CAR_Public/121127.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 27, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 235

                                  Headlines

2 GOLD: Tenants File Class Action Over Hurricane Damages
AUSTRALIA: Heath Ryan Joins Class Action Over EI Outbreak
BANK OF AMERICA: Approval of Interchange Fee Suits' Deal Sought
BANK OF AMERICA: Dist. Court Refused to Remand MBS-Related Suits
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Fourth Merchants' Class Suit in Canada

BANK OF AMERICA: Awaits OK of $2.4BB Merrill-Related Suit Deal
BETTER BUSINESS: Bid to Dismiss False Ad Class Action Nixed
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Discovery in IPO-Related Class Suit Ongoing
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Summ. Judgment Bids in "Dahl" Suit Pending
CALIX INC: Del. Suit Related to Occam Acquisition Remain Pending

CINEPLEX: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Discount Advertising
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment
DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Pain Pumps
ENVIVIO INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
GEORGE BROWN: Loses Suit Over Misleading Course Description

HERTZ CORP: Awaits Dismissal of Suit Over Parent's 2010 Merger
HERTZ GLOBAL: Awaits Dismissal of 2010 Dollar Thrifty Merger Suit
HESS CORP: Wolf Law Firm Files Suit Over Mislabeled Fuel
HITACHI LTD: Accused of Fixing Prices of Lithium Ion Batteries
HOSTESS: Klehr Harrison Files Class Action Over Lay-Offs

IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
ITT CORP: Class Suit vs. Travelers Casualty Still Pending
KKR & CO: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Motion in Antitrust Suit
KKR & CO: Bid to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit in Delaware Pending
LEBANON SCHOOL: Parents Get Favorable Ruling in Truancy Suit

MADISON SQUARE: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Issuing False and Misleading Results
OLD REPUBLIC: 5th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Suit vs. ORNTIC
OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Defend "Hinrichs" Suit vs. Unit
OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Continues to Face RESPA Violation Suits

OLD REPUBLIC: Still Defends "Barker" Class Action Suit vs. ORHP
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Smithtown Still Pending
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Defends Wage and Hour Violations Suit vs. Bank
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Strike Amended Overdraft Fee Suit Pending
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Still Awaits OK of $7.25BB Deal in Suit vs. VISA

PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit in Winnipeg, Canada Remains Dormant
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Remain Pending in "Adams" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Suit in Nova Scotia Remains Dormant

PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Suit Still Pending in Alberta, Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Suit Still Pending in B.C. Ct.
PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Class Suit Pending in British Columbia
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in "Smith" Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals in "ADESF" Suit Still Pending in Brazil

PHILIP MORRIS: Sao Paulo Prosecutor's Appeal Remains Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Awaits Ruling in Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Awaits Order on Cert. Bid in "El-Roy" Suit
R&L CARRIERS: Judge Allows Truck Drivers' Wage Suit to Proceed
ST. JOE CO: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending

ST. JOE CO: Awaits Approval of Settlement of Oil Spill Claims
THAT'S GREAT NEWS: Insurers Refuse to Cover TCPA Class Action
TRANS UNION: Faces Consumer Suit Over Incomplete OFAC Alerts
VANGUARD NATURAL: Consolidated Suit vs. ENP Remains Stayed
YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss "Bryant" Suit


                          *********



2 GOLD: Tenants File Class Action Over Hurricane Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
Sara Polsky, writing for Curbed, reports that in a completely
unsurprising move, a group of tenants of Financial District
building 2 Gold Street have officially filed a class-action
lawsuit against 2 Gold, 201 Pearl, and developer TF Cornerstone.
Since the residents of 88 Greenwich have also filed a suit, the 2
Gold one is the second lawsuit we know of to come out of Hurricane
Sandy.  The tenants involved are seeking "damages and other
appropriate relief for their claims arising out of Defendants'
negligence relating to their failure to adequately secure the
premises subsequent to the multiple warnings issued
. . . and for their negligence relating to their failure to
mitigate damages following the storm," according to the legal
documents.  Residents of 2 Gold have already been told their
estimated date of return to the building is March 1, 2013.

The suit more specifically alleges that the building owners and
employees knew about the storm's severity four or five days before
the storm actually hit, which would have given the buildings the
time to check on flood safety.  The lawsuit also makes reference
to "toxic fumes" from the gasoline that spilled into the flood
waters, "to such a degree that the residences are not tenable and
create safety and health dangers."


AUSTRALIA: Heath Ryan Joins Class Action Over EI Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------
Sam Norris, writing for the Maitland Mercury, reports that
Olympian Heath Ryan has joined a class action seeking to recoup
some of the multiple-million dollar losses during the 2007 equine
influenza outbreak.

The equestrian gold medalist turned breeder and trainer joins a
class action against the Commonwealth early next year that could
include more than 500 claimants.

"I don't know how much I can hope to get back but it cost me $1
million or more," Mr. Ryan said.

UK-based Argentum Litigation Services is funding the class action
organized by law firms Maurice Blackburn and Attwood Marshall free
of charge to claimants.

To halt EI's spread and eradicate the virus, horse movements were
restricted, affecting not just the thoroughbred industry but the
so-called leisure horse industry and its untold fortunes tied up
in horse floats, stock feed, saddles, training and tow vehicles.

Mr. Ryan's Lochinvar facility was a short distance from the
Anambah outbreak.

His horses contracted EI putting business on hold for a year.
Mr. Ryan cancelled four auctions at which he expected to sell 100
horses in total averaging $15,000 a horse -- a total of $1.5
million.

"It was a year before the Beijing Olympics which should have been
a big year for us but we didn't sell any horses," he said.  "On
top of that we couldn't conduct any classes and when times are
slow we would sell horses but we couldn't."

The Callinan Report put the blame squarely on the Commonwealth's
quarantine services and the Eastern Creek facility.

"All our tax money was paying for this facility to operate and if
they ran it properly there wouldn't have been EI in Australia,"
Mr. Ryan said.  "I don't think people in Maitland and the Hunter
Valley realize they can get involved in this class action."

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini said while people did
receive some compensation under the Commercial Horse Assistance
Payment Scheme it was not enough.  Applications to the class
action close December 21.


BANK OF AMERICA: Approval of Interchange Fee Suits' Deal Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class plaintiffs last month filed the agreement and a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement of the lawsuit captioned In
Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation, according to Bank of America Corporation's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

A group of merchants have filed a series of putative class actions
and individual actions with regard to interchange fees associated
with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.  These
actions, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation (Interchange), name Visa, MasterCard and several banks
and bank holding companies, including the Corporation, as
defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix
the level of default interchange rates, which represent the fee an
issuing bank charges an acquiring bank on every transaction.
Plaintiffs also challenge as unreasonable restraints of trade
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act certain rules of Visa and
MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at the
point of sale.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on
their assertion that interchange would be lower or eliminated
absent the alleged conduct.  On January 8, 2008, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims for pre-2004 damages.
Motions to dismiss the remainder of the complaint and plaintiffs'
motion for class certification are pending.  In February 2011, the
parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

In addition, plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints against
certain defendants, including the Corporation, relating to initial
public offerings (the IPOs) of MasterCard and Visa.  Plaintiffs
allege that the IPOs violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Plaintiffs also assert that the
MasterCard IPO was a fraudulent conveyance.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and to undo the IPOs.  Motions to dismiss both
supplemental complaints, as well as summary judgment motions
challenging both supplemental complaints, remain pending.

The Corporation and certain affiliates have entered into loss-
sharing agreements with Visa, Mastercard and other financial
institutions in connection with certain antitrust litigation,
including Interchange.  Collectively, the loss-sharing agreements
require the Corporation and/or certain affiliates to pay 11.6
percent of the monetary portion of any comprehensive Interchange
settlement.  In the event of an adverse judgment, the agreements
require the Corporation and/or certain affiliates to pay 12.8
percent of any damages associated with Visa-related claims (Visa-
related damages), 9.1 percent of any damages associated with
MasterCard-related claims, and 11.6 percent of any damages
associated with internetwork claims (internetwork damages) or not
associated specifically with Visa or MasterCard-related claims
(unassigned damages).

Pursuant to Visa's publicly-disclosed Retrospective Responsibility
Plan (the RRP), Visa placed certain proceeds from its IPO into an
escrow fund (the Escrow).  Under the RRP, funds in the Escrow may
be accessed by Visa and its members, including Bank of America, to
pay monetary damages in Interchange, with the Corporation's
payments from the Escrow capped at 12.81 percent of the funds that
Visa places therein.  Subject to that cap, the Corporation may use
Escrow funds to cover 73.9 percent of its monetary payment towards
a comprehensive Interchange settlement, 100 percent of its payment
for any Visa-related damages and 73.9 percent of its payment for
any internetwork and unassigned damages.

On July 13, 2012, defendants, including the Corporation, and class
plaintiffs in the Interchange filed a memorandum of understanding
with the court regarding a global settlement of the Interchange
litigation.  The memorandum of understanding provides that
defendants and class plaintiffs have agreed to enter a definitive
settlement agreement that will provide, among other things, that
all defendants will pay a total of $6.05 billion to class
plaintiffs and that each network will make certain changes to
network rules regarding merchant point of sale practices.  Visa
and MasterCard also have agreed to distribute to class members an
amount equal to 10 bps of credit interchange rates for U.S.
merchant class members for a period of eight months, beginning
within 60 days after completion of the court-ordered period during
which individual class members may opt out of the settlement.
Such amounts otherwise would have been paid to Visa or MasterCard
issuers, including the Corporation.  In exchange, class plaintiffs
have agreed to a broad release for defendants.  The class action
settlement agreement to be executed by the parties will be subject
to court approval.  In addition to settlement with the class
plaintiffs, defendants in the individual actions also reached a
settlement with plaintiffs in the individual actions.  The
settlement of the individual actions provides that all defendants
will pay a total amount of $525 million.

Subject to the loss-sharing agreements the Corporation and certain
affiliates previously entered into with Visa, MasterCard and other
financial institutions, the Corporation will contribute a total of
$738 million to the settlement of the class and individual
actions.  Of that amount, $539 million will be paid from the
proceeds that Visa previously placed into an escrow fund pursuant
to Visa's Retrospective Responsibility Plan (the RRP) to cover the
Corporation's share of Visa-related claims.  The Corporation has
agreed to pay $199 million in cash for the MasterCard-related
claims.  The costs of the Interchange settlement have been fully
accrued by the Corporation.

Defendants and class plaintiffs executed a settlement agreement,
and on October 19, 2012, class plaintiffs filed the settlement
agreement and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
with the court.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation
-- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and
a financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Dist. Court Refused to Remand MBS-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied in August motions to remand Luther v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al. and Western Conference of Teamsters Pension
Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. to the
California Superior Court, according to Bank of America
Corporation's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On November 14, 2007, David H. Luther and various pension funds
(collectively, the Luther Plaintiffs) commenced a putative class
action against Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC), several of
its affiliates, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (MLPF&S) and
certain former officers of these in California Superior Court, Los
Angeles County, entitled Luther v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al. (the Luther Action).  The Luther Plaintiffs'
complaint asserts certain claims over mortgage-backed securities
(MBS) in connection with MBS issued by subsidiaries of CFC in 429
offerings between 2005 and 2007.  The Luther Plaintiffs certified
that they collectively purchased securities in 63 of 429 offerings
for approximately $216 million.  The Luther Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and/or rescissory damages and other unspecified
relief.  On January 6, 2010, the court granted CFC's motion to
dismiss with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On May 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeal reversed the
dismissal and remanded to the Superior Court.  Defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss.

Following the previous dismissal of the Luther Action on
January 6, 2010, the Maine State Retirement System filed a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, entitled Maine State Retirement System v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. (the Maine Action).  The
Maine Action names the same defendants as the Luther Action, as
well as the Corporation and NB Holdings Corporation, and asserts
substantially the same allegations regarding 427 of the MBS
offerings that were at issue in the Luther Action.  Plaintiffs in
the Maine Action (Maine Plaintiffs) seek compensatory and/or
rescissory damages and other unspecified relief.

On November 4, 2010, the court granted CFC's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety and held that the Maine
Plaintiffs only have standing to sue over the 81 offerings in
which they actually purchased MBS.  The court also held that the
applicable statute of limitations could be tolled by the filing of
the Luther Action only with respect to the offerings in which the
Luther Plaintiffs actually purchased MBS.  As a result of these
standing and tolling rulings, the number of offerings at issue in
the Maine Action was reduced from 427 to 14.  On December 6, 2010,
the Maine Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that relates
to 14 MBS offerings.  On April 21, 2011, the court dismissed with
prejudice the successor liability claims against the Corporation
and NB Holdings Corporation.  On May 6, 2011, the court held that
the Maine Plaintiffs only have standing to sue over the specific
MBS tranches that they purchased, and that the applicable statute
of limitations could be tolled by the filing of the Luther Action
only with respect to the specific tranches of MBS that the Luther
Plaintiffs purchased.  As a result of these tranche-specific
standing and tolling rulings, the Maine Action was further reduced
from 14 offerings to eight tranches.  On June 6, 2011, the Maine
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that related to eight
MBS tranches.  On June 15, 2011, the court denied the Maine
Plaintiffs' motion to permit immediate interlocutory appeal of the
court's orders on standing, tolling of the statute of limitations
and successor liability.  On October 12, 2011, upon stipulation by
the parties, the court certified a class consisting of eight
subclasses, one for each of the eight MBS tranches at issue.

On November 17, 2010, Western Conference of Teamsters Pension
Trust Fund (Western Teamsters) filed a putative class action
against the same defendants named in the Maine Action in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, entitled Western
Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al.  Western Teamsters' complaint
asserts that Western Teamsters and other unspecified investors
purchased MBS issued in the 428 offerings that were also at issue
in the Luther Action and asserts substantially the same
allegations as the Luther Action.  The Western Teamsters action
has been coordinated with the Luther Action.  Western Teamsters
seek unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages and other
unspecified relief.

On January 27, 2011, Putnam Bank filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CFC, the Corporation and several related entities,
among others, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Putnam Bank v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al.  Putnam Bank's complaint asserts certain MBS
Claims in connection with alleged purchases in eight MBS offerings
issued by CFC subsidiaries between 2005 and 2007.  Putnam Bank
seeks rescission of its purchases or a rescissory measure of
unspecified damages and/or compensatory damages and other
unspecified relief.  On August 15, 2011, the case was transferred
to the Countrywide RMBS MDL.

On June 12, 2012, the Countrywide defendants removed the Luther v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. and Western Conference
of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al. cases from the California Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On May 23, 2012, the court denied Putnam Bank's motion to seek
immediate interlocutory appeal of the court's order dismissing the
case, in its entirety and with prejudice, as time-barred.

On August 31, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand
Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. and Western
Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al. to the California Superior Court.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Fourth Merchants' Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth class action lawsuit titled 1023986 Alberta Ltd. v. Bank
of America Corporation, et al. was filed in July 2012 on behalf of
purported class of merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard
credit cards in Canada, according to the Corporation's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On December 10, 2010, a purported class of merchants that accept
Visa and/or MasterCard credit cards in Canada filed an action in
Quebec Superior Court entitled Quebec Inc. v. Visa Canada
Corporation (Quebec, Inc.), against Visa and MasterCard.  On March
30, 2012, plaintiffs amended the complaint to name as defendants
the same parties, including the Corporation, that are named as
defendants in Watson v. Bank of America Corp., currently pending
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Watson), and Bancroft-
Snell v. Visa Canada Corp., currently pending in Ontario Superior
Court (Bancroft-Snell).  On July 12, 2012, a similar purported
class filed an action in the Court of Queen's Bench in
Saskatchewan entitled Canada Rent A Heater (2000) Ltd. v. Bank of
America Corp. (Canada Heater).  The claims and damages asserted in
Quebec Inc. and Canada Heater are similar to those asserted in
Watson and Bancroft-Snell.  The Quebec Inc. and Canada Heater
actions are not covered by Visa's Retrospective Responsibility
Plan (the RRP) or loss-sharing agreements previously entered into
by the Corporation.

On June 13, 2012, the court in Quebec Inc. stayed the action until
June 21, 2013.  The Bancroft-Snell action is being held in
abeyance pursuant to a case management directive.  Both the stay
and abeyance were granted to permit litigation to proceed in the
Watson action.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class filed an action in the Court
of Queen's Bench in Alberta entitled 1023986 Alberta Ltd. v. Bank
of America Corporation et al.  The claims and damages asserted are
identical to those in Canada Heater and are similar to those in
Watson, Bancroft-Snell and Quebec Inc.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Awaits OK of $2.4BB Merrill-Related Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation in September agreed in principle to
settle for $2.4 billion the lawsuit captioned In re Bank of
America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, according to the Corporation's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Since January 2009, the Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, among others, have been named as
defendants in a variety of actions filed in state and federal
courts relating to the Corporation's acquisition of Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch) (the Acquisition).

Plaintiffs in In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation
(Securities Plaintiffs), a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, represent
all: (i) purchasers of the Corporation's common and preferred
securities between September 15, 2008, and January 21, 2009, and
its January 2011 options; (ii) holders of the Corporation's common
stock as of October 10, 2008; and (iii) purchasers of the
Corporation's common stock issued in the offering that occurred on
or about October 7, 2008.  During the purported class period, the
Corporation had between 4,560,112,687 and 5,017,579,321 common
shares outstanding and the price of those shares declined from
$33.74 on September 12, 2008, to $6.68 on January 21, 2009.
Securities Plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC rules
promulgated thereunder.  Securities Plaintiffs' amended complaint
also alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 related to the offering of the
Corporation's common stock that occurred on or about October 7,
2008, and names Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS) and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (MLPF&S), among others, as
defendants on certain claims.  The Corporation and its co-
defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the court granted in
part in August 2010 by dismissing certain of the Securities
Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Securities Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint which repleaded some of the dismissed claims as well as
added claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of holders of certain debt,
preferred securities and option securities.  In July 2011, the
court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  As a result of the court's July 2011 ruling,
the Securities Plaintiffs were (in addition to the claims
sustained in the court's August 2010 ruling) permitted to pursue a
claim under Section 10(b) asserting that defendants should have
made additional disclosures in connection with the Acquisition
about the financial condition and 2008 fourth-quarter losses
experienced by Merrill Lynch.  Securities Plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages, legal costs and attorneys' fees.  On
February 6, 2012, the court granted Securities Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On February 21, 2012, the Corporation
filed a petition requesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit review the district court's order granting
Securities Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Several individual plaintiffs have opted to pursue claims apart
from the In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative, and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation and,
accordingly, have initiated individual actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York relying on
substantially the same facts and claims as the Securities
Plaintiffs.

On June 3, 2012, the parties in the Litigation filed motions
seeking partial summary judgment.  On July 23, 2012, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the defendants'
petition requesting review of the district court's February 6,
2012 order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On September 27, 2012, the parties in the Litigation agreed in
principle to settle the securities claims (referred to as the
Merrill Lynch Class Action Settlement).  The Corporation has
agreed to pay $2.4 billion, an amount that was fully accrued as of
September 30, 2012, and institute and/or continue certain
corporate governance enhancements until January 1, 2015, including
those relating to majority voting in director elections, annual
disclosure of noncompliance with stock ownership guidelines,
policies for a board committee regarding future acquisitions, the
independence of the Board's compensation committee and its
compensation consultants, and conducting an annual "say-on-pay"
vote by shareholders.  In exchange, Securities Plaintiffs will
release their claims against all defendants.  The agreement is
subject to execution of a written settlement agreement and court
approval.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BETTER BUSINESS: Bid to Dismiss False Ad Class Action Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McEvoy, writing for Law360, reports that a California
appellate court on Nov. 19 rejected the Better Business Bureau of
the Southland's attempts to dismiss a homeowner advocacy group's
false advertising class action alleging the BBB demanded fees to
boost "unbiased" business ratings, saying the nonprofit can't
evade the suit on free speech grounds.

In a unanimous unpublished decision, a three-judge panel of the
California Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's decision
denying the BBB's motion to dismiss the League of California
Homeowners' suit under California's anti-strategic lawsuits
against public participation statute.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Discovery in IPO-Related Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit
arising from The Blackstone Group L.P.'s 2007 initial public
offering, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.  These
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint
(Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et al.) filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman
(Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Peter G.
Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman), Hamilton E. James
(Blackstone's President and Chief Operating Officer) and Michael
A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial Officer at the time of
the IPO).  The amended complaint alleged that (1) the IPO
prospectus was false and misleading for failing to disclose that
(a) one private equity investment would be adversely affected by
trends in mortgage default rates, particularly for sub-prime
mortgage loans, (b) another private equity investment was
adversely affected by the loss of an exclusive manufacturing
agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market
had started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of
Blackstone's real estate investments; and (2) the financial
statements in the IPO prospectus were materially inaccurate
principally because they overstated the value of the investments
referred to in clause (1).

In September 2009 the District Court judge dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in the
complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial.  Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors,
the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were
immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments at
issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into account
Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial advisory
firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law.  The Second Circuit disagreed
with the District Court, concluding that the complaint "plausibly"
alleged that the initial public offering documents omitted
material information concerning two of Blackstone funds'
individual investments and inadequately disclosed information
relating to market risks to their real estate investments.
Because this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision
the Second Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual
allegations as true and drew every reasonable inference in
plaintiffs' favor.  The Second Circuit did not consider facts
other than those in the plaintiffs' complaint.  On June 28, 2011,
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied.  On August 8,
2011, defendants filed their answer to the complaint and discovery
commenced and is continuing in this action.

Blackstone believes that all of the lawsuits are totally without
merit and intends to defend them vigorously.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Summ. Judgment Bids in "Dahl" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. and other defendants' motions for
summary judgment in the class action lawsuit filed by Kirk Dahl,
et al., remain pending, according to the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment
banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.).  The lawsuit alleges that, from mid-2003
through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  After the
conclusion of discovery, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in June 2012, in which the plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of
public shareholders that tendered their shares in connection with
17 leveraged buyouts.  The court has dismissed claims against
Blackstone with respect to four of these transactions because
Blackstone was released from any and all claims by the same
shareholders in prior litigation.  Defendants have filed motions
for summary judgment.  The court has not yet established a
schedule for determining whether to certify the shareholder class
proposed by plaintiffs.

Blackstone believes that the lawsuit is totally without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.


CALIX INC: Del. Suit Related to Occam Acquisition Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit arising from Calix, Inc.'s acquisition of
Occam Networks, Inc. remains pending in Delaware, according to the
Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
29, 2012.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam Networks, Inc. entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger
Agreement").  In response to the announcement of the Merger
Agreement, on September 17, 2010, September 20, 2010, and
September 21, 2010, three purported class action complaints were
filed in the California Superior Court for Santa Barbara County:
Kardosh v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1371748), or the
Kardosh complaint; Kennedy v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 1371762); and Moghaddam v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 1371802).  The three complaints, which are referred to
collectively as the California class action complaints, were
substantially similar.  Each of the California class action
complaints named Occam, the pre-acquisition members of the Occam
board of directors and the Company as defendants.

On November 2, 2010, the three California class action complaints
were consolidated into a single action, with the plaintiffs in the
Kardosh complaint appointed as the lead plaintiffs, and on
November 19, 2010, the California Superior Court issued an order
staying the California class action complaints in favor of a
substantively identical stockholder class action pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  On July 31, 2012, the consolidated
California class action complaints were dismissed without
prejudice as to all defendants.

On October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery:
Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL).  On
November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an amended complaint,
or the amended Steinhardt complaint.  The amended Steinhardt
complaint names Occam and the members of the Occam board of
directors as defendants.  The amended Steinhardt complaint does
not name Calix as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint generally alleges that the
members of the Occam board breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the acquisition of Occam by Calix, by, among other
things, engaging in an allegedly unfair process and agreeing to an
allegedly unfair price for the merger transaction.  The amended
Steinhardt complaint also alleges that Occam and the former
members of the Occam board breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose certain allegedly material facts about the
merger transaction in the preliminary proxy statement and
prospectus included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that
Calix filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.  The amended
Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief rescinding the
merger transaction and award of damages in an unspecified amount,
as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees, and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011.  On
January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for
sanctions brought by the defendants in the Delaware case against
certain of the lead plaintiffs.  The Delaware court found that
lead plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas
Management, L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the
"Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix
shares, and dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with
prejudice.  The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs
are: (i) barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation,
(ii) required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to
disclose their improper trading in any future application to serve
as lead plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of
$0.5 million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the
class of former Occam stockholders.  The Delaware court also
granted the motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen
and Derek Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs.
Chen and Sheeler as class representatives.  Messrs. Chen and
Sheeler, on behalf of the class of similarly situated former Occam
stockholders, continue to seek an award of damages in an
unspecified amount.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Delaware action
are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously contest
the action.  However, there can be no assurance that the Company
will be successful in defending this ongoing action.  In addition,
the Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold
harmless and indemnify each of the former Occam directors against
judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to claims
against such directors and otherwise to the fullest extent
permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and certificate of
incorporation.  Such obligations may apply to this lawsuit.


CINEPLEX: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Discount Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
launched in Calgary against Cineplex for allegedly not honoring
cheap Tuesday pricing.

The plaintiff Matthew Starchuk says he was charged full price to
see "The Amazing Spider-Man" on July 3, even though it was a
Tuesday and he read online that tickets that night were to be
discounted.

He claims Cineplex's advertising did not note any restrictions for
the discount.

Mr. Starchuk says an employee at the Cineplex theatre he attended
told him the discount wasn't available because of the U.S. Fourth
of July holiday.

The next day, Mr. Starchuk says another Cineplex employee told him
contractual agreements prevented the company from discounting
tickets on the holiday.

The law firm Docken and Company is encouraging any other filmgoers
who paid full price on a Tuesday at a Cineplex theater to join the
class-action suit.

The statement of claim alleges Cineplex did not ensure its
advertising was "truthful, complete, transparent, responsible and
accessible to their customers and potential customers."

A spokeswoman for Cineplex said the company had no comment on the
suit.  But she did say Cineplex has no restrictions on its Tuesday
discounting based on U.S. holidays.

According to Calgary Herald's Matt McClure, Mr. Starchuk said that
"It cost me an extra $7 and I was tempted to let it go until a
customer service agent with the company told me they'd had
hundreds of similar complaints."

"I realized then that there was a big problem here that needed to
be fixed."

Cineplex -- the country's largest motion picture exhibitor with
more than 130 theaters and in excess of 1,350 screens -- has
offered discounts on Tuesdays for decades.

But company spokesman Pat Marshall said contractual arrangements
with film distributors sometimes mean that normal discounts don't
apply or that passes can't be used.

"There may be exceptions from time to time," Mr. Marshall said.

"If there are restrictions, we would advertise that and it would
also be clear on our Web site."

Cineplex's corporate site says that on Tuesdays "ticket prices for
all performances . . . can be purchased at the Tuesday discounted
rate."

A company release last May says that guests will receive "as much
as 40 per cent discount on general admission" that day.

Kimberly Johnston, a lawyer with Docken and Company that launched
the lawsuit, said the issue in the case is truth in advertising.

"The impression that's left by the company's Web site is that the
discount applies to every ticket for any film that day," Ms.
Johnston said.

"If you make the trip to a theatre with your friends or family and
find out different, you're not about to turn around and head
home."

A Herald check of Cineplex's Web site found some tickets for shows
next Tuesday are not discounted.

For example, if customers click through to make a purchase for
screenings of Life of Pi at Chinook Centre, they end up at a page
that shows tickets cost $12.99, the regular admission price.  The
online listing for the new release has a "no passes" restriction,
but doesn't mention the Cineplex Tuesday discount.

The night that Mr. Starchuk and his brother went to see the
Spider-Man sequel last July, it was opening in theaters across
North America.  The film grossed a record $35 million around the
continent during that 24-hour period.

Display ads placed in the Herald that day by the distributor, Sony
Pictures, directed readers to theatre directories for locations
and showtimes.  The promotion contained no mention as to whether
normal discounts would be available or if passes could be used.

In the aftermath of the incident, Mr. Starchuk said he e-mailed
and phoned Cineplex because he wanted the company to be clearer
about its Tuesday promotion.

"I just wanted a refund and for them to change their Web site," he
said.

"Now this could land up in court, which can't be good for
business."


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wolfson, writing for The Courier Journal, reports that the
first lawsuit has been filed on behalf of potentially thousands of
residents and business owners whose lives were disrupted by the
Oct. 29 train derailment near West Point, Ky.

The suit, filed on Nov. 20 in Hardin Circuit Court, suit asks for
unspecified damages from CSX Transportation Inc., two other
railroad companies and an Arkansas-based company hired to clean up
after the derailment of 13 cars carrying toxic chemicals along
Dixie Highway.

The suit was filed in the names of four residents but attorney
Jasper Ward said he will ask that it be certified as a class
action.

The suit asks for damages and expenses for about 900 residents
evacuated from West Point, as well as hundreds of other residents
in Hardin and Jefferson counties within 1.2 miles of the
derailment site.

The complaint says the first evacuation lasted about five days and
those affected by the evacuation order had to stay in hotels or
with relatives -- many without adequate clothing or food.  The
suit also asks for compensation for a second evacuation that
affected 31 homes.

It alleges that the chemicals released by the derailment,
including butadiene, hydrogen fluoride and styrene, are highly
flammable and "ultra hazardous" and could lead to illnesses with
side effects to the respiratory and reproductive systems and to
the central nervous system.

A CSX spokesman did not immediately return a phone call.

The plaintiffs are identified as:

   * Becky Brown of Jefferson County, who was ordered to shelter
in place for four days following the first explosion at the
disaster site, but due to "severe mental anxiety and stress
abandoned her home and stayed at a hotel."

    * James Perry Jr., of Vine Grove, who allegedly was forced to
get up at 4:30 a.m. for several weeks after the derailment so he
could negotiate detours and get to his job as a Jefferson County
public school teacher.

   * Michael C. Smith, of West Point, whose business, Mike Smith
Truck Parts, allegedly suffered financial loses including
cancellation of some sales.

   * Susan E. Morgan, also of West Point, who was forced to
evacuate her home for seven days and allegedly suffered problems,
including aggravation of her asthma and allergies, for which she
had to seek medical treatment.

In addition to CSX, the suit names Paducah & Louisville Railway of
Paducah; R.J. Corman Railroad Group of Nicholasville; and the
Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, North Little Rock,
Ark.  All three said they hadn't seen the suit and couldn't
comment.

Mr. Ward said the clean-up company is accused of negligently
deciding it was safe to use welding equipment that caused an
explosion.

The suit was filed by Jones Ward, a Louisville law firm; the
Bryant Law Center, in Paducah; and Wanday J. Edwards, of Denham
Spring, La.

Mr. Ward said the other two firms have experience in derailment
cases.

According to WHAS11's Maggie Ruper, Mr. Ward said "We've gotten
tons of calls from people over the past few weeks.  These are
people who don't file lawsuits, who don't have to turn to the
courts, but what they say over and over again is, 'We don't want
this to happen to anybody else ever again.'"

They're suing P&L Railway, R.J. Corman, and ETEH, the company that
gave the go ahead to use torches that sparked the explosion at the
site two days later.

The lawsuit alleges multiple counts of wrongdoing, including
negligence.  It stated the defendants failed to operate the rail
cars safely and failed to repair railroad ties that were rotted
and decayed.

"An accident is something that happens when people don't have
control over things.  These people control their lines, they
control their tracks, they control their cars.  It's not an
accident when people disregard public safety and are negligent,"
Mr. Ward said.

P&L did compensate affected residents for some costs they
incurred, but they said it's not enough.

"This kind of one size fits all, here's $50, here's $100, isn't
really helping people," Mr. Ward said.

Mr. Ward said they want individual assessments.  In the lawsuit
they're asking for all expenses to be covered including lost
income, property damage and attorney's fees.

P&L said they have not reviewed the lawsuit and couldn't comment.
Anyone who thinks they are owed compensation can be a part of the
lawsuit.  Mr. Ward is holding a town hall meeting on Friday,
Nov. 30 from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at 409 South Street in West Point,
Ky.


DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Pain Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC continues to defend itself against lawsuits
related to disposable drug infusion pump products, according to
the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
29, 2012.

The Company is currently named as one of several defendants in a
number of product liability lawsuits involving approximately 60
plaintiffs in U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which has been
granted class action status, related to a disposable drug infusion
pump product (pain pump) manufactured by two third party
manufacturers that the Company distributed through its Bracing and
Vascular segment.  The Company sold pumps manufactured by one
manufacturer from 1999 to 2003 and then sold pumps manufactured by
a second manufacturer from 2003 to 2009.  The Company discontinued
its sale of these products in the second quarter of 2009.  These
cases have been brought against the manufacturers and certain
distributors of these pumps.  All of these lawsuits allege that
the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged
periods after certain shoulder surgeries has resulted in cartilage
damage to the plaintiffs.  The lawsuits allege damages ranging
from unspecified amounts to claims of up to $10 million.  Many of
the lawsuits which have been filed in the past three years have
named multiple pain pump manufacturers and distributors without
having established which manufacturer manufactured or sold the
pump in issue.

In the past three years, the Company has been dismissed from more
than 400 cases when product identification was later established
showing that the Company did not sell the pump in issue.  At
present, the Company is named in approximately 25 lawsuits in
which product identification has yet to be determined and, as a
result, the Company believes that it will be dismissed from a
meaningful number of such cases in the future.  In the past two
years, the Company has entered into settlements with plaintiffs in
approximately 70 pain pump lawsuits.  Of these, the Company has
settled approximately 40 cases in joint settlements involving its
first manufacturer and it has settled approximately 30 cases
involving its second manufacturer.  As of September 29, 2012, the
Company says the range of potential loss is not estimable.


ENVIVIO INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe M. Wiley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Envivio, Inc., Julien Signes, Erik E. Miller, Gianluca
U. Rattazzi, Kevin E. Dillon, Corentin du Roy de Blicquy, R. David
Spreng, Clifford B. Meltzer, Marcel Gani, Terry D. Kramer, Edward
A. Gilhuly, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, William Blair & Company,
L.L.C. and Does 1-25, inclusive, Case No. CIV-517185 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., October 5, 2012) is brought on behalf
of all persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Envivio, pursuant or traceable to the Company's alleged
false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued
in connection with its April 24, 2012 initial public offering.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants disseminated materially
false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's
IPO.  The Plaintiff contends that true facts were omitted from the
Registration Statement and Prospectus for the IPO, including that
Envivio's largest customers did not view its services as a
spending priority and, as a result, they were not increasing their
demand for Envivio's services to the extent represented, and that
Envivio was having trouble maintaining a competitive advantage and
was losing deals to rival Harmonic Inc.'s video processing
technologies.

Joe M. Wiley acquired the common stock of Envivio pursuant or
traceable to the IPO.

Envivio provides software-based internet protocol video processing
and distribution solutions to mobile and broadband service
providers, cable multiple system operators, and direct broadcast
satellite service providers and content providers.  Envivio's
solutions enable service providers and content providers to
deliver linear broadcast and on-demand video services to their
customers through multiple screens, such as tablets, mobile
handsets, netbooks, laptops, personal computers, and televisions.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Goldman Sachs provides investment banking, securities, and
investment management services to a substantial and diversified
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Deutsche Bank, the
U.S. investment banking and securities arm of Deutsche Bank AG,
provides investment banking products and services.  Stifel is the
principal subsidiary of Stifel Financial Corp., and is a full-
service retail and institutional brokerage and investment firm.
William Blair is a global investment banking and asset management
firm.  Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Stifel and William Blair
acted as underwriters for Envivio's IPO, helping to draft and to
disseminate the offering documents.  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are presently not known to the Plaintiff.

Envivio and the Individual Defendants removed the lawsuit on
November 2, 2012, from the Superior Court of the state of
California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The Company argues
that the removal is proper because the State Court had no
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's securities claims involving
covered class actions.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:12-cv-05637 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  katek@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Furbush, Esq.
          James M. Lindfelt, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          2550 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1115
          Telephone: (650) 233-4500
          Facsimile: (650) 233-4545
          E-mail: david.ftirbush@pillsburylaw.com
                  james.lindfelt@pillsburylaw.com


GEORGE BROWN: Loses Suit Over Misleading Course Description
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louise Brown, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a group of
graduates has won a class-action suit against George Brown College
for a course description that promised three credentials it was
not qualified to deliver.

Of 118 students represented in the case, two-thirds came from
other countries and paid C$11,000 in tuition each for the eight-
month International Business Program, which delivered none of the
three added industry qualifications -- international trade, custom
services and international freight forwarding -- promised in the
course calendar.

It was these specialized industry designations that attracted
students in the first place when the program launched in 2007,
noted Justice Edward Belobaba, of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.  None of the students wanted another college certificate,
but they were excited by the idea of a fast track to three
credentials that usually take two years of work and study --
resulting in starting salaries said to be as high as $60,000.

But just before final exams, students discovered the college had
no deals with the industry associations that are required to be
partners for such training, so no designations would be earned.

"The students were, to say the least, disappointed.  Some were
devastated," reported Justice Belobaba, who found the college
guilty of "negligent misrepresentation" and a breach of the
Consumer Protection Act.

"George Brown College is highly regarded, and deservedly so.  But
on this one occasion they were careless and made a mistake,"
Justice Belobaba found, "and they should be held accountable."

He has yet to hear arguments about what monetary damages the
college might owe students for time and money spent on
qualifications it didn't deliver.  Katrina Ramdath, 30, one of the
three plaintiffs named in the lawsuit handled by Kim Orr
Barristers, quit a full-time finance career with a bank to pursue
the credentials for international business and trade.

"All of our hearts stopped when we learned we wouldn't be getting
those designations.  Pretty well all of us had quit our jobs to
take this full-time program," recalled Ms. Ramdath.  She was in
the second of the first three classes in the course, back in 2007
and 2008, that were included in the class action.  As a Canadian
student, she paid C$3,000.

"It's a bittersweet situation, because it took us so long to get
justice," Ms. Ramdath said of the ruling.  "How can a Canadian
institution advertise something and then let us down? It makes me
so angry."

The college changed the online description of the course after
students complained, even though it would not admit it had been
misleading.  Rather, the college said it had only meant to suggest
students could begin preparing for those designations with this
course.

College spokesperson Brian Stock said the college can't comment on
a case still before the court, but that "George Brown works very
hard to provide information that helps students choose the right
path."

Ashish Singh, 32, was a trader in commodities futures in India
earning about C$6,500 a year when he was attracted by the George
Brown program.  The MBA graduate borrowed money from his father to
cover the tuition and airfare.

"I came with a dream of a good job, because those designations are
accepted worldwide, but I had to start over again."

He has since become a real estate appraiser in Toronto, "but I
don't know when I'll be able to repay my father."


HERTZ CORP: Awaits Dismissal of Suit Over Parent's 2010 Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation is awaiting dismissal of the remaining class
action lawsuit arising from a 2010 proposed merger of its parent
with Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., according to the
Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On August 26, 2012, the Company's ultimate parent, Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc. ("Hertz Holdings"), HDTMS, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Hertz Holdings, and Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, or "Dollar Thrifty," entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the "Merger Agreement," pursuant
to which Hertz Holdings would acquire Dollar Thrifty for $87.50
per share, net to the seller in cash, without any interest and
less any required withholding taxes, in a transaction valued at a
corporate enterprise value of approximately $2.3 billion.  The
boards of directors of both companies have unanimously approved
the transaction.  The transaction has been structured as a two-
step acquisition including a cash tender offer for all outstanding
shares of Dollar Thrifty common stock followed by a cash merger in
which Hertz Holdings would acquire any remaining outstanding
shares of Dollar Thrifty common stock.

Hertz Holdings says it entered into a Merger Agreement with Dollar
Thrifty, or the "Merger Agreement," because it believes that the
Dollar Thrifty Acquisition will be beneficial to it and its
stockholders.  To realize these anticipated benefits, after the
completion of the Dollar Thrifty Acquisition, Hertz Holdings
expects to achieve significant cost savings as it integrates its
respective businesses.  However, Hertz Holdings has incurred and
expects to continue to incur a number of non-recurring costs
associated with combining the operations of Hertz and Dollar
Thrifty and there is no assurance that Hertz Holdings will be able
to integrate the operations of Dollar Thrifty without encountering
unexpected difficulties, including unanticipated costs, difficulty
in retaining customers, challenges associated with information
technology integration and failure to retain key employees.  Hertz
Holdings may also incur substantial delays or costs in connection
with the completion of the Dollar Thrifty Acquisition, including
with respect to any legal proceedings instituted against Hertz
Holdings or Dollar Thrifty as a result of the Dollar Thrifty
Acquisition.

Class action lawsuits were filed seeking to block consummation of
the 2010 proposed merger between Hertz Holdings and Dollar
Thrifty.  One of those lawsuits is still pending; however, the
remaining lead plaintiff has moved for dismissal.  Similar
lawsuits may be filed with respect to the currently proposed
Dollar Thrifty Acquisition.  Additionally, as a condition to their
approval of the Dollar Thrifty Acquisition, regulatory agencies
may impose requirements, limitations or costs or require
divestitures or place restrictions on the conduct of the combined
company's business.  Any or all of the preceding could materially
adversely affect the synergies and other benefits that Hertz
Holdings expects to achieve in connection with the Dollar Thrifty
Acquisition or increase the cost or time to complete the
integration of Dollar Thrifty's business into Hertz Holdings' own,
which could jeopardize Hertz Holdings' ability to obtain the
anticipated benefits of the Dollar Thrifty Acquisition and could
have a material adverse effect on Hertz Holdings' financial
condition and results of operations.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Awaits Dismissal of 2010 Dollar Thrifty Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is awaiting dismissal of the remaining
class action lawsuit arising from a 2010 proposed merger with
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., according to the Company's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On August 26, 2012, Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. ("Hertz
Holdings"), HDTMS, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hertz
Holdings, and Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, or "Dollar Thrifty," entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, or the "Merger Agreement," pursuant to which Hertz
Holdings would acquire Dollar Thrifty for $87.50 per share, net to
the seller in cash, without any interest and less any required
withholding taxes, in a transaction valued at a corporate
enterprise value of approximately $2.3 billion.  The boards of
directors of both companies have unanimously approved the
transaction.  The transaction has been structured as a two-step
acquisition including a cash tender offer for all outstanding
shares of Dollar Thrifty common stock followed by a cash merger in
which Hertz Holdings would acquire any remaining outstanding
shares of Dollar Thrifty common stock.

Hertz Holdings says it entered into a Merger Agreement with Dollar
Thrifty, or the "Merger Agreement," because it believes that the
Dollar Thrifty Acquisition will be beneficial to it and its
stockholders.  To realize these anticipated benefits, after the
completion of the Dollar Thrifty Acquisition, the Company expects
to achieve significant cost savings as it integrates its
respective businesses.  However, the Company has incurred and
expects to continue to incur a number of non-recurring costs
associated with combining the operations of Hertz and Dollar
Thrifty and there is no assurance that the Company will be able to
integrate the operations of Dollar Thrifty without encountering
unexpected difficulties, including unanticipated costs, difficulty
in retaining customers, challenges associated with information
technology integration and failure to retain key employees.  The
Company may also incur substantial delays or costs in connection
with the completion of the Dollar Thrifty Acquisition, including
with respect to any legal proceedings instituted against the
Company or Dollar Thrifty as a result of the Dollar Thrifty
Acquisition.

Class action lawsuits were filed seeking to block consummation of
the 2010 proposed merger between Hertz Holdings and Dollar
Thrifty.  One of those lawsuits is still pending; however, the
remaining lead plaintiff has moved for dismissal.  Similar
lawsuits may be filed with respect to the currently proposed
Dollar Thrifty Acquisition.  Additionally, as a condition to their
approval of the Dollar Thrifty Acquisition, regulatory agencies
may impose requirements, limitations or costs or require
divestitures or place restrictions on the conduct of the combined
company's business.  Any or all of the preceding could materially
adversely affect the synergies and other benefits that the Company
expects to achieve in connection with the Dollar Thrifty
Acquisition or increase the cost or time to complete the
integration of Dollar Thrifty's business into the Company's own,
which could jeopardize the Company's ability to obtain the
anticipated benefits of the Dollar Thrifty Acquisition and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition and results of operations.


HESS CORP: Wolf Law Firm Files Suit Over Mislabeled Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------
The Wolf Law Firm, LLC disclosed that a class action lawsuit was
filed on Nov. 21 against The Hess Corporation, Inc., alleging that
on November 3, 2012, the Hess service station at 2800 Route 1
North in North Brunswick dispensed diesel fuel from pumps that
were labeled for regular gasoline.  The complaint charges that
customers drove up to the regular gasoline pumps, requested
regular gasoline, and instead were provided with diesel fuel,
causing significant damage to their vehicles.  The lawsuit, filed
on Nov. 21 in New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County by
attorneys at The Wolf Law Firm, LLC in North Brunswick, asserts
that Hess violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New
Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, and
the New Jersey Motor Fuel Retail Sales Act and regulations by
dispensing diesel fuel from pumps advertising and labeled for
regular gasoline.

The named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Doris and Eugene Gambrell of
Somerset, purchased what they believed to be regular gasoline from
the North Brunswick Hess service station on November 3, 2012.
Upon returning home, the Gambrells noticed a smell coming from
their car.  Mrs. Gambrell drove back to the Hess station in a
different vehicle to question the attendant about the gas she
received.  The Hess station attendant informed her that Hess had
dispensed diesel fuel from pumps labeled for regular fuel.  A Hess
representative has admitted that the filling station dispensed
diesel fuel instead of regular gas, and that at least thirty-five
motorists had complained that their cars were not running properly
after receiving the gas.  The Gambrells' allege that their vehicle
has been significantly damaged due to the diesel fuel.

The complaint seeks damages under New Jersey consumer protection
laws for all individuals who received fuel that contained diesel
fuel from a pump that was labeled for regular gasoline.


HITACHI LTD: Accused of Fixing Prices of Lithium Ion Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Katz-Lacabe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Hitachi Ltd.; Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; LG Chem,
Ltd.; LG Chem America, Inc.; Maxell Corporation of America;
Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America;
Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Sanyo Electronic
Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America Corporation; Sony Corporation; Sony
Electronics, Inc.; Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Case No. 4:12-
cv-05681 (N.D. Calif., November 5, 2012) challenges a conspiracy
among the Defendants to fix unlawfully and raise artificially the
prices of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries.

The Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates have
orchestrated some of the most spectacular global price-fixing
conspiracies of the past 20 years, the Plaintiff alleges.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants and other co-conspirators
agreed, combined, and conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize artificially the price of a key component of consumer
electronic goods: Li-Ion Rechargeable Batteries.

Mike Katz-Lacabe is a resident of San Leandro, California.  During
the Class Period, the Plaintiff purchased electronic goods, such
as MacBooks and iPhone, which contain Li-Ion Rechargeable
Batteries containing cells manufactured by the Defendants.

Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in Tokyo, Japan.  Hitachi
Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan, and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd.  Maxell is a New Jersey
corporation based in Woodland Park, New Jersey.  LG Chem is a
Korean corporation based in Seoul, South Korea.  LG
Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate LG Electronics.
LG Chem America is a New Jersey corporation based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem.

Panasonic is a Japanese Corporation based in Osaka, Japan.
Panasonic was formerly known as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the name of
Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware
Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation.  Sanyo is a
Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.  Sanyo North America
Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.

Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Gyeonggi, South
Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung
Electronics, Inc.  Samsung SDI America is a California corporation
based in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung SDI.  Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in
Tokyo, Japan.  Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in
Fukushima, Japan.  Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation.  Sony Electronics is a
Delaware corporation based in San Diego, California and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world.
The Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or
more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the
market in the early part of this period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Marc A. Pilotin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  mpilotin@lchb.com


HOSTESS: Klehr Harrison Files Class Action Over Lay-Offs
--------------------------------------------------------
Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP disclosed that a former
employee, Mark Popovich, filed for damages on behalf of himself
and all employees laid off by Hostess as a result of its proposed
liquidation, which was preliminarily approved by the bankruptcy
court earlier on Nov. 21.  Mr. Popovich worked in Hostess's
Toledo, Ohio facility.

Hostess indicated in court that it would be laying off 15,000 on
Nov. 21.  The company said the reason for the shutdown and
liquidation was because of losses suffered as a result of a strike
by the Bakers Union, which began on November 9, 2012.   Hostess
believes that event plus the fact it issued multiple notices
throughout 2012 are sufficient to excuse it from WARN Act
liability.

Failure to give sixty (60) days advance notice violates the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN
Act").  Some of the states where Hostess employees had facilities
have their own WARN Acts and the Complaint says Mr. Popovich
intends to add those claims later.

"We believe Hostess violated the federal WARN Act as well as state
laws.  These employees deserved better," said Charles A. Ercole,
who filed the Complaint for Mr. Popovich.

Klehr Harrison is a full service law firm with its primary office
in Philadelphia.

Co-counsel on the case is the Dallas, Texas, firm of Simon, Ray &
Winikka.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities lawsuit captioned Fuller v. Imperial
Holdings Inc., et al., remains pending in Florida, according to
the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On September 27, 2011, a search warrant was executed at the
Company's headquarters and the Company was informed that it was
being investigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District
of New Hampshire (the "USAO Investigation").  At that time, the
Company was also informed that its chief executive officer and
then chairman, president and chief operating officer, former
general counsel, two vice presidents, three life finance sales
executives and a funding manager were also considered "targets" of
the USAO Investigation.  The USAO Investigation focused on the
Company's premium finance loan business.  On September 28, 2011,
the Company's board of directors formed a special committee,
comprised of all of the Company's independent directors, to
conduct an independent investigation in connection with the USAO
Investigation.  In December 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the District of New Hampshire (the "USAO") confirmed that Mr.
Antony Mitchell, the Company's chief executive officer, was no
longer a target of the USAO investigation.

On September 29, 2011, the Company, and certain of its officers
and directors were named as defendants in a putative securities
class action filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial
Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, entitled Martin J.
Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, Inc. et al.  Also named as defendants
were the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.
That complaint asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, alleging that the Company
should have but failed to disclose in the registration statement
for its initial public offering purported wrongful conduct
relating to its life finance business which gave rise to the
government investigation.  On October 21, 2011, an amended
complaint was filed that asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on similar allegations.
On October 25, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On October 31, 2011, another putative class action case was filed
in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida, entitled City of Roseville Employees
Retirement System v. Imperial Holdings, et al, naming the same
defendants and also bringing claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on similar allegations.  On
November 28, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
plaintiffs in the Fuller and City of Roseville cases moved to
remand their cases back to state court.  Those motions were fully
briefed and argued, and a decision is pending.

On November 18, 2011, a putative class action case was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, entitled Sauer v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al, naming
the same defendants and bringing claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act based on similar allegations.

On December 14, 2011, another putative class action case filed in
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
entitled Pondick v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al., naming the
same defendants and bringing claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the Securities Act based on similar allegations.

On February 24, 2012, the four putative class actions were
consolidated and designated: Fuller v. Imperial Holdings et al. in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and Lead Plaintiffs were appointed.  The Lead Plaintiffs
had until November 5, 2012, to file an amended complaint.  The
parties have been attending mediation, most recently on
September 7, 2012.

In addition, the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering have asserted that the Company is required by its
Underwriting Agreement to indemnify the underwriters' expenses and
potential liabilities in connection with the litigation.

The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the outcome of
these matters and as such has not recorded a loss reserve in
connection with either of these matters in the accompanying
combined and consolidated statement of operations in accordance
with ASC 450 -- Contingencies 20 -- Loss Contingencies.

Imperial Holdings, Inc. operates in two reportable business
segments: life finance (formerly referred to as premium finance)
and structured settlements.  In the life finance business, the
Company earns revenue/income from interest charged on loans, loan
origination fees, agency fees from referring agents, changes in
the fair value of life insurance policies that the Company
acquires and receipt of death benefits with respect to matured
life insurance policies it owns.  In the structured settlement
business, the Company purchases structured settlement receivables
at a discounted rate and sells these receivables to third parties.


ITT CORP: Class Suit vs. Travelers Casualty Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
In January 2012, ITT Corporation and its subsidiary Goulds Pumps,
Inc., filed a putative class action against Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company (ITT Corporation and Goulds Pumps, Inc., v.
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna Casualty and
Surety Company)), alleging that Travelers is unilaterally
reinterpreting language contained in older Aetna policies so as to
avoid paying on asbestos claims.  The Company says it continues to
negotiate settlement agreements with other insurers, where
appropriate.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

ITT Corporation -- http://www.itt.com/-- designs and manufactures
engineered critical components and customized technology solutions
for energy infrastructure, electronics, aerospace, and
transportation industries.  The Company operates in four segments:
Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions,
and Control Technologies.  ITT Corporation was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in White Plains, New York.


KKR & CO: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Motion in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motions for summary judgment in a consolidated
antitrust class action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts, according
to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003.  In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The lawsuit alleges
that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  The amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions.  The
first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.  On
August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed
to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to
eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions.  On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual
allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the
original nine transactions.  The fourth amended complaint also
includes eight purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to
eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new
separate claims against two of the original nine challenged
transactions.  On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion
filed by KKR and certain other defendants to dismiss all claims
alleged by a putative damages sub-class in connection with the
acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief
related to the PanAmSat transaction.  The second phase of
discovery permitted by the court is completed.  On July 11, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth
amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten additional
transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the
previous complaints.  Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion.  On
September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part
and denied it in part.  Specifically, the court granted a third
stage of limited discovery as to the ten additional transactions
identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth amended complaint but
denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth
amended complaint.  The court stated that it will entertain a
renewed motion by plaintiffs to file a proposed fifth amended
complaint at the close of the third phase of discovery.  The third
phase of discovery permitted by the court has been completed.

On June 14, 2012, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint
which, like their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to
challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the
transactions identified in the previous complaints.  On June 22,
2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims asserted
in the fifth amended complaint.  On July 18, 2012, the court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss,
dismissing certain previously released claims against certain
defendants.  On July 23, 2012, defendants, including KKR, filed
motions for summary judgment, which has been fully briefed.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $59 billion in
AUM as of December 31, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


KKR & CO: Bid to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit in Delaware Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. and other defendants' motion to dismiss an amended
consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit in Delaware
remains pending, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of
directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose
directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named
as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was
completed on July 13, 2011.  These actions allege, among other
things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR
affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all
material information about the merger.  Plaintiffs also allege
that the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain
shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8,
2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative
plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost
standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia
when the Primedia merger was completed.  The dismissed shareholder
derivative claims included allegations concerning open market
purchases of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock by KKR
affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia's
redemption of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock in 2004
and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates.  With
respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging the
Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied a
motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger.  On July 18, 2011, the
Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class
actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs.  On October 7,
2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the
consolidated shareholder class action.  The operative complaint
seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary damages and
rescission of the merger.  On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which similarly alleges that the
Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates breached
their respective fiduciary duties by entering into the merger
agreement at an unfair price in light of the value of the
dismissed shareholder derivative claims.  That amended complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

On January 31, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending
before the Court of Chancery.

Additionally, in May 2011, two shareholder class actions
challenging the Primedia merger were filed in Georgia state
courts, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief
as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions.
Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the Delaware
action.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $59 billion in
AUM as of December 31, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


LEBANON SCHOOL: Parents Get Favorable Ruling in Truancy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kemeny, writing for The Patriot-News, reports that the
Lebanon School District unjustly fined parents in truancy cases
and the parents who paid the excess fines are entitled to
restitution, a federal judge ruled last week.

In issuing the ruling, U.S. Middle District Chief Judge Yvette
Kane said the district accepted, benefited and retained truancy
payments in excess of the $300 cap set by Pennsylvania law.

The suit was initially pursued by four parents, aided by the
NAACP, who filed suit against the district in January 2011.  In
June, the judge certified the case as a class action, adding
nearly 170 more plaintiffs to the contest.

The group paid roughly $108,000 in excessive fines, said Michael
Churchill of the Public Interest Law Center, which represents the
parents.

The NAACP and the other original plaintiffs -- Rosa Rivera, Omary
Rodriguez-Fuentes, Madeline Echevarria and Lenora Hummel --
accused the district of running an "outrageously discriminatory
truancy machine."


MADISON SQUARE: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison Square Garden Company is still awaiting a court
decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated antitrust class
action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the National Hockey League (the "NHL") and certain NHL
member clubs, regional sports networks and cable and satellite
distributors.  The complaints, which are substantially identical,
primarily assert that certain of the NHL's current rules and
agreements entered into by defendants, which are alleged by the
plaintiffs to provide certain territorial and other exclusivities
with respect to the television and online distribution of live
hockey games, violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act.  The complaints seek injunctive relief against the
defendants' continued violation of the antitrust laws, treble
damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.  On
July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes).

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the claims
against it.  Management does not believe this matter will have a
material adverse effect on the Company.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Issuing False and Misleading Results
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Pinto, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. OCZ Technology Group, Inc., Ryan Petersen
and Arthur F. Knapp, Jr., Case No. 5:12-cv-05684 (N.D. Calif.,
November 6, 2012) is a securities class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of all purchasers of OCZ's common stock between July 10,
2012, and October 11, 2012, inclusive.

During the Class Period, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
practices and financial results, Mr. Pinto asserts.  Specifically,
he argues, the Defendants failed to disclose that the Company's
sales trends were not as robust as they had stated and that
rather, in order to address those negative trends in OCZ's
business, the Defendants were promising to pay customers
"incentives" to obtain sales, rendering their statements
concerning OCZ's financial results materially false and
misleading.

Mr. Pinto purchased OCZ common stock during the Class Period.

OCZ is headquartered in San Jose, California.  OCZ designs,
manufactures, and distributes Solid-State Drives ("SSDs") and
related computer components.  OCZ specializes in high-speed memory
and characterizes itself as a leader 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:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


OLD REPUBLIC: 5th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Suit vs. ORNTIC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed the
class certification in the lawsuit captioned Ahmad et al. v.
ORNTIC, according to Old Republic International Corporation's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states --
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas
(Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District,
Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008).  The plaintiffs
allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or
refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance
covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate
schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the
state insurance regulatory authorities.  The Pennsylvania lawsuit
also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA").  The Court in the Texas lawsuit
dismissed similar RESPA allegations.  Classes have been certified
in the Pennsylvania lawsuit, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
has reversed the earlier class certification in the Texas case.

Old Republic International Corporation is among U.S.'s 50 largest
publicly held insurance organizations, with a substantial interest
in major segments of the industry.  The Company is primarily a
commercial lines underwriter, serving many of America's leading
industrial and financial services companies as valued customers.
The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Defend "Hinrichs" Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation continues to defend its
subsidiary in a class action lawsuit titled Hinrichs v. Old
Republic Title Company, according to the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

A purported state class action lawsuit was filed against Old
Republic Title Company in the Superior Court of California for
Orange County on January 7, 2011, on behalf of the Company's
escrow officers and escrow assistants in the State of California
(Hinrichs v. Old Republic Title Company).  The Company filed a
demur to the complaint, and in response, plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on January 5, 2012, adding another named
plaintiff.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay
overtime, failed to calculate overtime properly, denied meal
breaks and rest breaks, and failed to itemize pay statements, in
violation of the California Labor Code and seeks compensatory
damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The putative class period is from January 7, 2007, to the present.
The law firm representing the plaintiffs has filed similar
lawsuits against a number of other title companies in the state.
The Company believes it has strong defenses to the allegations and
to the certification of a class in the matter.

Old Republic International Corporation is among U.S.'s 50 largest
publicly held insurance organizations, with a substantial interest
in major segments of the industry.  The Company is primarily a
commercial lines underwriter, serving many of America's leading
industrial and financial services companies as valued customers.
The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Continues to Face RESPA Violation Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's subsidiary continues to
face class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, according to the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Nine purported class action lawsuits alleging RESPA violations
have been filed in the Federal District Courts, two in the Central
District of California, one in the Eastern District of California,
four in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two in the
Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively, between December
9, 2011, and October 3, 2012.  The lawsuits target J.P. Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A., the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. as
successor to National City Bank, N.A., Citibank, N.A., HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Flagstar
Bank, FSB, First Tennessee Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Bank, N.A.,
each of their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries and most
or all of the mortgage guaranty insurance companies, including the
Company's flagship mortgage guaranty insurance carrier, Republic
Mortgage Insurance Company ("RMIC").  The lawsuits are (Samp,
Komarchuk, Whitaker v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.;
White, Hightower v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et
al.; Menichino v. Citibank, N.A., et al.; McCarn v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., et al.; Riddle v. Bank of America, et al.; Manners v. Fifth
Third Bank, et al.; Hill, et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB. et al.;
Barlee v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., et al.; and Orange v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al.)  The lawsuits, filed by the same law
firms, are substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage
guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant
banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were
made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting
prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA.  Each of the
lawsuits seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of
the allegedly improper payments.  A class has not been certified
in any of the lawsuits.

Old Republic International Corporation is among U.S.'s 50 largest
publicly held insurance organizations, with a substantial interest
in major segments of the industry.  The Company is primarily a
commercial lines underwriter, serving many of America's leading
industrial and financial services companies as valued customers.
The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


OLD REPUBLIC: Still Defends "Barker" Class Action Suit vs. ORHP
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 22, 2009, a purported national class action lawsuit was
filed against Old Republic International Corporation's subsidiary,
Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc. ("ORHP"), in the U.S.
District Court in Birmingham, Alabama (Barker v. Old Republic Home
Protection Company, Inc.) alleging that ORHP paid fees to real
estate brokers to market its home warranty contracts and that the
payment of such fees was in violation of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").  The lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages under RESPA.
No class has been certified, and the action is not expected to
result in any material liability to the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Old Republic International Corporation is among U.S.'s 50 largest
publicly held insurance organizations, with a substantial interest
in major segments of the industry.  The Company is primarily a
commercial lines underwriter, serving many of America's leading
industrial and financial services companies as valued customers.
The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Smithtown Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 25, 2010, and March 29, 2010, Smithtown Bancorp, Inc.,
a subsidiary of People's United Financial, Inc., and several of
its officers and directors were named in two lawsuits commenced in
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
(Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement v. Smithtown Bancorp,
Inc., et al. and Yourgal v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. et al.,
respectively) on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who purchased Smithtown's common stock between March 13,
2008, and February 1, 2010, alleging claims under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Smithtown's loan loss
reserve, fair value of its assets, recognition of impaired assets
and its internal and disclosure controls were materially false,
misleading or incomplete.  As a result of the merger of Smithtown
with and into People's United Financial on November 30, 2010,
People's United Financial has become the successor party to
Smithtown in this matter.

On April 26, 2010, the named plaintiff in the Waterford action
moved to consolidate its action with the Yourgal action, to have
itself appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and to
obtain approval of its selection of lead counsel.  The Court
approved the consolidation of the two lawsuits, with Waterford
Township named the lead plaintiff.  On December 23, 2011, People's
United Financial filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint and that
motion is still pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Defends Wage and Hour Violations Suit vs. Bank
---------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary
from a class action lawsuit alleging violations of wage and hour
laws, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
(Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. People's United Bank) based on
allegations that People's United Bank failed to pay overtime
compensation required by (i) the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
and (ii) the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.  The plaintiffs allege
that they were employed as "underwriters" and were misclassified
as exempt employees.  The plaintiffs further allege that they
worked in excess of 40 hours per week and were erroneously denied
overtime compensation as required by federal and state wage and
hour laws.  The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of
Connecticut on May 3, 2012.  Since the complaint is brought under
both federal and state law, the complaint seeks certification of
two different but overlapping classes.  The plaintiffs seek
damages in the amount of their respective unpaid overtime and
minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages and interest and
attorneys' fees.  On June 29, 2012, People's United Bank filed its
Answer and Affirmative Defenses.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Strike Amended Overdraft Fee Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to strike the amended complaint in the class action
lawsuit styled Marta Farb, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. People's United Bank remains pending,
according to People's United Financial, Inc.'s November 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
(Marta Farb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. People's United Bank) arising from its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Waterbury, on April 22, 2011, and alleges
that People's United Bank engaged in certain unfair practices in
the posting of electronic debit card transactions from highest to
lowest dollar amount.  The complaint also alleges that such
practices were inadequately disclosed to customers and were
unfairly used by People's United Bank for the purpose of
generating revenue by maximizing the number of overdrafts a
customer is assessed.  The complaint seeks certification of a
class of checking account holders residing in Connecticut and who
have incurred at least one overdraft fee, injunctive relief,
compensatory, punitive and treble damages, disgorgement and
restitution of overdraft fees paid, and attorneys' fees.  On
June 16, 2011, People's United Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and on December 7, 2011, that motion was denied by the
court.

On April 11, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and
on May 15, 2012, People's United Bank filed a Motion to Strike the
Amended Complaint.  That motion remains pending.  Expedited
discovery in this case began in July 2012.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Still Awaits OK of $7.25BB Deal in Suit vs. VISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc. is still awaiting court approval
of a $7.25 billion settlement resolving an antitrust class action
lawsuit against VISA and MasterCard, according to the Company's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In June 2005, a group of U.S. merchants filed a class action
lawsuit against VISA and MasterCard claiming that the way VISA and
MasterCard set interchange rates was a violation of anti-trust
laws.  In July 2012, the parties announced a settlement to the
lawsuit in which VISA and MasterCard proposed to pay $7.25 billion
to the merchants ($6.05 billion in cash and $1.2 billion from an
eight month reduction in credit card interchange).  The settlement
is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company's
financial results.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit initiated by Cecilia Letourneau
in Canada against subsidiary of Philip Morris International Inc.
began in March and is expected to last well into 2013 and possibly
2014, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of
the class who is deemed addicted to smoking.  The class was
certified in 2005.  On February 14, 2012, the court ruled that the
federal government will remain as a third-party in the case.
Trial began on March 12, 2012.  At the present pace, trial is
expected to last well into 2013 and possibly 2014, with a judgment
to follow at an indeterminate point after the conclusion of the
trial proceedings.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit brought by Conseil Quebecois Sur
Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais against a subsidiary of
Philip Morris International Inc., began in March and is expected
to last well into 2013 and possibly 2014, according to the
Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco
Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.,
Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the
Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are
defendants.  The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an
individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly
suffers from certain smoking-related diseases.  The class was
certified in 2005.  On February 14, 2012, the court ruled that the
federal government will remain as a third-party in the case. Trial
began on March 12, 2012.  At the present pace, trial is expected
to last well into 2013 and possibly 2014, with a judgment to
follow at an indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial
proceedings.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit in Winnipeg, Canada Remains Dormant
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, Philip Morris International
Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA
Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible
lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,
dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products.  In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel
informed defendants that he did not anticipate taking any action
in this case while he pursues the class action filed in
Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Remain Pending in "Adams" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, Philip Morris
International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip
Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart
disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.
Preliminary motions are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Suit in Nova Scotia Remains Dormant
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, Philip Morris
International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip
Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.  No activity in
this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Suit Still Pending in Alberta, Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, Philip Morris International
Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA
Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and
severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers,
their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products.  To date, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees have not been properly served
with the complaint.  No activity in this case is anticipated while
plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in
Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Suit Still Pending in B.C. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris International
Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA
Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his
own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from
the use of tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers who were alive on
June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.  Defendants have
filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action
should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class
action, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Class Suit Pending in British Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris International Inc., its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and
Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants.  The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges
that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered
from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June
12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.  Defendants
have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this
action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan
class action, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in "Smith" Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal in the class action lawsuit captioned Smith v.
Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., remains pending, according
to Philip Morris International Inc.'s November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In the antitrust class action in Kansas, Smith v. Philip Morris
Companies Inc., et al., District Court of Seward County, Kansas,
filed February 7, 2000, the Company and other members of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff asserts that the defendant
cigarette companies engaged in an international conspiracy to fix
wholesale prices of cigarettes and sought certification of a class
comprised of all persons in Kansas who were indirect purchasers of
cigarettes from the defendants.  The plaintiff claims unspecified
economic damages resulting from the alleged price-fixing, trebling
of those damages under the Kansas price-fixing statute and counsel
fees.  The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification in 2001.  In March 2012, the trial court granted
defendants' motions for summary judgment in their entirety and,
accordingly, entered judgment for the defendants on all claims.
In July 2012, plaintiff appealed this ruling.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals in "ADESF" Suit Still Pending in Brazil
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the class action lawsuit commenced by The Smoker Health
Defense Association remain pending in Brazil, according to Philip
Morris International Inc.'s November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012.

In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed on
July 25, 1995, the Company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive
relief.

The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable without
hearing evidence.  The court did not assess moral or actual
damages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case.
The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $490) per smoker per full year
of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the
date of the ruling.  The court did not award actual damages, which
were to be assessed in the second phase of the case.  The size of
the class was not estimated.  Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo
Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008,
finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without
hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.  In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the
claim.  Plaintiff has appealed.

In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that the plaintiff did not
have standing to bring the lawsuit.  This appeal is still pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Sao Paulo Prosecutor's Appeal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought by
the Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo against a subsidiary of Philip
Morris International Inc. remains pending, according to the
Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of
Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6,
2007, the Company's subsidiary is a defendant.  The plaintiff, the
Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i)
unspecified damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former
smokers, and their relatives; (ii) unspecified damages on behalf
of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS")
nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the
health care costs allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-
related diseases by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and
the Federal District.  In an interim ruling issued in December
2007, the trial court limited the scope of this claim to the State
of Sao Paulo only.  In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of
Sao Paulo issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction
because the case involved issues similar to the case brought by
The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending.  The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.  The
Company's subsidiary appealed this decision to the State of Sao
Paulo Court of Appeals, which subsequently declared the case
stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.  In April 2010, the Sao
Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh Civil Court's decision
that consolidated the cases, finding that they are based on
different legal claims and are progressing at different stages of
proceedings.  This case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court of
Sao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary filed its closing
arguments in December 2010.

In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits.
This decision has been appealed.


PHILIP MORRIS: Awaits Ruling in Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
the question of whether claims of plaintiffs in the case titled
The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, et al. v.
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. are released by settlements entered
into previously between cigarette manufacturers and the federal
government, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In the breach of contract action in Ontario, Canada, The Ontario
Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, et al. v. Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc., Superior Court of Justice, London, Ontario,
Canada, filed November 5, 2009, the Company's subsidiary is a
defendant.  Plaintiffs in this putative class action allege that
the Company's subsidiary breached contracts with the proposed
class members (Ontario tobacco growers and their related
associations) concerning the sale and purchase of flue-cured
tobacco from January 1, 1986, to December 31, 1996.  Plaintiffs
allege that the Company's subsidiary was required by the contracts
to disclose to plaintiffs the quantity of tobacco included in
cigarettes to be sold for duty free and export purposes (which it
purchased at a lower price per pound than tobacco that was
included in cigarettes to be sold in Canada), but failed to
disclose that some of the cigarettes it designated as being for
export and duty free purposes were ultimately sold in Canada.
Similar lawsuits were filed against other Canadian cigarette
manufacturers.  In September 2011, plaintiffs served a notice of
motion seeking class certification.  The court has agreed to hear
preliminary motions prior to its consideration of plaintiffs'
certification motion.

A hearing on the question of whether the plaintiffs' claims are
released by settlements entered into previously between the
Company's subsidiary and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers,
on the one hand, and the federal government, on the other hand,
was heard in September 2012.  The court took the motion under
reserve and has not yet issued a decision.  The court has also
agreed to hear argument on defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims based on statute of limitations grounds prior
to considering plaintiffs' class certification motion.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Awaits Order on Cert. Bid in "El-Roy" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the first class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, Philip Morris
International Inc.'s subsidiary and the Company's indemnitees
(Philip Morris USA Inc. and the Company's former importer) are
defendants.  The plaintiffs filed a purported class action
claiming that the class members were misled by the descriptor
"lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are safer than full
flavor cigarettes.  The claim seeks recovery of the purchase price
of lights cigarettes and compensation for distress for each class
member.  Hearings took place in November and December 2008
regarding whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary
to allow it to proceed as a class action.  The parties' briefing
on class certification was completed in March 2011.  A hearing for
final oral argument on class certification took place in November
2011.  The Company is awaiting the court's decision.

The claims in the second class action pending in Israel, Navon, et
al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against the Company's
indemnitee (the Company's distributor) and other members of the
industry are similar to those in El-Roy, and the case is currently
stayed pending a ruling on class certification in El-Roy.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


R&L CARRIERS: Judge Allows Truck Drivers' Wage Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Nov. 19 said allegations that R&L Carriers Inc.
failed to pay full wages to truck drivers and denied them breaks
were not preempted by federal transportation law, allowing the
truckers to continue most of their case as a class.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken denied R&L's bid for partial
summary judgment.


ST. JOE CO: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit against The St. Joe Company remains pending, according to
the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On November 3, 2010, and December 7, 2010, two securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors in the Northern
District of Florida.  These cases have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and are
captioned as Meyer v. The St. Joe Company et al. (No. 5:11-CV-
00027).  A consolidated class action complaint was filed in the
case on February 24, 2011.

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's securities between February 19, 2008 and October 12,
2010 and alleged that the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, among others, violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
by making false and/or misleading statements and/or by failing to
disclose that, as the Florida real estate market was in decline,
the Company failed to take adequate and required impairments and
accounting write-downs on many of the Company's Florida-based
properties and as a result, the Company's financial statements
materially overvalued the Company's property developments.  The
plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial statements
were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, and that the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls, and as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading.  The complaint sought an unspecified amount in
damages.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on April 6, 2011.
On January 12, 2012, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
individual defendants.  On February 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a
motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the Court denied on
February 14, 2012.  On March 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit and that appeal is currently pending.

The St. Joe Company -- http://www/joe.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a real estate development company in
Florida.  The Company operates in four segments: Residential Real
Estate, Commercial Real Estate, Rural Land Sales, and Forestry.
The Company owns approximately 573,000 acres of land concentrated
primarily in northwest Florida.  It has a strategic alliance with
Southwest Airlines Co. to facilitate the commencement of low-fare
air service to the northwest Florida Beaches International
Airport.  It was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
WaterSound, Florida.


ST. JOE CO: Awaits Approval of Settlement of Oil Spill Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Joe Company is awaiting court approval of a class
settlement that includes portions of its oil spill-related claims,
according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

As a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Company has
filed claims against those parties it believes are responsible for
its damages in the consolidated Multi-District Litigation (MDL)
actions presently pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.  That court has preliminarily
approved a proposed class settlement that includes portions of the
Company's claims.  A final approval hearing was scheduled for
November 8, 2012.  The Company previously received payments for a
total of $1.7 million from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility which
represents a small portion of one of the Company's claims.  In
addition, St. Joe retains additional damages claims in the MDL
that are not included in that settlement, which the Company
intends to continue to pursue.

The St. Joe Company -- http://www/joe.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a real estate development company in
Florida.  The Company operates in four segments: Residential Real
Estate, Commercial Real Estate, Rural Land Sales, and Forestry.
The Company owns approximately 573,000 acres of land concentrated
primarily in northwest Florida.  It has a strategic alliance with
Southwest Airlines Co. to facilitate the commencement of low-fare
air service to the northwest Florida Beaches International
Airport.  It was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
WaterSound, Florida.


THAT'S GREAT NEWS: Insurers Refuse to Cover TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that National
Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford and Continental Casualty Co. on
Nov. 19 asked a federal judge to find they have no duty to cover
plaque maker That's Great News LLC in a proposed class action over
its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The insurers claim in a motion that they are entitled to summary
judgment under the policies they issued to the company.


TRANS UNION: Faces Consumer Suit Over Incomplete OFAC Alerts
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Douglas Larson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. CGC 12-524131
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., September 12, 2012) is a
consumer class action lawsuit alleging that Trans Union violates
the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

The Company, Mr. Larson alleges, deprives consumers of their
rights to inspect and correct consumer information sold about them
by willfully failing to provide them with complete and truthful
"OFAC alert" information it sells about them to third parties.
OFAC alerts purportedly advise credit grantors whether the credit
applicant is a match to terrorists, money launderers, narcotics
traffickers and other enemies of the United States identified on
the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Specifically Designated
National and Blocked Persons ("OFAC") list.

Mr. Larson is a resident of Lake Forest, California.

Trans Union is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts
business in the state of California.

The Company removed the lawsuit on November 7, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Trans Union argues that the removal is
proper because the District Court has original jurisdiction over
the lawsuit.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-
05726 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Ogilvie, Esq.
          Carol M. Brewer, Esq.
          ANDERSON, OGILVIE & BREWER, LLP
          600 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 651-1952
          Facsimile: (415) 956-3233
          E-mail: andy@aoblawyers.com

               - and -

          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          Stephen J. Newman, Esq.
          Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Bell, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
          Telephone: (310) 556-5800
          Facsimile: (310) 556-5959
          E-mail: jstrickland@stroock.com
                  snewman@stroock.com
                  bfrontino@stroock.com
                  jbell@stroock.com
                  lacalendar@stroock.com


VANGUARD NATURAL: Consolidated Suit vs. ENP Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
On March 29, 2011, John O'Neal, a purported unitholder of Encore
Energy Partners LP ("ENP"), a Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC
subsidiary, filed a putative class action petition in the 125th
Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of
unitholders of ENP.  Similar petitions were filed on April 4,
2011, by Jerry P. Morgan and on April 5, 2011, by Herbert F. Rower
in other Harris County district courts.  The O'Neal, Morgan, and
Rower lawsuits were consolidated on June 5, 2011 as John O'Neal v.
Encore Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Case Number 2011-19340,
which is pending in the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris
County.  On July 28, 2011, Michael Gilas filed a class action
petition in intervention.  On July 26, 2011, the current
plaintiffs in the consolidated O'Neal action filed an amended
putative class action petition against ENP, Encore Energy Partners
GP, LLC ("ENP GP"), Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas
Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C. Baggett, Martin
G. White, and Vanguard.  That putative class action petition and
Gilas' petition in intervention both allege that the named
defendants are (i) violating duties owed to ENP's public
unitholders by, among other things, failing to properly value ENP
and failing to protect against conflicts of interest or (ii) are
aiding and abetting such breaches. Plaintiffs sought an injunction
prohibiting the merger from going forward and compensatory damages
if the merger was consummated.

On October 3, 2011, the Court appointed Bull & Lifshitz, counsel
for plaintiff-intervenor Gilas, as interim lead counsel on behalf
of the putative class.  On October 21, 2011, the court signed an
order staying this lawsuit pending resolution of the Delaware
State Court Action, subject to plaintiffs' right to seek to lift
the stay for good cause.  The defendants named in the Texas
lawsuits intend to defend vigorously against them.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss "Bryant" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied in
September YRC Worldwide Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities
class action lawsuit brought by Bryant Holdings LLC, according to
the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC ("Bryant") in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between April 24, 2008, and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking damages under the federal securities laws
for statements and/or omissions allegedly made by the Company and
the individual defendants during the Class Period which plaintiffs
claimed to be false and misleading.

On April 8, 2011, an individual (Stan Better) and YRC Investors
Group, a group of investors (including Bryant) filed competing
motions seeking to be named lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.  The
Court appointed them as co-lead plaintiffs on August 22, 2011.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 20, 2011, making
claims similar to Bryant's original complaint.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 20, 2011.

On September 25, 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  In overruling the Company's motion, the Court ruled that
the allegations filed by plaintiffs were sufficient enough to
state a claim.  The Court's order did not constitute a ruling on
the truth of plaintiffs' factual allegations or the ultimate
merits of their claims.

The individual defendants are former officers of the Company.  No
current officers or directors have been named in the lawsuit.
Discovery in the case has not yet commenced. Although, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case,
the ultimate outcome of the case is not determinable at this time.
Therefore, the Company has not recorded any liability for this
matter.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, YRC Worldwide Inc. --
http://www.yrcw.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides various
transportation services worldwide.  The Company was formerly known
as Yellow Roadway Corporation and changed its name to YRC
Worldwide Inc. in January 2006.

                           *********

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  * * *