---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 236

                                  Headlines

ACCURAY INC: Sued Over Incomplete and Misleading Proxy Statement
BAXTER INT'L: Investors' Class Suit Still Pending in Illinois
BAXTER INT'L: Ill. Class Suit On Plasma-Derived Biz Still Pending
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Judge Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Has 'Til Dec. 24 to Reply to Suit Dismissal Bid

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Unit Awaits Ruling on Roswell Class Suit Deal
CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Litigation Still Pending in Virginia
CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in "Addison" Litigation in Va.
CONSOL ENERGY: Mediation in CNX Gas Shareholders Suit Next Month
CONSOL ENERGY: Appeal From "Comer" II Suit Dismissal Pending

CONSOL ENERGY: "Hall" Class Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Filed
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Madden" Suit Still Pending in Illinois
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Wage Class Suit Still Pending
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Class Suit Still Pending

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Supreme Ct. Review Not Sought in Reed Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Parties Still in Negotiations
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Former Students' Suits in California Pending
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces "Dent" Suit Over Ramtron Acquisition
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces "Weber" Suit Over Ramtron Buyout

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: $79MM Class Settlement Gets Final Approval
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Roling" Lawsuit Withdrawn in September
EME HOMER: Appeal From Katrina-Related Suit Dismissal Pending
FELTEX: Former Directors Lose Bid to Halt Class Action
KENEXA CORP: Hammers MoU to Settle IBM Merger-Related Suit

LEXINGTON, KY: Retirees' Suit Wants Full Health Insurance Restored
LG DISPLAY: Mississippi Court to Hear Price Fixing Case
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Three Ex-Players File Class Action in Maryland
NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Steel Plant Class Action Faces Hurdle
ORIENT PAPER: February 2013 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal From Order on Ga. Suit Settlement Filed
PRICELINE.COM INC: Hearing on Bid to Consolidate Suits on Nov. 29
PRICELINE.COM INC: Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes Pending
SINO-FOREST CORP:  App. Ct. Upholds Decision on Indemnity Claims
TREX COMPANY: Mold Claims in Defective Products Suit Pending

TREX COMPANY: Suits in 4 States Over Defective Products Pending
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: "Hawthorne" Suit Still Pending in Calif.
USEC INC: Ohio Trial Court Junked Employee Class Action in Oct.
VANGUARD HEALTH: Antitrust Suits V. Units Pending in Texas, Mich.

* Green League Chair Calls for Inclusion of Class Action Rights

                          *********



ACCURAY INC: Sued Over Incomplete and Misleading Proxy Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boxer, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Accuray Incorporated, Elizabeth Davila, Jack
Goldstein, Louis J. Lavigne, Jr., Robert S. Weiss, Dennis L.
Winger, Wayne Wu, and Richard R. Pettingill, Case No. 1-12-cv-
235266 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., November 1, 2012)
seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote to be held at the Company's
annual shareholder meeting on November 30, 2012.

Mr. Boxer alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by disseminating misleading and an incomplete
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 19, 2012, in connection with the Shareholder Vote.  He
argues that the proxy statement fails to provide sufficient
information regarding, among other matters, executive
compensation.

Mr. Boxer is a shareholder of the Company.

According to its Web site, Accuray is a radiation oncology company
that develops, manufactures and sells personalized innovative
treatment solutions, with the aim of helping patients live longer,
better lives.  The Company's leading-edge technologies -- the
CyberKnife and TomoTherapy Systems -- are designed to deliver
radiosurgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, intensity
modulated radiation therapy, image-guided radiation therapy and
adaptive radiation therapy.  The Company is headquartered in
Sunnyvale, California.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Accuray removed the lawsuit on November 7, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Santa Clara, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the Plaintiff's claims raise substantial disputed issues of
federal law, the determination of which is necessary to the
resolution of the claims.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:12-cv-05722 to the proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Boris Feldman, Esq.
          Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
          Diane M. Walters, Esq.
          Doru Gavril, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          Professional Corporation
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com
                  isalceda@wsgr.com
                  dwalters@wsgr.com
                  dgavril@wsgr.com


BAXTER INT'L: Investors' Class Suit Still Pending in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated investors' class action complaint against Baxter
International, Inc. relating to alleged loss of stock value
remains pending in Illinois, according to the Company's November
1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain
of the company's current and former executive officers and its
board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of
the company and issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the
company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin
product, and other quality issues.  Plaintiffs allege this action
damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline
in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess
compensation to the board of directors and certain of the
company's current and former executive officers, and other damage
to the company.  In September 2012, a federal court dismissed a
consolidated derivative suit pending in the U.S.D.C. for the
Northern District of Illinois, and in October 2012, the plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.  An action pending in the Circuit Court of Lake
County, Illinois has been stayed pending the outcome of the
federal action.

In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the company
and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover
the lost value of investors' stock.  In January 2012, the court
denied the company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims
related to the class action suits.  In April 2012, the court
granted the company's motion to certify an appeal of that decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, however that
motion was denied by the appellate court in June 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing.

Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare
company that applies a unique combination of expertise in medical
devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.  The Company is based in
Deerfield, Illinois.


BAXTER INT'L: Ill. Class Suit On Plasma-Derived Biz Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action complaint alleging restricted output and
artificially increased prices of certain plasma-derived therapies,
according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant, along with others, in a number of
lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain
of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially
increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003.  The
complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief and in
some cases demand treble damages.  In February 2011, the court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims and
the parties are proceeding with discovery.  In January 2012, the
court granted the company's motion to dismiss certain federal
claims brought by indirect purchasers.  The trial court returned
the remaining indirect purchaser claims to the court of original
jurisdiction (U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California) in
August 2012.

Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare
company that applies a unique combination of expertise in medical
devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.  The Company is based in
Deerfield, Illinois.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Judge Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew L. Brown, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports
that a U.S. District Court judge has decided a lawsuit brought
against Citizens Financial Group deserves to move forward as a
class action.

The suit was originally brought by a former Citizens assistant
branch manager who claims she is owed overtime wages despite being
classified as a salaried employee exempt from overtime pay laws.

U.S. District Court Judge George A. O'Toole granted the suit
class-action status to include all Citizens' Massachusetts
assistant branch managers in July.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Has 'Til Dec. 24 to Reply to Suit Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. will have until December 24 to
further answer any response from the plaintiffs in a consolidated
shareholder class action to a pending motion to dismiss the case,
according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

Three purported class action shareholder federal securities cases
have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v.
Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash,
filed May 5, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash, filed May 12, 2011; and
Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash and Thomas Mark
Buford, filed June 2, 2011.  All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock.  On September 20, 2011, all three were assigned to the same
judge as related cases. On December 28, 2011, the court
consolidated all three shareholder cases for pretrial purposes,
selected NYC Funds as lead plaintiffs, and selected NYC Funds'
counsel as lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The parties negotiated
operative dates for these consolidated shareholder federal
securities actions.  An operative consolidated complaint was filed
on July 13, 2012, and the Company's motion to dismiss was filed on
September 11, 2012.  The plaintiffs' response was due on November
12, 2012 and the Company will have a further opportunity to
respond, which will be due on December 24, 2012.  The Company
believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will
vigorously defend this case.

Community Health Systems, Inc. is a publicly-traded operator of
hospitals in the United States.  It provides healthcare services
through the hospitals that it owns and operates in non-urban and
selected urban markets.  It generates revenues by providing a
broad range of general and specialized hospital and other
outpatient healthcare services to patients in the communities in
which it is located.  As of September 30, 2012, it owned or leased
135 hospitals comprised of 131 general acute care hospitals and
four stand-alone rehabilitation or psychiatric hospitals.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Unit Awaits Ruling on Roswell Class Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting a court
decision on its class settlement resolving a breach of contract
lawsuit in Roswell, Mexico, according to the Company's November 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On April 19, 2009, the Company was served in Roswell, New Mexico
with an answer and counterclaim in the case of Roswell Hospital
Corporation d/b/a Eastern New Mexico Medical Center vs. Patrick
Sisneros and Tammie McClain (sued as Jane Doe Sisneros).  The case
was originally filed as a collection matter.  The counterclaim was
filed as a putative class action and alleged theories of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, prima facie tort,
Fair Trade Practices Act and violation of the New Mexico RICO
statute.  After extensive discovery and pretrial procedures, this
case has been settled and the court had scheduled a fairness
hearing to review the terms of the settlement on November 13,
2012.

Community Health Systems, Inc. is a publicly-traded operator of
hospitals in the United States.  It provides healthcare services
through the hospitals that it owns and operates in non-urban and
selected urban markets.  It generates revenues by providing a
broad range of general and specialized hospital and other
outpatient healthcare services to patients in the communities in
which it is located.  As of September 30, 2012, it owned or leased
135 hospitals comprised of 131 general acute care hospitals and
four stand-alone rehabilitation or psychiatric hospitals.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Litigation Still Pending in Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself in a
lawsuit referred to as the "Hale Litigation," according to the
Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010
in U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Hale v. CNX
Gas Company, et. al.  The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff class
consists of oil and gas owners, that the Virginia Supreme Court
has decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the owner of the
oil and gas estate, that the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990
unconstitutionally allows force pooling of CBM, that the Act
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 royalty to CBM owners for
gas produced under the force pooling orders, and that the Company
only relied upon control of the coal estate in force pooling the
CBM notwithstanding the Virginia Supreme Court decision holding
that if only the coal estate is controlled, the CBM is not thereby
controlled.  The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership
of the CBM and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production
(that is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since
production began) be distributed to the class members.  The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
recommended that the District Judge decide that the deemed lease
provision of the Gas and Oil Act is constitutional as is the 1/8
royalty, and that CNX Gas need not distribute the net proceeds to
class members.  The Magistrate Judge recommended against the
dismissal of certain other claims, none of which are believed to
have any significance.  The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations in their entirety.  An amended complaint
was filed, which added two additional claims alleging that gas
hedging receipts should have been used as the basis for royalty
payments and that severance tax should not be allowed as a post-
production deduction from royalties.  A motion to dismiss those
claims was filed and was denied.  Discovery is proceeding in this
litigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing with the SEC.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  The Company has established an accrual
to cover its estimated liability for the case.  This is immaterial
to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included
in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in "Addison" Litigation in Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit referred to as the "Addison
Litigation" filed against CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary in
Virginia, according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in
Federal court in Virginia styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company. The
case involves two primary claims: (i) the plaintiff and similarly
situated CNX Gas Company lessors identified as conflicting
claimants during the force pooling process before the Virginia Gas
and Oil Board are the owners of the coalbed methane (CBM) and,
accordingly, the owners of the escrowed royalty payments being
held by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (ii) CNX Gas Company
failed to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant
lessors or paid them less than required because of the alleged
practice of improper below market sales and/or taking alleged
improper post-production deductions.  Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment regarding ownership and compensatory and
punitive damages for breach of contract; conversion; negligence
(voluntary undertaking), for force pooling coal owners after the
Ratliff decision declared coal owners did not own the CBM;
negligent breach of duties as an operator; breach of fiduciary
duties; and unjust enrichment.  The Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss in this case, and the Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissing some claims and allowing others to proceed.  The
District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in
their entirety.  An amended complaint was filed, which added an
additional claim that gas hedging receipts should have been used
as the basis for royalty payments.  A motion to dismiss those
claims was filed and was denied.  Discovery is proceeding in this
litigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing with the SEC.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  It has established an accrual to cover
its estimated liability for this case.  This accrual is immaterial
to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included
in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CONSOL ENERGY: Mediation in CNX Gas Shareholders Suit Next Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware trial court has set a hearing for March 11 next year
and a mediation early next month in the consolidated action
captioned In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation, according to
CONSOL Energy, Inc.'s November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

CONSOL Energy has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas Corporation
challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of
the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not
already own for $38.25 per share.  The two cases filed in
Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court have been stayed and the three
cases filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated
under the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No.
5377-VCL).  All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy
breached and/or aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary
duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders,
essentially alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL
Energy paid to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and
subsequent short-form merger was unfair.  Among other things, the
actions sought a permanent injunction against or rescission of the
tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

The lawsuit is scheduled for trial on March 11, 2013.  Mediation
is presently scheduled in early December 2012.

CONSOL Energy believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.  For that reason, it has not
accrued a liability for this claim; however, if liability is
ultimately imposed, based on the expert reports that have been
exchanged by the parties, it believes the potential loss could be
up to $221,000.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CONSOL ENERGY: Appeal From "Comer" II Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of Ned Comer, et al.'s new class
action lawsuit against CONSOL Energy Inc. and certain other
companies remain pending, according to the Company's November 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy
styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al.  The plaintiffs,
residents and owners of property along the Mississippi Gulf coast,
alleged that the defendants caused the emission of greenhouse
gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn caused a
rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina,
which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' property.  The District
Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed.  The Circuit
Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a rehearing before
the entire court.  A rehearing before the entire court was
granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's reversal,
but before the case could be heard on the merits, a number of
judges recused themselves and there was no longer a quorum.  As a
result, the District Court's dismissal was effectively reinstated.
The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to require the Circuit
Court to address the merits of their appeal.  On January 11, 2011,
the Supreme Court denied that request.  Although that should have
resulted in the dismissal being final, the plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the same jurisdiction against
essentially the same defendants making nearly identical
allegations as in the original lawsuit.  The trial court has
dismissed this case.  The dismissal is being appealed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing with the SEC.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Hall" Class Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010
styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania
Common Pleas Court.  The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall.  The
purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy.  The complaint alleges more
than 1,000 similarly situated lessors.  The lawsuit alleges that
CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated royalties by (i) calculating
line loss on the basis of allocated volumes rather than on a well-
by-well basis, (ii) possibly calculating the royalty on the basis
of an incorrect price, (iii) possibly taking unreasonable
deductions for post-production costs and costs that were not arms-
length, (iv) not paying royalties on gas lost or used before the
point of sale, and (v) not paying royalties on oil production.
The complaint also alleges that royalty statements were false and
misleading.  The complaint seeks damages, interest and an
accounting on a well-by-well basis.

No further updates were reported in CONSOL Energy Inc.'s November
1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously. Consequently, we have not recognized any
liability related to these actions.

Consol Energy Inc. -- http//:www.consolenergy.com/ -- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the
Southpointe complex, just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Company is a leading producer of high-BTU bituminous coal in
the United States and the U.S.'s largest underground coal mining
company.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a third amended version of
a consolidated securities class action against Corinthian Colleges
Inc. in California has been filed, according to the Company's
November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007 through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and
failed to disclose certain material facts about the condition of
the Company's business and prospects during the putative class
period, causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common
stock at artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further
claim that Messrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable
under Section 20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
amounts in damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well
as other relief.  On October 29, 2010, another putative class
action complaint captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges,
Inc., et al. was filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam
matter.  The Totten complaint is substantively identical to the
Karam complaint.  Several other plaintiffs intervened in the
lawsuit and petitioned the Court to appoint them to be the lead
plaintiffs.  On March 30, 2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming
Retirement System and Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en
Technieklead as lead plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as counsel for lead plaintiffs, in the consolidated action.
Lead plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint.  On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, and gave the
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.  On February 29,
2012, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (the TAC) in
U.S. District Court, and, on March 30, 2012 the Company and the
individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  On August 20,
2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, and the Company will
continue to defend itself and its current and former officers
vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  As of September 30,
2012, the Company had 92,070 students and operated 101 schools in
26 states and 16 colleges in the province of Ontario, Canada.  The
Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in
allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice.  The
Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in
business and criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Madden" Suit Still Pending in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against an employee collective action commenced by Roger Madden in
Illinois, according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On November 17, 2008, an action captioned Mary Credille and Roger
Madden, on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
employees, v. Corinthian Colleges et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The two
originally-named plaintiffs are former employees of the Company's
Chicago campus, and allege failure to receive proper compensation
for all overtime hours allegedly worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiff Credille has voluntarily dismissed
her claims against the Company.  On December 8, 2009, the Court
granted Plaintiff Madden's motion to conditionally certify a
collective action to include those current and former admissions
representatives at the Company's Chicago campus who also satisfy
additional requirements.  A total of three former employees,
including Madden, have elected to participate in the lawsuit.  The
Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  As of September 30,
2012, the Company had 92,070 students and operated 101 schools in
26 states and 16 colleges in the province of Ontario, Canada.  The
Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in
allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice.  The
Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in
business and criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Wage Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A wage class action complaint commenced by Michael Harrington
against Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending in
California court, according to the Company's November 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended September 30, 2012.

On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California's
Alameda Superior Court.  A virtually identical action with the
same caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel on
September 15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court.
The plaintiff is a former admissions representative at the
Company's Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions allege
violations of California's Business and Professions Code Section
17200 and the California Labor Code for alleged failure to pay for
all hours worked, purported denial of meal periods, and alleged
failure to pay wages upon termination.  The Alameda complaint has
since been voluntarily dismissed.  While the scope of the putative
class is not clear, the remaining Orange County action appears to
seek certification of a class to include those current and former
admissions representatives over the last four years at the
Company's California campuses.  The Company believes the
allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  As of September 30,
2012, the Company had 92,070 students and operated 101 schools in
26 states and 16 colleges in the province of Ontario, Canada.  The
Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in
allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice.  The
Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in
business and criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.  The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
(heating, ventilation and airconditioning system) students from
the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus.  The arbitration demand
alleges violations of California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional deceit, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus.  The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution.  On November 22,
2011, a California state court judge refused to confirm the
arbitrator's clause construction decision and remanded the matter
to the arbitrator for further consideration. The Company has
appealed the state court order.  The Company believes the
complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against these allegations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  As of September 30,
2012, the Company had 92,070 students and operated 101 schools in
26 states and 16 colleges in the province of Ontario, Canada.  The
Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in
allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice.  The
Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in
business and criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Supreme Ct. Review Not Sought in Reed Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No appeal for the U.S. Supreme Court's review has been filed by
the plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Reed, et al. v. Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., et al., from a ruling issued by an appeals court
denying class-wide resolution of the case, according to the
Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,
Texas.  Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company.  Plaintiff purports to be a former
student in the Company's Everest University Online operations.
The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas.  The plaintiff
seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted to
receive distance education from Everest University Online while
residing in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,
pre-and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief,
cost of suit, and such other relief as the court deems proper.  On
July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to binding
arbitration, and the plaintiff subsequently filed a putative class
action demand in arbitration.  The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former student's enrollment agreement
is susceptible to class-wide resolution, but did not address
whether a class should be certified.  The Company appealed the
clause-construction decision and on June 15, 2012, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion overturning the
arbitrator's decision and ruling that the enrollment agreement is
not susceptible to class-wide resolution.  The plaintiff's motion
for a rehearing by the entire Fifth Circuit was denied, and the
deadline to seek review by the United States Supreme Court has
passed without action by the plaintiff.  The Company believes the
matter is without merit and intends to defend itself and its
subsidiary vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  As of September 30,
2012, the Company had 92,070 students and operated 101 schools in
26 states and 16 colleges in the province of Ontario, Canada.  The
Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in
allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice.  The
Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in
business and criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Parties Still in Negotiations
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Corinthian
Schools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Plaintiffs were 33 individuals who purport to be current and/or
former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program at the
Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois.  The
complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting
program at the Merrionette Park campus.  The plaintiffs sought to
certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the
Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College
Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit, and sought actual and compensatory damages on
behalf of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive
damages, disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue
and benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and
such other relief as the court deemed proper.  The Company removed
the case to federal court and moved to compel individual
arbitrations, which the court granted.  Thirty-one plaintiffs have
filed individual demands in arbitration. Individual arbitration
hearings commenced as scheduled during the quarter ended June 30,
2012, but the Company and the plaintiffs have now agreed to hold
the hearings in abeyance to engage in settlement discussions.  The
Company continues to believe these matters are without merit and
will continue to defend itself vigorously if a reasonable
resolution cannot be achieved.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  As of September 30,
2012, the Company had 92,070 students and operated 101 schools in
26 states and 16 colleges in the province of Ontario, Canada.  The
Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in
allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice.  The
Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in
business and criminal justice.



CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Former Students' Suits in California Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits brought by former students in California,
according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended September 30, 2012.

During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedented
increase in putative class action lawsuits by former students.  In
many of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel sought to
represent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in the
complaint.  The Company believes these lawsuits are largely the
result of negative publicity -- and aggressive lawyer recruitment
of potential clients -- surrounding the Department of Education's
rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, and other related
matters that occurred during that time period.  Many of the cases
filed during that time have since been dismissed.  In virtually
all of the following remaining cases, the plaintiffs cite
testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the GAO report, public
statements by elected officials and/or other negative media
coverage in their complaints, although the locations of the
students, the specific allegations, and the nature of their claims
differ.  The Company believes all of the following complaints are
contractually required to be resolved in individual arbitrations
between the named students and the Company, and the Company has
moved, to compel these cases to arbitration.

A brief summary of such matters are:

(I) Date Filed: January 24, 2011 and February 17, 2011

    Plaintiffs and Campus Attended: Kevin Ferguson; Everest
     Institute in Miami, Florida; and Sandra Muniz; Heald College
     campuses in Rancho Cordova and Roseville, California
     (initially filed as separate actions, but now consolidated)

    Venue: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

    Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims, Relief Sought: Alleged
     misrepresentations by specific admissions representative at
     a specific campus regarding accreditation, transferability
     of credits, cost of attendance, eligibility for
     certifications, and career placement opportunities; Causes
     of action alleging breach of implied contract, breach of
     implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation
     of California's Business and Professions Code, violation of
     California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligent
     misrepresentation and fraud; Complaint seeks class
     certification, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement,
     punitive damages, attorneys' fees and cost of suit.

   Description of Putative Class: All persons who attended any
     Everest institution in the United States or Canada from
     January 2005 to the present; all persons who attended any
     Heald institution from January 2009 to the present

   Status Update: District court compelled all non-injunctive
    claims to arbitration and permitted all injunctive claims to
    remain before the court; the Company appealed the order as it
    relates to the injunctive claims, and the court of appeal
    stayed the district court action pending the appeal.

(II) Date Filed: March 11, 2011

    Plaintiffs and Campus Attended: Noravel Arevalo and fourteen
     former students at the Company's Everest College location in
     Alhambra, California

    Venue: American Arbitration Association

    Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims, Relief Sought:  Alleged
     misrepresentations by specific admissions representatives at
     a specific campus and unlawful business practices in the
     licensed vocational nursing program in Alhambra, CA; Causes
     of action alleging violation of the California Consumer
     Legal Remedies Act, fraud, breach of contract, violation of
     California's former Private Postsecondary and Vocational
     Education Reform Act, violation of the Racketeer Influenced
     and Corrupt Organizations Act, violation of California's
     Business and Professions Code; Complaint seeks class
     certification, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and
     disgorgement, civil penalties, punitive damages, treble
     damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, costs of suit and
     other relief.

   Description of Putative Class: All persons who enrolled in the
     Everest College, Alhambra, CA Vocational Nursing classes of
     2007-08 and 2008-09

   Status Update: Arbitration demands have been filed and the
     arbitrator selection is in progress.

The Company says it intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries
vigorously in all of these matters.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  As of September 30,
2012, the Company had 92,070 students and operated 101 schools in
26 states and 16 colleges in the province of Ontario, Canada.  The
Company offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees, concentrating on programs in
allied health, business, technology, and criminal justice.  The
Company also offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in
business and criminal justice.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces "Dent" Suit Over Ramtron Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit
initiated by Paul Dent arising from the Company's acquisition of
Ramtron International Corporation, according to Cypress' 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 Company's acquisition of a controlling interest
in Ramtron International Corporation ('Ramtron"), the Company will
assume control of certain ongoing litigation involving Ramtron,
including certain shareholder litigation related to the
transaction between the Company and Ramtron.  On October 15, 2012,
Paul Dent, a stockholder of Ramtron, filed a complaint in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, as a class action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated Ramtron
stockholders.  Mr. Dent alleges that Ramtron and certain of its
directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the merger agreement pursuant to which the Company
agreed to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Ramtron for
$3.10 a share in cash.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Ramtron and certain of its directors and officers failed to engage
in a competitive process and disclose fully all material
information relating to the Board's recommendation to Ramtron's
stockholders to tender shares to Cypress.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief as follows: an order
declaring the action to be properly maintainable as a class
action, an order enjoining the merger, an order rescinding, to the
extent already implemented, the merger or any of the terms
thereof, or granting plaintiffs and the class rescissory damages,
an order directing defendants to account to plaintiff and the
class for all damages suffered as a result of the alleged
wrongdoing, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.  On October
22, 2012, plaintiff added the Company as a defendant to the case
and petitioned the court for an expedited proceeding in this case.

The Company believes strongly that this case is without merit and,
along with Ramtron, it intends to defend the case vigorously.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces "Weber" Suit Over Ramtron Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit
filed by Allan P. Weber over the Company's acquisition of Ramtron
International Corporation, according to Cypress'
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2012, Allan P. Weber ("Plaintiff Weber"), a purported
stockholder of Ramtron International Corporation, filed a putative
class action complaint against Ramtron, certain of its officers
and directors, and Cypress and its wholly-owned subsidiary Rain
Acquisition Corporation, in the District Court for El Paso County,
Colorado.  Plaintiff alleges that the directors and officers of
Ramtron breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger agreement, pursuant to which Cypress agreed to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of the Company for $3.10 per share in
cash.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the officer and
directors of Ramtron violated their fiduciary duties by failing to
take steps to maximize the value of Ramtron to its public
stockholders and took steps to avoid competitive bidding, failed
to properly value Ramtron, and ignored or did not protect against
conflicts of interest.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
relief as follows: an order preliminarily and permanently
enjoining the merger, an order rescinding the merger or awarding
Plaintiff rescissory damages in the event the merger is
consummated prior to entry of the court's final judgment, an order
directing defendants to account to Plaintiff for all damages
suffered and profits and any special benefits obtained by
defendants as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and, together
with Ramtron, it intends to defend the case vigorously.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: $79MM Class Settlement Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal court granted final approval in October of a
$79 million class settlement resolving a consolidated securities
lawsuit against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and its executives,
according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, respectively,
by Larry Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated (the "Freudenberg Action").  On July 17, 2008,
the trial court consolidated this action with four other purported
class actions, all of which were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and which
were based on the same facts and circumstances.  On January 16,
2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended class action
complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the Company's
former Capital Markets Division President, as a defendant.
Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value of the
Company's stock between April 19, 2006 and November 9, 2007 was
artificially inflated because the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the
Company was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its
mortgage and home equity portfolios; failed to timely record an
impairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios; materially
overvalued its securities portfolio, which included assets backed
by mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable
basis for the positive statements made about the Company's
earnings and prospects.  The parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on December 17, 2011 to settle these
consolidated actions.  On May 17, 2012, the parties submitted a
Stipulation of Settlement and other supporting documents to the
court for review.  Under the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement, the Company and its insurance carriers will pay $79.0
million in return for full releases.  Approximately $11.0 million
of the total settlement figure will be paid by the Company, and
was expensed in the year ended December 31, 2011.  This settlement
was approved by the Court and the class was certified by a final
judgment and order of dismissal dated October 22, 2012.
Administration of the settlement will continue into 2013.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Roling" Lawsuit Withdrawn in September
----------------------------------------------------------
A consumer class action complaint against E*TRADE Financial
Corporation's subsidiary commenced by Joseph Roling over account
activity fees was withdrawn with prejudice in September, according
to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the September 30, 2012.

On February 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against E*TRADE Securities LLC by Joseph Roling on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated.  The
lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully
charged and collected certain account activity fees from its
customers.  Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class,
asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of
California Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and
injunctive relief for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent
practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et seq. The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, certification of the class action on
behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs, unspecified
damages and restitution of amounts allegedly wrongfully collected
by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys' fees and expenses and
injunctive relief.  The Company moved to transfer venue on the
case to the Southern District of New York; that motion was denied.
The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in part and
denied the motion to dismiss in part.  The Court bifurcated
discovery to permit initial discovery on individual claims and
class certification.  Following preliminary discovery, Plaintiffs
moved to amend their verified complaint for a second time, to
assert new allegations and to add a plaintiff. The Company filed
its opposition to this motion on December 27, 2011.  On March 27,
2012, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment
and granted the Company's motion to dismiss. However, the Court
allowed plaintiffs to seek a new class representative and
permitted limited discovery on a narrow issue as to when the fee
increase was posted on the Company's website in 2005.

On September 10, 2012, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the action
with prejudice.  E*TRADE paid no consideration for this dismissal,
which was endorsed by the Court.  There have been no appeals of
the Court's order dismissing the action.


EME HOMER: Appeal From Katrina-Related Suit Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
related to Hurricane Katrina and involving the parent of EME Homer
City Generation L.P. remains pending, according to the Company's
November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In March 2012, the federal district court in Mississippi
dismissed, in its entirety, the purported class action complaint
filed by private citizens in May 2011, naming a large number of
defendants, including Homer City's parent company Edison Mission
Energy (EME), for damages allegedly arising from Hurricane
Katrina.  In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants' activities resulted in emissions of substantial
quantities of greenhouse gases that have contributed to climate
change and sea level rise, which in turn are alleged to have
increased the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina.  The lawsuit
alleges causes of action for negligence, public and private
nuisance, and trespass, and seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  The claims in this lawsuit are nearly identical
to a subset of the claims that were raised against many of the
same defendants in a previous lawsuit that was filed in, and
dismissed by, the same federal district court where the current
case has been filed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing with the SEC.

EME Homer City Generation L.P. engages in the ownership and
operation of three coal-fired electric generating units and
related facilities.  It sells energy, capacity, and ancillary
services to power marketers and load-serving entities in various
parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
The Company's coal-fired electric generating units have a capacity
of approximately 1,884 megawatts.  Mission Energy Westside Inc.
serves as the general partner of EME Homer City Generation L.P .
The company was founded in 1998 and is based in Homer City,
Pennsylvania.  EME Homer City Generation L.P. is a subsidiary of
Chestnut Ridge Energy Company.


FELTEX: Former Directors Lose Bid to Halt Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
BusinessDesk reports that attempts by the former directors of the
failed carpet-maker Feltex to halt a class action by 2852
shareholders who lost NZD250 million have been thrown out by the
Court of Appeal.

All five appeals against the class action started by Feltex
shareholder Eric Houghton were rejected in a judgment issued by
the court on Nov. 23, clearing the way for the class action
seeking repayment of shareholders' original investment to proceed.

Feltex made an initial public offering of shares in mid-2004 and
by December 2006 was in liquidation with all shareholders' funds
lost.

Shareholders are alleging Fair Trading Act and Securities Act
breaches, negligence, dishonesty and deception, although claims of
breaches of fiduciary duty have been struck out in earlier
appeals.

Former Feltex directors named in the action are its chairman and
one-time Contact Energy director Tim Saunders, current
MightyRiverPower and Auckland International Airport chair Joan
Withers, Feltex's then chief financial officer, Sam Magill, and
directors John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter, and then
chief executive Peter Thomas.

The appeals fell broadly into three categories: the way the case
was being managed should not be allowed; statute of limitation
rules should prevent shareholders seeking redress; and that some
claims were not sufficiently made out to pass tests of
arguability.

Counsel for the Feltex directors objected to the way in which the
courts allowed Tony Gavigan, a former Fay Richwhite investment
banker who has undertaken to organize case management, time to
source guaranteed funding of at least NZD200,000 to meet court
costs in the event the shareholders' action failed.

They also objected to Mr. Gavigan's conduct in the proceedings,
including delays and missed deadlines, which a previous appeal
court decision had found were more the product of "an excess of
enthusiasm rather than bad faith."

"What was critical was securing Mr. Houghton's access to justice
through appropriate funding arrangements.  That objective has now
been satisfied," Court of Appeal president Mark O'Regan and fellow
judges Tony Randerson and Rhys Harrison ruled.

On the complaints alleging Magill "engaged into manipulation" of
Feltex's earnings, the judges agreed the "evidence in support was
not strong", but that it "provided a sufficient factual foundation
for arguability, involving as it does an element of deceit."

"Mr. Houghton is on notice that he has a significant hurdle to
cross if he is to prove" that Feltex had engaged in so-called
"channel-stuffing", where goods in excess of those ordered had
been sent to customers to boost reported revenue, along with
alleged attempts to shift the timing of receipts.

"But for now, the action must remain," the court ruled.

Apparent conflicts between rulings in other Commonwealth
jurisdictions were also rejected as grounds for appeal, with the
judges siding with Australian judgments that justified the class
action moving forward, rather than a "narrow" English ruling on
statutes of limitation.

The appellants were, in effect, arguing for an unmanageable and
wasteful exercise in which as many as 6,000 separate causes of
action would be required, rather than a single class action, the
judges said.

Reduced to its essential elements, this element of the appeals
related to High Court rules intended to prevent "stale" or
"ancient" claims being pursued, and the inability of defendants to
mount adequate defenses.  These could not be held to apply in this
case.


KENEXA CORP: Hammers MoU to Settle IBM Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews.com reports that Kenexa Corp., a provider of recruiting
and talent management solutions, announced the entering into of a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle a derivative action and
purported class action complaint that was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania, in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Kenexa by International Business
Machines Corp.

On August 27, 2012, Kenexa entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with IBM and Jasmine Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of IBM pursuant to which Merger Sub would merge with
and into Kenexa, with Kenexa being the surviving corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of IBM.

In connection with the Memorandum of Understanding, Kenexa's board
adopted a resolution granting all Kenexa shareholders dissenters
rights in connection with the merger, and Kenexa, IBM and Sub
entered into an amendment to the merger agreement providing for
such dissenters rights.  Accordingly, Kenexa shareholders have
dissenters rights as provided by Pennsylvania law in connection
with the merger.

Kenexa has agreed to postpone its previously scheduled special
shareholder meeting in connection with the merger.  The special
shareholder meeting for Kenexa originally scheduled for November
29, 2012 will be held on December 3, 2012.


LEXINGTON, KY: Retirees' Suit Wants Full Health Insurance Restored
------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Kegley, writing for Herald-Leader, reports that in February,
the Lexington police officers' union sponsored a bill that would
have altered a state law and required the city to fund 100 percent
of health insurance premiums for retirees.

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government opposed the bill,
saying it would cost too much, and it died in committee shortly
after it was filed.  However, the issue was not forgotten -- the
forum for the argument changed from legislative halls in Frankfort
to federal court in Lexington.

In September, two retired police officers and the president of the
police union filed a class-action lawsuit against the city seeking
to restore full health insurance payments for police retirees.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of more than 100 police retirees,
most of whom saw their health insurance premiums increase by
hundreds of dollars this year.

Retired officer Tommy Puckett, one of the plaintiffs, had been
paying $287 per month for health benefits for himself and his
wife, he said.

"After Jan. 1, I was paying close to $900," he said.

The issue began last fall, when the city unveiled a new insurance
plan that increased the amount many city employees paid for health
insurance and effectively doubled the cost of the high-end plan in
which 89 percent of city employees were enrolled.

The increased rates also applied to retirees from the Lexington
police and fire departments, who draw pensions from a locally
funded retirement system.  The city previously has covered in full
the premiums for police and fire retirees, but that changed at the
start of the year when the higher-cost insurance plans took
effect.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Puckett, retired officer Donald Chumley and
Detective Mike Sweeney, president of the Fraternal Order of Police
Bluegrass Lodge No. 4, accused the city of violating retirees'
constitutional rights by unilaterally raising health insurance
premiums.

"This case arises from the broken promise of LFUCG to pay 100
percent of the health care benefits for police officers that have
retired or will retire," the lawsuit said.

In doing so, the city violated a vaguely worded state law and
local ordinances, the lawsuit said.  The regulations say the city
must pay for the retirees' health insurance premiums, but not more
than 100 percent of the sum they give to current employees, the
lawsuit said.

City spokeswoman Susan Straub said she could not comment on
pending litigation, but city officials have said in interviews and
in court documents that the wording of the laws does not require
the city to pay health insurance premiums in full.

"What the plaintiffs do not address, but cannot deny, is that the
LFUCG is still contributing to retiree benefit pools an amount
equal to 100 percent of what the LFUCG contributes to the benefit
pools of current LFUCG non-bargaining unit employees," the city
said in a response to the class-action suit.

The city's response, filed three weeks after the lawsuit, asked
U.S. District Court Judge Karen K. Caldwell to dismiss the case.
Judge Caldwell is reviewing the city's motion, according to court
records.

Mr. Puckett said the lawsuit was filed in federal court rather
than Fayette County Circuit Court because federal court allows a
government's past practices to be taken into consideration.

Since 2000, the year after laws were passed governing police and
fire retirees' health care, every mayoral administration has paid
health insurance premiums in full.

However, the altered health-care plans for city employees and
police and fire retirees were among a number of measures Mayor Jim
Gray took to reduce a $35 million deficit when he took office in
2011.  When Mr. Gray's administration opposed the bill in
February, the city said paying retirees' premiums under the new
health insurance plan would cost more than it could afford --
about $3.4 million over the first two years and more as time went
on.

Mr. Puckett said he didn't think police officers would lobby for
another bill altering the state law next year.

"I don't think we're going to even attempt it now, because we're
going to let the courts make the decision," he said.


LG DISPLAY: Mississippi Court to Hear Price Fixing Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Mississippi federal court will
hear Mississippi's lawsuit that alleges price fixing by
manufacturers of liquid crystal display screens.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned a ruling that sent the case to a state court.

"Nothing we have said denies the State of Mississippi the right to
proceed with this case.  It will simply proceed in federal, not
state, court," the panel said.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood sued several major suppliers
of LCD screens in Hinds County Chancery Court in March of 2011.
Mr. Hood alleged in the lawsuit that consumers paid extra because
of price fixing in violation of the Mississippi Consumer
Protection Act.

The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution and civil penalties for
actions from 1996 to 2006 by companies in Japan, Korea and Taiwan,
plus their U.S. counterparts.

The companies have paid out millions to settle class-action
lawsuits and still face other lawsuits in the United States and
around the world.

In June of 2011, the companies had the case transferred to federal
court.  They argued that if a lawsuit resembled a purported class
action that it should be considered a class action and be heard in
federal court.

U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves this May ordered the case
sent back to the Hinds County Chancery Court.  Judge Reeves said
his court did not have jurisdiction because the case was not a
class action and because federal law's general public exception
required it be returned to state court.

The 5th Circuit panel, in a ruling on Nov. 21, said: "At its core,
this case practically can be characterized as a kind of class
action in which the State of Mississippi is the class
representative."

"After analyzing the complaint, the relevant statutes . . . we
hold that the real parties in interest in this suit include both
the State and individual consumers of LCD products.  Because it is
undisputed that there are more than 100 consumers, we find that
there are more than 100 claims at issue in this case," the panel
said.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Three Ex-Players File Class Action in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Korman, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that three
former NFL players living in Maryland have filed a suit against
the league alleging it hid information about the long-term health
effects of concussions and endangered players' lives by
"mythologizing" violent hits.

The class-action suit seeks more than $600 million in compensatory
and punitive damages.  The players join almost 4,000 peers in
filing suit against the league, according to Paul D. Anderson, a
lawyer who specializes in advocating for traumatic brain injury
victims and retired NFL players' rights.

The plaintiffs in the suit, filed Oct. 5 in Queen Anne's County,
are Jody Schulz, Warren Powers and Willie Williams.

Mr. Schulz, 52, lives in Queen Anne's County and was a linebacker
and special teams player for the Philadelphia Eagles from 1983 to
1987.  Mr. Powers, 47, resides in Carroll County and played on the
defensive line for three teams from 1989 to 1993; he is a
Baltimore native and played at Maryland.  Mr. Williams, 41, played
cornerback for the Steelers and Seahawks from 1993 to 2005 and
lives in Montgomery County.

All three say they suffer from various neurological conditions and
symptoms related to multiple head traumas.

The complaint lists NFL Films videos -- such as "The Best of
Thunder and Destruction: NFL's Hardest Hits," and "Crunch Course"
(I and II) -- as evidence that the NFL promoted activities that
put the players in danger of injuries that the league knew could
leave them severely disabled for the rest of their lives.

Jamal Lewis is the most prominent former Raven involved in such a
case.


NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Steel Plant Class Action Faces Hurdle
----------------------------------------------------------
Cape Breton Post reports that the arduous task of taking on the
federal and provincial governments over environmental
contamination from the former Sydney steel plant and coke ovens
sites now faces yet another hurdle.

After hearing arguments earlier this month, Nova Scotia Appeal
Court Justice David Farrar has granted a request from the province
and the federal government to allow an appeal of a decision
certifying a class-action lawsuit filed by a group of Sydney and
area residents.

"We knew we had an uphill battle," said Halifax-based lawyer Ray
Wagner, who represents the Sydney residents.

Justice Farrar's decision was released on Nov. 23 and now sends
all sides to the Court of Appeal for a scheduled four-day hearing
beginning on March 19 in Halifax.

Mr. Wagner said on Nov. 23 the decision does not come as a
complete surprise noting the case could conceivably end up before
the Supreme Court of Canada.

Both the province and the federal government argued before Judge
Farrar that there are too many differences in the individual cases
for the matter to be heard as a class-action lawsuit.

A copy of the judge's written decision was not available on
Nov. 23 as he only issued an order granting the appeal to proceed.

The province and the federal government filed the appeal of the
certification after Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice John Murphy
ruled to certify the lawsuit in January making it the first
environmental class action lawsuit to be certified in Nova Scotia.

The suit was filed by local residents Neila MacQueen, Joe
Petitpas, Ann Ross and Iris Crawford who are seeking compensation
and a medical monitoring fund for contamination resulting from the
operation of the steel plant between 1967 and 2000.  There is no
demand for personal injury compensation.

In his decision in January, Judge Murphy also approved the
proposed boundaries for the neighborhoods of Whitney Pier, Ashby
and north-end Sydney.  The boundaries are all within about 3.2
kilometers of the steel plant and coke ovens sites.  The suit
could include about 6,000 properties and 15,000-20,000 people.

None of the plaintiff's claims have yet been proven in court.

The issues in the lawsuit span from 1967-2000, when the sites in
question were operated by federal and provincial governments.


ORIENT PAPER: February 2013 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Nov. 23 disclosed that the United
States District Court Central District of California has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Orient Paper,
Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK
OF ORIENT PAPER, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 27, 2009
THROUGH AUGUST 13, 2010, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on February 11, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in room 8
before the Honorable Manuel L. Real, United States District Judge
of the Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90012 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of $2,000,000 should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application for an
award of attorneys' fees of $500,000 or 25% and reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $230,000, and an incentive payment of no
more than $10,000 to lead plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4)
whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased common stock of Orient Paper, Inc., during the
class period from March 27, 2009 through August 13, 2010,
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this
action.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency
and Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim
and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Orient Paper,
Inc. Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600
N. Jackson St., Ste. 3 Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel); 610-
565-7985 (Fax) -- info@strategicclaims.net -- or going to the
Web site, http://www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release no later than January 30, 2013, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit a written
exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in
the Litigation whether or not you make a claim.  If you desire to
be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion received no later than January 14, 2013, in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims
Administrator.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Notice and received no later than January 22,
2013, to each of the following:

          Clerk of the Court
          United States District Court
          Central District of California  
          Western Division
          312 N. Spring Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.  
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

          Lead Counsel

          Robert Weber, Esq.
          DLA PIPER (US) LLP
          2000 Avenue of the Stars
          Suite 400, North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

          Counsel for the Orient Paper Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-785-2610
          Fax: 213-226-4684

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: NOVEMBER 16, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal From Order on Ga. Suit Settlement Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Georgia federal court approved in mid-August a partial
settlement in the class action captioned City of Rome, Georgia, et
al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., and a subsequent notice of appeal
was filed in early September, according to priceline.com
Incorporated's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

The lawsuit captioned City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia; filed in November 2005) is a certified class action on
behalf of Georgia cities and counties.  On August 16, 2012, the
court held a fairness hearing and approved the terms of the
partial class settlement agreement.  The settlement provides that
the online travel company defendants will pay hotel occupancy
taxes from May 16, 2011 going forward.  May 16, 2011 is the date
of the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in the City of Atlanta
appeal requiring payment on a prospective basis in that case.  On
September 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit appealing the trial
court's order entering summary judgment against all plaintiffs'
claims for back taxes and denying plaintiffs' request to certify
questions to the Georgia Supreme Court.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
(NASDAQ: PCLN), together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel
reservation services on a worldwide basis with approximately
185,000 hotels and accommodations in 160 countries primarily under
the Booking.com, priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-
disclosed rental car reservation services in approximately 4,000
locations worldwide through rentalcars.com name.  It also offers
retail airline tickets, hotel room reservation, and rental car
services through its Name Your Own Price demand-collection system,
as well as vacation packages consisting of airfare, hotel, and
rental car components; cruise trips; and destination services,
including parking, event tickets, ground transfers, and tours in
the United States.  In addition, the Company provides an optional
travel insurance package that provides coverage for trip
cancellation, trip interruption, medical expenses, and emergency
evacuation, as well as for loss of baggage, property, and travel
documents for air, hotel, and vacation package customers; and
collision damage waiver insurance for rental car customers in the
United States.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Hearing on Bid to Consolidate Suits on Nov. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A multidistrict litigation court will convene a hearing on
November 29, 2012, to hear arguments on a bid for consolidation of
certain antitrust lawsuits filed against priceline.com
Incorporated and other online travel agencies, according to the
Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On August 20, 2012, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations from
certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain online
travel agencies (OTC) defendants, including the Company.  The
initial complaint, Turik v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4365,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleges that the Hotel Defendants and the OTC
defendants violated federal and state laws by entering into a
conspiracy to enforce a minimum resale price maintenance scheme
pursuant to which putative class members paid inflated prices for
hotel room reservations that they purchased through the OTC
defendants.  A number of other complaints containing similar
allegations have been filed in a number of federal jurisdictions
across the country and in a single state court.  The complaints
filed in federal court are subject to a motion for consolidation
and transfer of pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will hear arguments
on the motion on November 29, 2012.  Plaintiffs in these actions
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The Company disputes
the allegations in the complaints.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
(NASDAQ: PCLN), together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel
reservation services on a worldwide basis with approximately
185,000 hotels and accommodations in 160 countries primarily under
the Booking.com, priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-
disclosed rental car reservation services in approximately 4,000
locations worldwide through rentalcars.com name.  It also offers
retail airline tickets, hotel room reservation, and rental car
services through its Name Your Own Price demand-collection system,
as well as vacation packages consisting of airfare, hotel, and
rental car components; cruise trips; and destination services,
including parking, event tickets, ground transfers, and tours in
the United States.  In addition, the Company provides an optional
travel insurance package that provides coverage for trip
cancellation, trip interruption, medical expenses, and emergency
evacuation, as well as for loss of baggage, property, and travel
documents for air, hotel, and vacation package customers; and
collision damage waiver insurance for rental car customers in the
United States.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits against priceline.com Incorporated relating
to the payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes remain pending,
according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

The Company and certain third-party defendant online travel
companies are currently involved in approximately 50 lawsuits,
including certified and putative class actions, brought by or
against states, cities and counties over issues involving the
payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e., state and local
sales tax) and the Company's "merchant" hotel business.  The
Company's subsidiaries Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are
named in some but not all of these cases.  Generally, each
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each law.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.  The Company is also involved in
one consumer lawsuit relating to, among other things, the payment
of hotel occupancy taxes and service fees.  In addition,
approximately 70 municipalities or counties, and at least eight
states, have initiated audit proceedings (including proceedings
initiated by more than 40 municipalities in California), issued
proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the
payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e., state and local
sales tax).  Additional state and local jurisdictions are likely
to assert that the Company is subject to, among other things,
hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e., state and local sales tax)
and could seek to collect such taxes, retroactively and/or
prospectively.

With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company
believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the service it
provides, namely the facilitation of reservations, and, therefore,
that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed.
Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue generally
impose hotel occupancy and other taxes on entities that own,
operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or
provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations.  In addition, in
many of these matters, the taxing jurisdictions have asserted
claims for "conversion" -- essentially, that the Company has
collected a tax and wrongfully "pocketed" those tax dollars -- a
claim that the Company believes is without basis and has
vigorously contested.  The taxing jurisdictions that are currently
involved in litigation and other proceedings with the Company, and
that may be involved in future proceedings, have asserted contrary
positions and will likely continue to do so.

From time to time, the Company has found it expedient to settle,
and may in the future agree to settle, claims pending in these
matters without conceding that the claims at issue are meritorious
or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid.

In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the
Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts
may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the
assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial
proceedings.  This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to
play" or "pay first."  For example, the City of San Francisco
assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an amount that
includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel occupancy
taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009.  Payment of these
amounts, if any, is not an admission that the Company believes it
is subject to such taxes and, even if such payments are made, the
Company intends to continue to assert its position vigorously.
The Company has successfully argued against a "pay first"
requirement asserted in another California proceeding.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse
developments in these pending or future cases and proceedings.
For example, the Superior Court in the District of Columbia
granted a summary judgment in favor of the city and against online
travel companies ("OTCs") ruling that tax is due on the OTC's
margin and service fee.  As a result, the Company increased its
accrual for hotel occupancy and other taxes, with a corresponding
charge to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million
(including interest) in September 2012.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
(NASDAQ: PCLN), together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel
reservation services on a worldwide basis with approximately
185,000 hotels and accommodations in 160 countries primarily under
the Booking.com, priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-
disclosed rental car reservation services in approximately 4,000
locations worldwide through rentalcars.com name.  It also offers
retail airline tickets, hotel room reservation, and rental car
services through its Name Your Own Price demand-collection system,
as well as vacation packages consisting of airfare, hotel, and
rental car components; cruise trips; and destination services,
including parking, event tickets, ground transfers, and tours in
the United States.  In addition, the Company provides an optional
travel insurance package that provides coverage for trip
cancellation, trip interruption, medical expenses, and emergency
evacuation, as well as for loss of baggage, property, and travel
documents for air, hotel, and vacation package customers; and
collision damage waiver insurance for rental car customers in the
United States.


SINO-FOREST CORP:  App. Ct. Upholds Decision on Indemnity Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Ontario Court of Appeal has
upheld a lower court decision that ranked indemnity claims by the
auditors and underwriters of Sino-Forest Corp. with other equity
claims in the company's restructuring.

Several class-action lawsuits have been filed against the company,
its auditors and its underwriters.

The company's auditors and underwriters made indemnity claims
against Sino-Forest under its Companies Creditors Arrangement Act
restructuring for any damages they may have to end up paying if
the class-action lawsuits are successful.

The appeal court ruling on Nov. 23 upholds a decision that puts
the claims on a lower priority than other creditors' claims on the
company's assets in the restructuring.

"We see no basis to interfere with the supervising judge's
decision," the appeal court said in its decision.

The judge supervising Sino-Forest based the decision on changes to
the CCAA that came into affect in 2009.

"We agree with the supervising judge that the definition of equity
claim focuses on the nature of the claim, and not the identity of
the claimant," the Appeal Court said.

"In our view, the appellants' claims for contribution and
indemnity are clearly equity claims."

Generally, debt holders are first in line to make claims on a
company's assets ahead of shareholders, who have an equity stake
in the company.

In the case of Sino-Forest, shareholders are not expected to
receive anything.

Sino-Forest collapsed after accusations of fraud last year by
short seller Muddy Waters Research.

Once the most valuable forestry company on the Toronto Stock
Exchange, Sino-Forest and several former executives have since
also been accused of lying to investors and attempting to mislead
investigators by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The RCMP has also launched its own investigation into the case.

Though none of the proposed lawsuits have been yet certified, an
Ontario case is seeking C$9.2 billion in damages.

Cases in Quebec, Saskatchewan and New York have not specified the
amount of damages sought.

The company has proposed a plan what will see its creditors
takeover the firm.

The plan requires the support of a majority of the affected
creditors holding at least two-thirds in value of the claims
against the company.

Holders of Sino-Forest's shares, which have been delisted from the
Toronto Stock Exchange, will not receive anything under the
proposal.


TREX COMPANY: Mold Claims in Defective Products Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions against Trex Company, Inc., asserting mold claims
remain pending in California, according to the Company's November
1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms on behalf of Eric Ross
and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs.  These
plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate
remedies for defective products.  On February 13, 2009, the
Company removed this case to the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.  On January 21, 2009, a purported
class action case was commenced against the Company in the United
States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law
firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of Mark Okano
and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain
product defects in the Company's products, and that the Company
has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products.
This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the
California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's
case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on March
15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.  On April
14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal the
District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm
dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final.
On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original
complaint.  In its Final Order approving the surface flaking
settlement, the District Court consolidated these pending actions
relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens Berman Firm
as lead counsel in this case.  The Company believes that these
claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing with the SEC.


TREX COMPANY: Suits in 4 States Over Defective Products Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. continues to defend class actions in Kentucky,
Indiana, Michigan and New Jersey relating to defective products
and mold growth, according to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP
on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs, and
on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against
the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court of Indiana by
Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and similarly situated
plaintiffs.  On June 28, 2011, the Company removed the Kopetsky
case to the United States District Court, Southern District of
Indiana.  On August 11, 2011, a purported class action was
commenced against the Company in the 50th Circuit Court for the
County of Chippewa, Michigan on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers
and similarly situated plaintiffs.  On August 26, 2011, the
Company removed the Peffers case to the United States District
Court, Western District of Michigan.  On April 4, 2012, a
purported class action was commenced against the Company in
Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County on behalf of Caryn
Borger, M.D. and similarly situated plaintiffs.  On May 1, 2012,
the Company removed the Borger case to the United States District
Court, District of New Jersey.  The plaintiffs in these purported
class actions generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will
vigorously defend these lawsuits.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing.

Trex Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of wood-alternative decking
and railing products, which are marketed under the brand name
Trex(R).  The Company is incorporated in Delaware.  The principal
executive offices are located at 160 Exeter Drive, Winchester,
Virginia 22603.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: "Hawthorne" Suit Still Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
There have been no material developments in a class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Umpqua Bank by Amber Hawthorne relating to
overdraft fees and check posting order since the case was filed,
according to Umpqua Holdings Corporation's November 1, 2012 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012.


USEC INC: Ohio Trial Court Junked Employee Class Action in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Ohio federal court dismissed in October an employee class
action against USEC Inc. relating to severance benefits, according
to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On June 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, against USEC by a former Portsmouth gaseous diffusion
plant (GDP) employee claiming that USEC owes severance benefits to
him and other similarly situated employees that have transitioned
or will transition to the DOE decontamination and decommissioning
("D&D") contractor.  The plaintiff amended its complaint on August
31, 2011 and February 10, 2012, among other things, to limit the
purported class of similarly situated employees to salaried
employees at the Portsmouth site who transitioned to the D&D
contractor and are allegedly eligible for or owed benefits.  On
October 11, 2012, the United States District Court granted USEC's
motion to dismiss the complaint and dismissed Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification as moot.  The plaintiff had 30 days to
appeal.  USEC has not accrued any amounts for this matter.

USEC Inc. is a supplier of low enriched uranium (LEU) for
commercial nuclear power plants.  LEU is a critical component in
the production of nuclear fuel for reactors to produce
electricity.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Antitrust Suits V. Units Pending in Texas, Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face
antitrust class action lawsuits in Texas and Michigan, according
to the Company's November 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filed
in San Antonio, Texas against the Company's Baptist Health System
subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospital
systems in San Antonio.  In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that
the three hospital system defendants conspired with each other and
with other unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress the
compensation levels of registered nurses employed at the
conspiring hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging in
certain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws.  The
complaint alleges two separate claims.  The first count asserts
that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain
competition, by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation.  The
second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems also
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in wage,
salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having the
effect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or limiting
competition for nurses based on their compensation.  The class on
whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is alleged to
comprise all registered nurses employed by the defendant hospitals
since June 20, 2002.  The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling
of this damage amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.  From 2006 through April 2008, the Company and
the plaintiffs worked on producing documents to each other
relating to, and supplying legal briefs to the court in respect
of, solely the issue of whether the court will certify a class in
this suit, the court having bifurcated the class and merit issues.
In April 2008, the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling
on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Company
believes that the allegations contained within this putative class
action suit are without merit, and the Company has vigorously
worked to defeat class certification.  If a class is certified,
the Company will continue to defend vigorously against the
litigation.

On the same date in 2006 that this suit was filed against the
Company in federal district court in San Antonio, the same
attorneys filed three other substantially similar putative class
action lawsuits in federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois;
Albany, New York; and Memphis, Tennessee; against some of the
hospitals or hospital systems in those cities (none of such
hospitals or hospital systems being owned by the Company).  The
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in all four of these cases
said in June 2006 that they may file similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and in December 2006, they brought a substantially
similar class action lawsuit against eight hospitals or hospital
systems in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area, one of which
was The Detroit Medical Center (DMC) -- which said facility was
acquired by the Company in 2011.  Since representatives of the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) joined plaintiffs'
attorneys in announcing the filing of all four complaints on June
20, 2006, and as has been reported in the media, the Company
believes that SEIU's involvement in these actions appears to be
part of a corporate campaign to attempt to organize nurses in
these cities, including San Antonio and Detroit.  The registered
nurses in the Company's hospitals in San Antonio and Detroit are
currently not members of any union.  In the suit in Detroit
against DMC, the court did not bifurcate class and merits issues.
On March 22, 2012, the judge issued an opinion and order granting
in part and denying in part the defendants' motions for summary
judgment.  The defendants' motions were granted as to the count of
the complaint alleging wage fixing by defendants, but were denied
as to the count alleging that the defendants' sharing of wage
information allegedly resulted in the suppression of nurse wages.
The opinion, however, did not address plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and did not address defendants' challenge to the
opinion of plaintiffs' expert, but specifically reserved ruling on
those matters for a later date.

If the plaintiffs in the San Antonio and/or Detroit suits (1) are
successful in obtaining class certification and (2) are able to
prove both liability and substantial damages, which are then
trebled under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, such a result could
materially affect the Company's business, financial condition or
results of operations.  However, in the opinion of management, the
ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q
filing.

Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. is an investor-owned health care
company whose subsidiaries and affiliates own and operate
hospitals and related health care businesses in urban and suburban
areas.  As of September 30, 2012, the Company's subsidiaries and
affiliates owned and operated 28 acute care hospitals with 7,064
licensed beds and related outpatient service locations
complementary to the hospitals providing health care services in
San Antonio, Harlingen and Brownsville, Texas; metropolitan
Detroit, Michigan; metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona; metropolitan
Chicago, Illinois; and Massachusetts.  The Company also owns
managed health plans in Chicago, Illinois, Harlingen, Texas, and
Phoenix, Arizona, and two surgery centers in Orange County,
California.


* Green League Chair Calls for Inclusion of Class Action Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yle UUtiset reports that the Chairman of the Green League Ville
Niinisto has called for the inclusion of the right to initiate
class action lawsuits when current environmental legislation is
revised.

His suggestion comes in the wake of the current furor over a toxic
waste water leak at the Talvivaara nickel mine at Sotkamo in
northern Finland.

Speaking at a Green League party gathering on Nov. 24,
Mr. Niinisto said it was necessary to correct an error made in
previous legislation which denied the right to initiate class
action for environmental offences.

He added lessons could be learnt from previous errors and from the
current events at the Talvivaara nickel mine when current
environmental legislation comes up for review.

"Currently it is impossible to initiate a class lawsuit in Finland
for environmental offences.  This defect must be corrected,"
Mr. Niinisto told the gathering in Helsinki.


                           *********

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  * * *