million
awarded to the Company has been included in the capital accounts
with a corresponding receivable recorded on the balance sheet.
Additionally, the Company has recorded an expense of $316.2
million in its 2012 third quarter results for the legal fees
related to this award and has recorded a liability on its balance
sheet for this obligation.


STANDARD AND POOR'S: To Appeal Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------
ABC reports that the ratings agency Standard and Poor's says it
will appeal a landmark ruling which will allow 13 local councils
to recoup losses they suffered during the 2008 financial crisis.

The New South Wales councils, including Bathurst and Corowa Shire,
brought a class action against Standard and Poor's, investment
bank ABN AMRO and Local Government Financial Services (LGFS).

The councils claimed they were misled into losing almost AUD16
million in the financial crisis, saying Standard and Poor's led
them to buy complex investments called Constant Proportion Debt
Obligation Notes (CDPOs), which the agency had given a AAA rating.

The Nov. 5 ruling found that rating was misleading and deceptive.

Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot described the ABN AMRO products
as "grotesquely complicated" and said that the LGFS breached its
fiduciary duty to the councils by not properly investigating the
products.

She said Standard and Poor's had been "sandbagged" while ABN AMRO
"simply bulldozed the rating through".

The three financial agencies have each been ordered to pay one-
third of the amount lost by the councils, plus interest.

That means the councils will recoup about AUD30 million.

Piper Alderman partner Amanda Banton --
abanton@piperalderman.com.au -- who represented 12 of the 13
councils taking action, said the decision was a major blow for
ratings agencies.

"No longer will rating agencies be able to hide behind disclaimers
to absolve themselves from liability," she said in a statement.

But in a statement, Standard and Poor's says it is disappointed
with the court's decision and intends to appeal.

"We reject any suggestion our opinions were inappropriate, and we
will appeal the Australian ruling, which relates to a specific
CPDO rating," the statement read.

                         Landmark Ruling

Class action funder IMF Australia says the ruling is likely to
have global ramifications, particularly in Europe where more than
AUD2 billion worth of CDPOs were issued.

"This has been a long time coming," IMF executive director John
Walker told The World Today.

"It not only involves or assists people in New South Wales, it
also potentially can be relied upon by people around the world.

"It fundamentally arose by rating agencies and investment banks
looking after their own interests and potentially being a material
cause of the global financial crisis.  I don't say that lightly.

"So much of these synthetic derivatives created huge credit risks
outside regulated markets that were really outside the control of
our regulators."

He says his organization is looking into funding further
litigation in Australia, New Zealand, The Netherlands and the UK.

"Here we have Standard and Poor's, which is a live breathing
ratings agency that has a business that everybody in the financial
markets relies upon.  And we're looking to sue Standard and Poor's
in those four jurisdictions," he said.

The City of Ryde's Roy Newsome says he is delighted with the
ruling.

"Parties that we relied upon for their advice and their due
diligence obviously didn't prove to be correct," he said.

Les Finn from Parkes Shire Council says they can now move forward.

"We'll be able to shift our focus now onto getting some services
back on the ground, rather than servicing debt," he said.

The ruling follows another in September against the now collapsed
Lehman Brothers, which was found to have breached legal duties
when it sold toxic derivatives to a group of charities, councils
and church groups who collectively lost about AUD250 million.


STEVE MADDEN: Settlement Notification Program Underway
------------------------------------------------------
A notification program is underway, as ordered by the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, to
alert certain people who were sent a text message promoting
footwear and apparel company Steve Madden's products or events
about a proposed class action settlement that may affect their
rights.

This lawsuit claims that Steve Madden, Ltd. caused unsolicited
text messages to be sent to consumers advertising Steve Madden's
fashion products and promotional events.  These text messages were
sent to consumers from abbreviated phone numbers (called "short
codes") 91919 and 623336.  The lawsuit claims that Defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because consumers
did not consent to receive these text message advertisements.  The
Defendant denies it violated any law.  The Court has not
determined who is right and the parties have agreed to settle the
lawsuit to avoid the uncertainties and expenses associated with
ongoing litigation.

The Settlement Class includes all persons nationwide who from July
2010, until September 25, 2012 were sent any Text Message(s)
promoting Steve Madden products and events from short codes 91919
or 623336.

The Defendant has established a Settlement Fund of $10 million.
If the Court approves the Settlement, members of the Settlement
Class may be entitled to receive up to $150 each.  The exact
amount of any payment cannot be calculated at this time and will
depend on the total number of valid claims that are filed.
Settlement Class Members may submit claims online at
www.maddentextsettlement.net or by completing and mailing a claim
form.

Notices will be mailed and e-mailed to potential Class Members and
are scheduled to appear online via banner advertisements and in
the magazines Cosmopolitan and People leading up to a hearing on
February 25, 2013, when the Court will consider whether to grant
final approval to the settlement.

The Court has appointed Jay Edelson, Myles McGuire, Ryan D.
Andrews, and Ari J. Scharg of Edelson McGuire, LLC and Suzanne
Havens Beckman and Azita Moradmand of Parisi & Havens LLP as
Proposed Class Counsel to represent the Settlement Class.

Those affected by this settlement can submit a claim for benefits
or they can ask to be excluded from, or object to, the settlement
and its terms.  The deadline for exclusions and objections is
January 8, 2013. The claim deadline is April 11, 2013.

A toll-free number, 1-888-643-2166, has been established in the
case known as Ellison v. Steven Madden, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05935,
along with the Web site -- http://www.MaddenTextSettlement.net--
where the notice, claim form, settlement agreement and other
documents may be obtained.  Those affected may also write to Steve
Madden Settlement Administrator, PO Box 4230, Portland, OR 97208-
4230.


TENNESSEE COMMERCE: Top Executives Face Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Geert De Lombaerde, writing for Nashville Post, reports that local
lawyers P.K. Bramlett and Robert Bramlett and peers from New
York's Rosen Law Firm on Nov. 2 filed a putative class action
against Tennessee Commerce Bancorp and four current or former top
executives -- Art Helf, Mike Sapp, Lamar Cox and Frank Perez.  On
behalf of lead plaintiff Carolyn Lynn, the attorneys say, among
other things, that Tennessee Commerce's execs "knowingly or
recklessly" made false statements about the bank's financial
health and the state of its internal controls starting with their
2008 annual report.

"During the Class Period, defendants engaged in a scheme to
deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially
inflated TNCC's share price and operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of TNCC shares by misrepresenting the Company's
financial condition and business prospects," the complaint says.
"The Individual Defendants' false and misleading statements had
the intended effect and caused TNCC stock to trade at artificially
inflated levels throughout the Class Period."


THOMAS JEFFERSON: Class Action Hearing Scheduled This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Moran, writing for North County Times, reports that a class-
action lawsuit against the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San
Diego contending the school put out fraudulent employment
statistics for recent graduates is headed for a key hearing this
month as both sides slug it out in court.

The suit by 2008 graduate Alana Alaburda said the school falsely
reported that most of its graduates get jobs nine months after
graduation.  She said she has been unable to find full-time work
as a lawyer and has $150,000 in debt.

It was the first of a wave of lawsuits filed across the country
alleging law schools routinely falsify employment data for
graduates.

Thomas Jefferson has vigorously fought the claims and is seeking
to get the case dismissed at a hearing set for Nov. 16 before San
Diego Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman.

Lawyers for Ms. Alaburda have filed a declaration from Karen
Grant, a former law school employee who worked in 2006 and 2007 in
the Career Service Office.  Ms. Grant said that in collecting
postgraduate data for the school, she was told to count graduates
as employed if they had been employed at any time after graduation
-- even if they were currently not working.  She said she
expressed concern such a practice was not right but was told it
was common among law schools.

In a statement, the school said Ms. Grant only worked there for
2006 and 2007 and never told anyone in the school's senior
administration about her misgivings.  It also said the school has
not been able to corroborate her claims with anyone else or with
any documents.

The school also has gone on the offensive.  It recently filed a
motion that said Ms. Alaburda was offered a $60,000-a-year job as
a lawyer after graduation -- but turned it down.

Her lawyer declined to comment.


TOWN SPORTS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Cruz" Suits vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court
decision on its subsidiary's motions to dismiss class action
lawsuits filed by Sarah Cruz, et al. in New York, according to the
Company's October 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al
v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club,
plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Town Sports International, LLC
("TSI, LLC"), in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking
unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime
provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the
payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness
managers.  On or about June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs
commenced a second purported class action against TSI, LLC in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, seeking
unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage
payment and overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law
with respect to the payment of wages to all New York purported
hourly employees.  On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made motions to
dismiss the class action allegations of both lawsuits for
plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to certify the class
actions.  Oral argument on the motions occurred on November 10,
2010.  A decision is still pending.

While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an
unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, the Company intends
to contest these cases vigorously.  Depending upon the ultimate
outcome, these matters may have a material adverse effect on TSI,
LLC's and the Company's consolidated results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.


TOWN SPORTS: James Labbe's New Class Suit vs. Unit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
James Labbe's new class action lawsuit filed against a subsidiary
of Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., is pending in New
York, according to the Company's October 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On May 30, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v. Town
Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported class
action under the New York State labor law on behalf of personal
trainers employed in New York State, and a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") on behalf of all
personal trainers, in the Federal District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Mr. Labbe discontinued this action, without
prejudice, on August 8, 2012.  On or about October 4, 2012, Mr.
Labbe commenced a purported class action in New York State court
on behalf of personal trainers employed in New York State,
asserting substantially the same New York State labor law claims
as in Mr. Labbe's discontinued federal complaint, but without the
FLSA collective action claims.  TSI, LLC has not yet responded to
the complaint.  Mr. Labbe's action is largely duplicative of the
Cruz case.  Mr. Labbe seeks to represent a smaller subset of the
same class of New York personal trainers who would be represented
by Cruz if a class action were certified in that matter.  Mr.
Labbe also seeks unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and
alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State
labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's
notification and record-keeping obligations.

The Company argues that TSI, LLC should not be held liable to pay
the same New York personal trainers for the same damages in both
cases.  While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an
unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to
contest this case vigorously.


UNITIL CORP: Suit vs. Fitchburg Remains Pending in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil
Corporation's subsidiary, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light
Company, on January 7, 2009 in Worcester Superior Court in
Worcester, Massachusetts, captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company.  On April 1, 2009, an Amended Complaint
was filed in Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg.
The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel
sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property
damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the
loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's
service areas in December 2008.  The Amended Complaint includes
M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade
practices related to the December 2008 ice storm.  On September 4,
2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the Company's Motion
to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in
part.  The Company anticipates that the court will decide whether
the lawsuit is appropriate for class action treatment in late
2012.  The Company continues to believe the lawsuit is without
merit and will defend itself vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 24,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


                           *********

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 L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.




                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *