---

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

            Monday, December 6, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 240

                             Headlines

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal of Ruling on IPO Case Still Pending
ALLIS-CHALMERS ENERGY: Sued in Pa. for Not Paying Overtime
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Appeal of Georgia Suit Dismissal Pending
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Suit in Massachusetts
ANTIGENIC INC: Appeals on IPO Lawsuit Settlement Remain Pending

ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: To Seek Dismissal of Lorcaserin Lawsuit
ASIAINFO-LINKAGE INC: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Faces Class Suits Over Rome Bank Merger
BIOTAB NUTRACEUTICALS: Watchdog Calls Settlement a "Rip-Off"
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Suit With Sun Pharma

CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend California Securities Suit
CARDIONET INC: Dismissal of Pennsylvania Securities Suit Now Final
CENTRO PROPERTIES: Slater & Gordon Files Shareholder Class Action
CINEMARK HOLDING: Sued for Not Providing Closed Captioned Movies
CLEAR CHANNEL: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California

CORVEL CORP: Settles Illinois Lawsuit for $2.8 Million
CROWN MEDIA: Continues to Defend S. Muoio Class Action
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Junks Speeding Drivers' Class Action
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Gas Index Pricing Suits Still Pending in Nevada
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Faces Four Class Action Suits on GP Merger

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
FIRST NIAGARA: Connecticut and Delaware Class Actions Ongoing
INTERNET CAPITAL: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
KABA CORP: Sued for Selling Defective Push-Button Door Locks
KENEXA CORP: Motion to Reconsider Suit Dismissal Pending

LOOKSMART LTD: Settlement of Pay-Per-Click Lawsuit Ongoing
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Recalls 6MM Roman Shades & 5MM Roll-Up Blinds
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Conditional Certification Motion Due Jan. 21
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Court Sets April 2012 Trial for Gobel Suit
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Proposed Acquisition of Stock

POCONO MOUNTAIN: Judge Dismisses Discrimination Class Action
PRICELINE.COM INC: Statewide Class Actions Remain Pending
PRICELINE.COM INC: Consumer Class Actions Remain Pending
PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal of Securities Suits Settlement Pending
RAZA COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Deceptive Business Practices

SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. 10 Deadline Set for Dismissal Plea
SKECHERS USA: Tamara Grabowski Case Still Pending in Calif. Court
SKECHERS USA: Sonia Stalker Case Still Pending in Calif. Court
SKECHERS USA: Venus Morga Case Still Pending in Calif. Court
SUNTRUST BANKS: Sued Over Private Mortgage Insurance Kickbacks

SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals on Consolidated Suit Settlement Pending
TECO PEOPLES GAS: Seven More Restaurants Join Class Action
THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuits in Missouri Over IPC Merger
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Lexus RX Vehicles' Defective Headlights
U.S. CONCRETE: Pays $1.6 Million Settlement of Four Class Actions

UNITED STATES: House Approves Pigford Class Action Settlement
VALASSIS COMMS: No Appeal Filed on Final Approval of Settlement
VAN RU: Accused of Not Paying Employees for All Hours Worked
VERENIUM CORP: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit Remains Pending
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Class Action Over Medical Leave

VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Court Denies Dismissal of Merix-Related Suit
WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Sale to M&T Bank
XENOPORT INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in California
* Bill C-36 May Spark Product Recalls & Class Actions in Canada
* Hagens Berman Opens Office in Colorado

* Study Says Securities Class Suits Punish Shareholders
* UK Pension Funds Unlikely to Recoup GBP368MM in US Class Suits
* U.S. Consumer Privacy Laws Need Upgrade as Class Actions Rise



                             *********


AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal of Ruling on IPO Case Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Between July 2, 2001 and November 7, 2001, purported class action
lawsuits seeking monetary damages were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Akamai
Technologies, Inc., as well as against the underwriters of its
October 28, 1999 initial public offering of common stock.

The complaints were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock during different time
periods, all beginning on October 28, 1999, and ending on various
dates.

The complaints are similar and allege violations of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, primarily based on the allegation that the
underwriters received undisclosed compensation in connection with
the Company's initial public offering.

On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended complaint was
filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations contained in
the previously filed separate actions.  The consolidated amended
complaint defines the alleged class period as October 28, 1999,
through December 6, 2000.

A Special Litigation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors
authorized management to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding
that was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants
and their insurers.  The parties negotiated a settlement that was
subject to approval by the District Court.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.

On June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminating
the settlement.

On August 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final
approval of a new proposed settlement (among plaintiffs, the
underwriter defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers for
the issuer defendants), plan of distribution of the settlement
fund, and certification of the settlement classes.

On October 5, 2009, the District Court issued an opinion and order
granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement,
approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and
certification of the settlement classes.  An order and final
judgment was entered on November 4, 2009.

Notices of appeal of the District Court's October 5, 2009 opinion
and order have been filed in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

If the District Court's order is upheld on appeal, the Company
would have no material liability in connection with this
litigation, and the litigation would be resolved.

The Company has recorded no liability for this matter as of
September 30, 2010, according to the Company's November 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


ALLIS-CHALMERS ENERGY: Sued in Pa. for Not Paying Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Allis-Chalmers Energy stiffed
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Thomas v. Allis-Chalmers Energy, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 05-mc-02025 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/01/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net

               - and -

          David A. Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 344-6690
          E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Appeal of Georgia Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order dismissing a class action lawsuit against
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., in Georgia is pending, the
Company noted in its November 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In June and early July 2010, several suits were asserted against
Allscripts in relation to the Company's merger agreement with
Eclipsys Corporation, an enterprise provider of solutions and
services to hospitals and clinicians.

On or about June 15, 2010, Rajesh Nama, on behalf of himself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a purported class
action complaint in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of
Georgia, captioned Nama v. Pead, et al.  The lawsuit names
Allscripts, Arsenal Merger Corp., Eclipsys, and each of the
directors of Eclipsys as defendants.

On or about June 17, 2010, John Scoggins, on behalf of himself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a second purported
class action complaint in the same court and against the same
defendants (except not Arsenal) captioned Scoggins v. Eclipsys
Corp., et al.

On or about June 18, 2010, Colleen Witmer, on behalf of herself
and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a third purported
class action complaint in the same court and against the same
defendants as the first case and captioned Witmer v. Casey, et al.

On or about June 22, 2010, Michael Hiers, on behalf of himself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fourth purported
class action complaint in the same court and against the same
parties as the first case and captioned Hiers v. Casey, et al.

On or about June 22, 2010, the Iron Workers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension Plan, on behalf of itself and the public
stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fifth purported class action
complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of
Georgia, and against the same defendants as the first case (except
not Allscripts or Arsenal) and captioned Iron Workers of W.
Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Pead, et al.

On or about June 30, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case
dismissed its complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia and refiled its complaint in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia.  On or about July 9, 2010,
the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case filed an Amended Complaint.

On or about July 9, 2010, Jody Madala, individually and on behalf
of the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a sixth purported
class action complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
State of Georgia against the same defendants as the first case
(except not Allscripts or Arsenal) captioned Madala v. Pead et al.
The cases in the Superior Court of DeKalb County were subsequently
transferred to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Business
Case Division.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Eclipsys
directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Eclipsys aided
and abetted those breaches.  Five of the complaints, except the
Nama case, also allege facts concerning the proposed secondary
public offering of certain Allscripts shares owned by Misys plc
and the buy back by Allscripts of certain shares owned by Misys.

Certain lawsuits also contain allegations that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus/information statement on Form S-4 is
materially misleading in certain respects including the omission
of information concerning certain financial projections and
whether or how the parties and their financial advisors have
accounted for certain proceeds to be paid to Misys in the stock
buy back.

Certain lawsuits further allege that Allscripts aided and abetted
such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors of
Eclipsys.

Based on the allegations, the lawsuits seek, among other relief,
rescission of the merger or damages.  They also purport to seek
recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.

On or about July 27, 2010, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
Business Case Division, granted the Eclipsys defendants' motion to
dismiss the Iron Workers' Amended Complaint.

On or about August 5, 2010, the Georgia Court of Appeals denied
Iron Workers' emergency request for an injunction pending appeal.
The appeal was then briefed in the ordinary course and is awaiting
decision.

The other five lawsuits have been stayed in the trial court
pending resolution of the appeal.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amag Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit filed by stockholders, according to its Nov. 8, 2010 Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on
March 18, 2010 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments v.
AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG,
and was amended on September 15, 2010.

The amended complaint alleges that the company and its President
and Chief Executive Officer, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, the Company's Board of Directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering of stock violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer violated Section 15 of the Act,
0respectively, by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements and omissions in a registration statement filed in
January 2010.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our common stock pursuant to the Company's
common stock offering on or about January 21, 2010.


ANTIGENIC INC: Appeals on IPO Lawsuit Settlement Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notices of appeal regarding the approval of Antigenics Inc.'s
settlement of a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit are pending, according to the Company's November 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company, its chairman and chief executive officer, Garo H.
Armen, Ph.D., and two investment banking firms that served as
underwriters in its initial public offering were named as
defendants in a federal civil class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Substantially similar actions were filed concerning the initial
public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and the
cases were coordinated for pre-trial purposes as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

The suit alleges that the brokerage arms of the investment banking
firms charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their
customers in return for allocations of the Company's stock in the
offering.  The suit also alleges that shares of the Company's
stock were allocated to certain of the investment banking firms'
customers based upon agreements by those customers to purchase
additional shares of the Company's stock in the secondary market.

The parties reached a global settlement of the litigation.  Under
the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the defendants, and the defendants
will bear no financial liability.  Antigenics and the other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.

In October 2009, the Court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement, and subsequently judgment was entered.

Various objectors have filed appeals.

The Company reported no further development in the matter in its
recent SEC filing.

The Company, however, noted that if for any reason the settlement
does not become effective, it believes it has meritorious defenses
to the claims and intend to defend the action vigorously.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: To Seek Dismissal of Lorcaserin Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., will seek dismissal of class action
complaints filed against the Company in California, according to
the Company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Beginning September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in
the US District Court for the Southern District of California
against Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its current
and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers
of the Company's common stock.

The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class
actions, and, in general, include allegations that the Company and
certain of its current and former employees and directors violated
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding its lorcaserin trials, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our common stock.  The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Arena Pharmaceuticals expect that all class action complaints
filed to date will be transferred to a single court.  The Company
expect the court to consolidate the actions, appoint a lead
plaintiff and order the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated
complaint.

The Company says it intend to vigorously defend against the claims
advanced, and intend to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.


ASIAINFO-LINKAGE INC: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Notices of appeal on the approval of AsiaInfo-Linkage Inc.'s
settlement of a consolidated IPO allocation case remains pending,
the Company disclosed in its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

In December 2001, a securities class action case was filed in New
York City against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. federal
securities laws and was docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York as Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings,
Inc., et al.

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the underwriters of
the Company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay the
underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional
shares of the Company's common stock in the aftermarket as
conditions of their purchasing shares in the Company's IPO.  The
lawsuit further claimed that the alleged practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement.  The suit seeks rescission
of the plaintiffs' alleged purchases of the Company's common stock
as well as unspecified damages.

In addition to the case against the Company, various other
plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City, which along with the case against the Company, have all been
transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of
case management.

In April 2009, the Company and most of the other issuer defendants
in the IPO Allocation Cases reached a definitive agreement with
the plaintiffs and the underwriter defendants to settle the IPO
Allocation Cases.  The agreement was filed with the court in April
2009 and a final approval was granted by the court in October
2009.  The final approval was subject to appeal until November
2009.

Several objectors filed timely appeals and those appeals remain
pending.

The Company reported no further developments in the matter in its
recent SEC disclosure.

If the settlement is approved, the Company expects any damages
payable to the plaintiffs to be fully funded by its directors' and
officers' liability insurance policies.

If the litigation proceeds, the Company says it intends to
continue to defend the litigation vigorously.  Moreover, if the
litigation proceeds, the Company believes that the underwriters
may have an obligation to indemnify it for the legal fees and
other costs of defending the suit and that its directors' and
officers' liability insurance policies would also cover the
defense and potential exposure in the suit.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Faces Class Suits Over Rome Bank Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc., has been sued in relation to its
merger agreement with Rome Bancorp, Inc., according to the
Company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The parties entered into the Agreement on October 12, 2010, where
Rome Bancorp's subsidiary, The Rome Savings Bank, is expected to
merge with and into Berkshire Hills' subsidiary, Berkshire Bank.

Following the public announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, two class suits were filed, each against Rome Bancorp,
Berkshire Hills, and the directors of Rome Bancorp:

   1. On October 18, 2010, Stephen Bushansky filed a stockholder
      class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of
      New York, County of the Bronx.

   2. On October 27, 2010, James and Liliana DiCastro filed a
      stockholder class action lawsuit in the Chancery Court of
      the State of Delaware.

Each lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all of Rome
Bancorp's public stockholders and alleges that the directors of
Rome Bancorp breached their fiduciary duties to Rome Bancorp's
stockholders by failing to take steps necessary to obtain a fair
and adequate price for Rome Bancorp's common stock and that
Berkshire Hills Bancorp knowingly aided and abetted Rome Bancorp
directors' breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuits seek to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding
and seek unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages on
behalf of Rome Bancorp's stockholders.

Each lawsuit is in a preliminary stage.

Berkshire Hills believes that the lawsuits are meritless and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.


BIOTAB NUTRACEUTICALS: Watchdog Calls Settlement a "Rip-Off"
------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at PointofLaw.com by Ted Frank at
Center for Class Action Fairness, Mr. Frank called the Extenze
class action settlement "as much as a rip-off as the product
itself."  Consumers can get up to $7.50 per pack of pills with
proof of purchase, a fraction of the $50 cost of the product with
shipping and handling.  And Extenze is only funding the settlement
with $6 million in cash -- of which the lawyers and settlement
administrators look to be taking well over $2 million. (That last
fact is buried in the settlement Web site in the fine print of a
33-page PDF.  It's inexcusable that the court approved such a poor
and uninformative notice to the class.)  Claimants can choose to
instead ask (without proof of purchase) to receive packages of
"Extenze Racing Merchandise," i.e., clothing advertising the
company with the Extenze product logo.  And naturally there's a
cy pres component without any indication to the class who's going
to get their money.

Sadly, the lawyers are likely to get away with it; who's going to
admit to purchasing the product to object to the newest rip-off?

The Nov. 1 edition of the Class Action Reporter ran a story on the
Settlement.


CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Suit With Sun Pharma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. is defending itself from a
lawsuit alleging securities violations, according to its Nov. 8,
2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On July 17, 2009 and July 23, 2009, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan against the Company and certain of
its executive officers.  The lawsuits allege securities violations
related to the Company's public statements on FDA compliance
issues made between May 29, 2008, and June 25, 2009.

On November 9, 2009, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal was
entered by the Court dismissing one of the two cases, effectively
consolidating the cases.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a
consolidated and amended complaint, which also names Sun Pharma as
an additional defendant.

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was argued before
the Court on August 26, 2010.

On October 21, 2010, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss,
except as to one count against Sun Pharma.


CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend California Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CardioNet Inc. continues to face a securities litigation initiated
by the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund.

On March 5, 2010, the Pension Fund filed a putative class action
complaint in California Superior Court, San Diego County,
asserting claims for violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against CardioNet, nine
current and former officers and directors of CardioNet, and six
underwriters of CardioNet's IPO and/or Secondary Offering on
August 6, 2008.

The complaint filed March 5, 2010, also asserted claims for
alleged violations of Sections 25401 and 25501 of the California
Corporations Code against defendants James M. Sweeney and Fred
Middleton.

The plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CardioNet
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offerings.

On March 10, 2010, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that
deleted the claims for violations of the California Corporations
Code.  The claims are based on purported misrepresentations and
omissions in the Registration Statements for the Offerings
relating to alleged business decisions made by CardioNet that were
supposedly not disclosed to investors and alleged misstatements
concerning CardioNet's business.

On April 5, 2010, all defendants removed the case to the Southern
District of California, where it is pending.

On April 7, 2010, the defendants filed a Motion to Transfer the
case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 23, 2010,
the plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court.

On May 19, 2010, the court ordered that defendants' response to
the complaint will be due 21 days after the order on the Motion to
Remand.  On May 28, 2010, defendants filed their opposition to the
Motion to Remand, and plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion
to Transfer. On June 14, 2010, plaintiff filed its reply in
support of the Motion to Remand, and on June 18, 2010, defendants'
reply in support of the Motion to Transfer was filed.

On June 21, 2010, the court found the motions suitable for
disposition on the written motions submitted by the parties
without oral argument.

The Company believes that the claims under the lawsuit are without
merit.

The Company reported no further developments in the matter in its
November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


CARDIONET INC: Dismissal of Pennsylvania Securities Suit Now Final
------------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit commenced
against CardioNet Inc., in Pennsylvania has become final, the
Company related in its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On August 26, 2009, two putative class actions were filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania naming CardioNet, former chief executive officer
Randy Thurman, and former chief financial officer Martin P. Galvan
as defendants and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaints purport to bring claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 30,
2009 and June 30, 2009 and between April 30, 2009 and July 10,
2009.

The complaints allege that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
Company's projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.  The
complaints further allege that the alleged misstatements were
revealed to the public on June 30, 2009 and July 10, 2009 when the
Company made certain announcements regarding potential lower
pricing for commercial and Medicare reimbursement rates.

The actions were consolidated on September 9, 2009.

On October 26, 2009, two competing motions were filed for
appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the
requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.  On December 22, 2009, the Court appointed lead plaintiff,
but denied its request for appointment of lead counsel and
required lead plaintiff to file an amended motion for approval of
its selection of class counsel.

Lead plaintiff filed its amended motion for appointment of lead
counsel on January 15, 2010, which was granted on February 3,
2010.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
February 19, 2010 and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
March 26, 2010.  Lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion
to dismiss on April 30, 2010.

On May 13, 2010, defendants moved for leave to file a reply brief,
which motion was granted and the reply brief was filed May 20,
2010.

On August 10, 2010, the Court issued an opinion dismissing the
consolidated class action complaint.

The Plaintiffs have not appealed that decision which became final
on September 9, 2010.


CENTRO PROPERTIES: Slater & Gordon Files Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Wood, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports law
firm Slater & Gordon has filed a follow-up case in its long-
running shareholder class action against the failed Centro
property group.

The latest class action is limited to a subset of investors who
acquired Centro shares after PricewaterhouseCoopers, the company's
former auditor, began working for the property group in the latter
part of 2007.

The case filed Wednesday was made necessary by a decision handed
down last month by the Federal Court judge Donnell Ryan, who ruled
that every potential claimant in a class action must have a claim
against every defendant in the case.

Law firms Slater & Gordon and Maurice Blackburn are running
parallel class actions on behalf of Centro investors in the
Federal Court.  The cases are set for a trial before Justice John
Middleton, beginning on August 22.

Justice Ryan was following a decision of 10 years ago when the
Full Court was considering the position of plaintiffs in a class
action brought against the tobacco products manufacturer Philip
Morris.

Although other Federal Court judges have challenged whether the
all-on-all approach is correct, Justice Ryan's decision meant the
entire list of Slater & Gordon's clients who are suing the Centro
companies could not also sue PwC.  That is because some of the
Slater & Gordon clients bought their Centro shares before PwC
became involved with the company.

Slater & Gordon has also signaled to the court that it may seek
leave to amend its original statement of claim against the Centro
companies so that it covers a shorter period of alleged
wrongdoing.

The current case covers the period from April 5, 2007, to
February 28, 2008, but a future amendment is likely to bring the
starting date to mid-July 2007.

Slater & Gordon's class action is being funded by Comprehensive
Legal Funding; Maurice Blackburn's case is funded by IMF Ltd.


CINEMARK HOLDING: Sued for Not Providing Closed Captioned Movies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vic Lee, writing for abc7news.com, reports a class action lawsuit
filed against a well-known movie chain is aimed at helping the
deaf and hearing impaired.  They want the same right to enjoy
movies as those without hearing disabilities.

More than 200 million Americans went to the movies last year,
according to the Motion Picture Association.  Linda Drattell, one
of the plaintiffs, was not one of them -- she is deaf.

"I can't enjoy a movie," says Ms. Drattell. "My daughter who
sings, I can no longer hear her sing."

Ms. Drattell, 53, lost her hearing late in life.  Rick Rutherford,
another plaintiff, lost his hearing 11 years ago.

"I used to go to the movies on a weekly basis.  It was a wonderful
experience.  We would all decide 'Which one should we see this
week?'" says Mr. Rutherford.

The two are plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed against the
Cinemark movie theatre chain, which owns Century Theatres.  The
suit charges that Cinemark discriminates against the deaf and
those with hearing loss by not providing closed captioned movies.

Their attorney Kevin Knestrick says the suit comes on the heels of
a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

"The 9th Circuit essentially said that closed caption films are an
auxiliary aid that theatres need to provide," says Mr. Knestrick.

The suit targets Cinemarks' Theatres in Alameda County, where
Drattell and Rutherford live.

Lawyers who filed the suit say about 85% of first run movies are
captioned when they're delivered to theatres like this one.  All
the theatres have to do is install the equipment.

"The cost is around $10,000 for what's called rear window
captioning," says Mr. Knestrick.

The theatre mounts an LED screen in the back of the theatre that
displays the captioned dialogue which is on a CD.

The moviegoer is given a small plastic screen which reflects the
captions.  It is as simple as that.

"We are trying to enjoy ourselves just like any other American
would like to do," says Ms. Drattell.  "And what would you want to
happen to yourself if you should lose your hearing tomorrow?"

Cinemark's corporate office did not return ABC7's calls.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., is a co-defendant with Live
Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in December
2005) in 22 putative class actions filed beginning in May 2006 by
different named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout
the country.  These actions generally allege that the defendants
monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock
concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs
claim that they paid higher ticket prices for defendants' "rock
concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct. They seek damages in
an undetermined amount.

On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the
Central District of California. On March 2, 2007, plaintiffs
filed motions for class certification in five "template" cases
involving five regional markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York,
Chicago and Denver. Defendants opposed that motion and, on
October 22, 2007, the district court issued its decision
certifying the class for each regional market. On February 20,
2008, defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Class
Certification Order, which is still pending. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Approval of the Class Notice Plan on September 25,
2009, but the Court denied the Motion as premature and ordered
the entire case stayed until the 9th Circuit issues its en banc
opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007), a
case that may change the standard for granting class
certification in the 9th Circuit.

On April 26, 2010, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion adopting a
new class certification standard which will require district
courts to resolve Rule 23 factual disputes that overlap with the
merits of the case. In response, Defendants asked the court to
set a hearing date for argument on their Motion for
Reconsideration of the Class Certification Order.

In the Master Separation and Distribution Agreement between Clear
Channel and Live Nation that was entered into in connection with
Clear Channel's spin-off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live
Nation agreed, among other things, to assume responsibility for
legal actions existing at the time of, or initiated after, the
spin-off in which Clear Channel is a defendant if those actions
relate in any material respect to the business of Live Nation.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify
Clear Channel with respect to all liabilities assumed by Live
Nation, including those pertaining to the claims in the class
action.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 8, 2010
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.


CORVEL CORP: Settles Illinois Lawsuit for $2.8 Million
------------------------------------------------------
CorVel Corp. has entered into a settlement with plaintiffs of a
putative class-action lawsuit, according to its November 8, 2010
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a
putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial
District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the Company.  The
case sought unspecified damages based on the Company's alleged
failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members
of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the
Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review
medical providers' bills.

On October 29, 2010, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement providing for the payment of $2.1 million to class
members and up to an additional $700,000 for attorneys' fees and
expenses, as a result the Company accrued $2.8 million of
estimated liability for this settlement agreement.  The Company
denies that its conduct was improper in any way and has denied all
liability.  The settlement agreement must receive approval by the
Circuit Court before it becomes effective.


CROWN MEDIA: Continues to Defend S. Muoio Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Crown Media Holdings, Inc., continues to face a class action
lawsuit relating to the recapitalization transactions the Company
undertook, according to the Company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Among other things, the Recapitalization included (1) the exchange
of $1.162 billion of debt for new debt, preferred stock and common
stock; and (2) mergers of two intermediate holdings companies,
Hallmark Entertainment Investments Co. and Hallmark Entertainment
Holdings, Inc., with and into Crown Media.  The Company
consummated the Recapitalization transaction in June 2010.

On July 13, 2009, a lawsuit was brought in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against each member of the Board of Directors of the
Company, Hallmark Cards and its affiliates, as well as the Company
as a nominal defendant, by a minority stockholder of the Company
regarding the then proposed Recapitalization of the Company.  The
plaintiff is S. Muoio & Co. LLC, which owned beneficially
approximately 5.8% of the Company's Class A common stock at the
time of the complaint, according to the complaint and filings with
the SEC.

The lawsuit claims to be a derivative action and a class action on
behalf of the plaintiff and other minority stockholders of the
Company.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that, the defendants have
breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and minority
stockholders in connection with the Recapitalization transactions.
The lawsuit includes allegations that the consummation of the
Recapitalization transactions would result in an unfair amount of
equity issued to the majority stockholders, thereby reducing the
minority stockholders' equity and voting interests in the Company,
and that the majority stockholders would be able to eliminate the
minority stockholders through a short-form merger.

The complaint requested the court enjoin the defendants from
consummating the Recapitalization transactions and award plaintiff
fees and expenses incurred in bringing the lawsuit.

On July 22, 2009, a Stipulation Providing for Notice of
Transaction was filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The
Stipulation provided that the Company could not consummate the
transaction contemplated in the Recapitalization transactions
until not less than seven weeks after providing the plaintiff with
a notice of the terms of the proposed transaction, including
copies of the final transaction agreements.  If the plaintiff
moved for preliminary injunctive relief with respect to any such
transaction, the parties would establish a schedule with the Court
of Chancery to resolve such motion during the seven-week period.
In addition, following the decision of the Court of Chancery, the
Company would not consummate any transaction for a period of at
least one week, during which time any party may seek an expedited
appeal.  The Stipulation further provided that the plaintiff would
withdraw its motion for preliminary injunction filed on July 13,
2009 and that the action would be stayed until the earlier of
providing the notice of a transaction or an announcement by the
Company that it was no longer considering a transaction.

By a February 28, 2010 letter, the plaintiff in the lawsuit
informed the Special Committee of the Board of Directors, which
considered and negotiated the Recapitalization, that the plaintiff
objected to the proposed recapitalization on the terms set forth
in the term sheet dated February 9, 2010.

The plaintiff asserted, among other things, that the transactions
contemplated by the term sheet would unfairly dilute the economic
and voting interests of the Company's minority stockholders, that
the transactions should be subject to a vote of the majority of
the minority stockholders and that the proposed transactions
remain inadequate.  The plaintiff indicated that if the Company
executed definitive documents for the Recapitalization, the
plaintiff would pursue the litigation.  The February 26, 2010
agreements executed by the Company for the Recapitalization
materially followed the provisions in the earlier term sheet.

Notice of the terms of the proposed Recapitalization, including
copies of the executed definitive documents for the
Recapitalization, was provided to the plaintiff on March 1, 2010.

On March 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
raising similar allegations of breach of fiduciary duty against
Hallmark Cards and the director defendants and seeking rescission
of the Recapitalization rather than a preliminary injunction
enjoining the consummation of the Recapitalization, or
alternatively, an award of rescissory damages.

The Company notes in its SEC disclosure that if it is forced to
rescind the Recapitalization, short-term debt would increase to
approximately $1.2 billion, plus accrued interest.

A trial took place in September 2010 and the parties are currently
preparing post trial briefs to be submitted to the court.

A decision of the court is expected to be issued in the first
quarter of 2011.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Junks Speeding Drivers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in Washington, D.C., tossed a class action accusing the city
of doling out harsher penalties for speeding drivers stopped by
police than for speeders caught on traffic enforcement cameras.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the two groups "are not
similarly situated."

Lead plaintiffs Henry Dixon and Cuong Thanh Phung argued that when
police stop drivers for speeding more than 30 miles per hour over
the speed limit, the drivers face automatic arrest, criminal
prosecution, a $300 fine and prison time.  But when speeders' cars
are photographed by the District of Columbia's traffic enforcement
cameras, the maximum penalty is a fine.

Messrs. Dixon and Phung claimed this disparate treatment violated
the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But Judge Leon said the groups were not similarly situated, and
the plaintiffs' complaint "overlooks this fundamental difference."

He pointed out that police can't arrest someone without a warrant
unless the officer actually witnesses the offense or has probable
cause to believe a crime was committed.

"Like other drivers who are seen by an officer driving at speeds
more than 30 mph over the speed limit, plaintiffs can be arrested
within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, as the arresting
officer has probable cause to believe that the driver committed a
crime," Judge Leon wrote.

"By contrast, when a vehicle is photographed for traveling 30 mph
over the speed limit, there is no probable cause to believe that
the owner of that vehicle was driving and therefore committed a
crime, because there is no additional evidence that the owner was
in fact the driver."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Dixon, et al. v. District of
Columbia, Case No. 10-297 (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/i4EkW


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Gas Index Pricing Suits Still Pending in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Holdings Inc. continues to analyze litigation asserted
against it relating to gas index pricing and is vigorously
defending the remaining individual matters, the Company disclosed
in its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Dynegy, several of its affiliates, its former joint venture
affiliate and other energy companies were named as defendants in
numerous lawsuits in state and federal court claiming damages
resulting from alleged price manipulation and false reporting of
natural gas prices to various index publications in the 2000-2002
timeframe.  Many of the cases have been resolved and those which
remain are pending in Nevada federal district court.  Recent
developments include:

   * In February 2007, the Tennessee state court dismissed a class
     action on defendants' motion.  Plaintiffs appealed and, in
     October 2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal.
     Thereafter, defendants appealed to the Tennessee Supreme
     Court which, in April 2010, reversed the appellate court
     ruling and dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs'
     deadline to appeal to the United States Supreme Court has
     expired.

   * In February 2008, the United States District Court in Las
     Vegas, Nevada, granted defendants' motion for summary
     judgment in a Colorado class action and, ultimately,
     dismissed the case and all of plaintiffs' claims.  The
     decision is subject to appeal once the remaining defendants'
     claims are adjudicated.

   * The remaining five cases, three of which seek class
     certification, are also pending in Nevada federal court.  All
     of the cases contain similar claims that individually, and in
     conjunction with other energy companies, Dynegy engaged in an
     illegal scheme to inflate natural gas prices in four states
     by providing false information to natural gas index
     publications.  In November 2009, following defendants' motion
     for reconsideration, the court invited defendants to renew
     their motions for summary judgment on preemption of
     plaintiffs' state law claims, which were filed shortly
     thereafter.  Plaintiffs concurrently moved to amend their
     complaints to add federal claims.  In October 2010, the court
     denied plaintiffs' motion to amend.  Dynegy awaits an order
     on defendants' motions for summary judgement or further
     instruction from the court.  In the interim, discovery and
     plaintiffs' class certification motion are stayed.

In its SEC filing, the Company says that due to the uncertainty of
litigation, it cannot predict whether it will incur any liability
in connection with the lawsuits.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Faces Four Class Action Suits on GP Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is facing four class action
lawsuits as a result of its proposed merger with GP Holdings L.P.,
according to the Company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

GP Holdings L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware limited
partnership.

On September 3, 2010, Enterprise Products Partners and Holdings
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that would, if
approved by Holdings' unitholders, result in the merger of
Holdings with a wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products
Partners through a unit-for-unit exchange.

On September 9, 2010, Sanjay Israni, a purported unitholder of
Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Holdings, captioned Sanjay Israni v. EPE Holdings
LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products Company,
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S.
Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon M.
Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster.
The Israni Complaint alleges, among other things, that Enterprise
Products Partners along with the named directors and Enterprise
Products Company(EPCO) have breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed Holdings Merger and that Holdings
aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On September 24, 2010, Richard Fouke, a purported unitholder of
Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Holdings, captioned Richard Fouke v. EPE Holdings
LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products Company,
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products GP, LLC,
Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S. Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa
Duncan Williams, Thurmon M. Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E.
Smith and B.W. Waycaster.  The Fouke Complaint alleges, among
other things, that Enterprise Products Company, along with the
named directors, EPE Holdings, EPGP and EPCO breached the implied
contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection
with the proposed Holdings Merger and that Holdings and the other
defendants aided and abetted in the alleged breach.

Additionally, on September 28, 2010, Eugene Lonergan, Sr., a
purported unitholder of Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action
on behalf of the unitholders of Holdings, captioned Eugene
Lonergan, Sr. v. EPE Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.,
Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S. Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa
Duncan Williams, Thurmon M. Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E.
Smith and B.W. Waycaster.  The Lonergan Complaint alleges that the
named directors and EPE Holdings breached the implied contractual
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, including failing to make
adequate disclosures, in connection with the proposed Holdings
Merger.  On October 8, 2010, the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware held a hearing on a motion by the plaintiff to expedite
the proceedings.  On October 11, 2010, the motion was denied.

Finally, on October 11, 2010, John Psomas, a purported unitholder
of Enterprise Products Company common units, filed a complaint in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, as a putative
class action on behalf of Enterprise Products Company unitholders,
captioned John Psomas v. Enterprise Products Partners L.P.,
Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Michael A. Creel, W. Randall Fowler,
A. James Teague, Michael J. Knesek, E. William Barnett, Charles M.
Rampacek and Rex C. Ross.  The Psomas Complaint alleges that
Enterprise Products Company and its general partner breached their
partnership agreement by failing to submit the Holdings Merger
Agreement to a vote of their unitholders and that the named
directors breached their fiduciary duties of candor and full
disclosure.

Each of the Israni, Fouke, Lonergan and Psomas Complaints seeks to
enjoin the proposed merger transaction and, in the event the
merger is consummated,  the Psomas Complaint seeks a vote of our
unitholders to ratify approval of the Holdings Merger and damages
resulting from the named directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.

Enterprise Products Company says it intends to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits and any similar actions.


EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
an amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court of
the Eastern District of New York.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the U. S. Department of Justice issued a
subpoena ordering the company to produce certain information and
records relating to an investigation of alleged anti-competitive
behavior amongst air cargo freight forwarders.  The company has
retained the services of a law firm to assist in complying with
the DOJ's subpoena.  As part of this process, the company has met
with and continues to co-operate with the DOJ.  The company
expects to incur additional costs during the course of this
ongoing investigation, which could include fines and/or penalties
if the DOJ concludes that the company has engaged in anti-
competitive behavior and such fines and/or penalties could have a
material impact on the Company's financial position, results of
operations and operating cash flows.

On Jan. 3, 2008, the company was named as a defendant, with seven
other European and North American-based global logistics
providers, in a Federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York,
Precision Associates, Inc. et al v. Panalpina World Transport, No.
08-CV0042.  On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding a number of new third party defendants and
various claims which they assert to violate the Sherman Act.  The
plaintiffs' amended complaint, which purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of customers (and has not yet been certified),
asserts claims that the defendants engaged in price fixing
regarding eight discrete surcharges in violation of the Sherman
Act.

The allegations concerning the company relate to two of these
surcharges. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and
injunctive relief.  On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion on
January 30, 2010, to which the company filed a reply.  The motion
is currently pending before the Court, according to the company's
Nov. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


FIRST NIAGARA: Connecticut and Delaware Class Actions Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc., is a defendant to two
consolidated class action complaints filed in Connecticut and
Delaware, according to the Company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On August 19, 2010, the Company and NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.
jointly announced a definitive merger agreement under which
NewAlliance will merge into First Niagara.

In late August and September 2010, seven purported class actions
were filed in the State of Connecticut Superior Court, naming
NewAlliance, the Company, and NewAlliance's directors as
defendants:

   * Stanley Kops v. NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., et al.;

   * Cynthia Kops v. NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., et al.;

   * Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan v.
     Patterson, et al., Caldarella v. Patterson, et al.;

   * Rubin v. NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., et al.;

   * Levine and Nitkin v. Patterson, et al.; and

   * Port Authority of Alleghany County Retirement & Disability
     Allowance Plan for Employees Represented by Local 85 of the
     Amalgamated Transit Union v. NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., et
     al.

Certain of these actions also name FNFG Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company, and certain NewAlliance officers
as defendants.

On October 19 and 20, 2010, all seven actions were transferred to
the complex litigation docket in the Judicial District of Stamford
and consolidated into a single action, and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on October 22, 2010.  On November 2, 2010,
the City of New Haven filed a motion to intervene in the
consolidated Connecticut action.

In September 2010, three purported class actions were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming the same
defendants as the Connecticut actions:

   * Kahn v. Patterson, et al.;
   * Eilenberg v. NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., et al.; and
   * Erie County Employees' Retirement System v. Patterson, et al.

On September 28, 2010, these three actions were consolidated into
In re NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. Shareholders Litigation.

Each of the Connecticut and Delaware actions alleges, among other
things, that NewAlliance's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to NewAlliance stockholders by failing to maximize
stockholder value in approving the merger agreement with the
Company and by providing incomplete disclosures to stockholders in
advance of their upcoming vote whether to approve the merger.

Each action further alleges that NewAlliance and the Company aided
and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  These
actions seek to enjoin the proposed merger on the agreed upon
terms and also seek attorneys' and experts' fees.

The plaintiffs in both actions have indicated that they intend to
seek to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from taking any action
to consummate the merger and, on November 5, 2010, advised
NewAlliance that they have agreed to pursue the preliminary
injunction in the Connecticut proceeding alone.

A hearing on the preliminary injunction has not yet been
scheduled.


INTERNET CAPITAL: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Capital Group, Inc., continues to defend against class
action lawsuits asserting violations of the Securities Act,
according to Company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In May and June 2001, certain of the Company's present directors,
along with the Company, certain of its former directors, certain
of its present and former officers and its underwriters, were
named as defendants in nine class action complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The plaintiffs and the putative classes they seek to
represent include present and former stockholders of the Company.
The complaints generally allege violations of Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Exchange Act, based on, among other things,
the dissemination of statements allegedly containing material
misstatements or omissions concerning the commissions received by
the underwriters of the initial public offering and follow-on
public offering of the Company as well as failure to disclose the
existence of purported agreements by the underwriters with some of
the purchasers in these offerings to buy additional shares of the
Company's stock subsequently in the open market at pre-determined
prices above the initial offering prices.  The plaintiffs seek for
themselves and the alleged class members an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.  The claims in these cases have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes -- together with claims
against other issuers and underwriters -- before one judge in the
Southern District of New York federal court.

In April 2002, a consolidated, amended complaint was filed against
these defendants which generally alleges the same violations and
also refers to alleged misstatements or omissions that relate to
the recommendations regarding the Company's stock by analysts
employed by the underwriters.

In June and July 2002, defendants, including the Company
defendants, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints on
numerous grounds.  The Company's motion was denied in its entirety
in an opinion dated February 19, 2003.

In July 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors
approved a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter,
which was preliminarily approved by the District Court overseeing
the litigation in February 2005.  A final fairness hearing on the
settlement was held on April 24, 2006.

On December 5, 2006, however, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the certification of plaintiff classes in six actions
related to other issuers that had been designated as test cases
with respect to the non-settling defendants in those matters (the
Focus Cases) and made other rulings that drew into question the
legal viability of the claims in the Focus Cases.

The Court of Appeals later rejected the plaintiffs' request that
it reconsider that decision.

As a result, on June 25, 2007, the District Court approved a
stipulation and order terminating the proposed settlement.

While the Court of Appeals decision did not automatically apply to
the case against the Company, the defendants moved for, and the
Court granted, an order that would apply the decision to all
cases, including the consolidated action against the Company.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended "master"
complaint containing allegations purportedly common to all
defendants in all actions and filed amended complaints containing
specific allegations against the six issuer defendants in the
Focus Cases.  In addition, on September 27, 2007, the plaintiffs
again moved to certify classes in each of the Focus Cases.  The
defendants in the Focus Cases moved to dismiss the amended
complaints.  Rulings on both the motion to certify the Focus Cases
as class actions and to dismiss those cases remain outstanding.

The District Court has approved a stipulation extending the time
within which the plaintiffs must file amended pleadings containing
specific allegations against the other issuer defendants,
including the Company, and the time within which those defendants
must move, answer or otherwise respond to those specific
allegations.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a proposed global settlement of all claims asserted in
the coordinated class action securities litigation on behalf of
the class plaintiffs in the respective actions against the various
issuer and underwriter defendants, including all claims asserted
against the Company.  The motion further seeks certification of
settlement classes as to each action against the defendants,
including the Company.  The Company has assented to the proposed
settlement, which does not require any monetary contribution from
the Company and would be funded by various underwriter defendants
and the defendants' insurers.

On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement and of the form of notice of the
proposed settlement to be provided to members of the proposed
settlement class.  The District Court scheduled a hearing for
September 10, 2009, to determine whether to approve the proposed
settlement.

The final hearing was held on September 10, 2009.  On October 5,
2009, the District Court granted final approval of the proposed
global settlement, subject to the rights of the parties to appeal
the settlement within 30 days of the approval.  Pursuant to the
terms of the approved settlement, the Company is not required to
make any monetary contribution to fund the required settlement
payments, which are being funded by various underwriter defendants
and the defendants' insurers.

On October 23, 2009, three members of the settlement class who had
been shareholders of an issuer other than the Company filed a
petition seeking leave to appeal the District Court's final
approval to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis.  No judicial ruling or action has been taken
on the motion.

On November 6, 2009, three notices of appeal were filed with
respect to the District Court's order granting final approval of
the global settlement.

On December 14, 2009, the District Court entered a final judgment
approving and giving effect to the global settlement as it related
to the consolidated actions against the Company.  The final
judgment created a settlement class of plaintiffs comprised of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock and
call options of the Company during the period of August 4, 1999,
through December 6, 2000, provided for the distribution of
settlement proceeds to the members of the class and approval of
attorneys' fees to class counsel consistent with the terms of the
global settlement, barred prosecution of all settled claims by
members of the class and their representatives, released the
defendants and other protected persons from the claims and
dismissed all claims against the Company and other defendants in
the consolidated amended action with prejudice.

The appeals referenced in the November 6, 2009 notices of appeal
have been docketed in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

By order dated April 7, 2010, the District Court directed that the
appealing class members identify the specific class, by company,
to which they purport to belong.  The District Court's order
further directed the clerk of the court to enter the appealing
class members' notices of appeal only in those cases as to which
the appealing class members identify themselves as members of the
class certified.  No such notice of appeal has been entered in the
action against the Company.

Separately, on June 17, 2010, the District Court entered an order
requiring the appellants to post a bond in the amount of $25,000,
jointly and severally, as a condition of pursuing their appeals
from the October 5, 2009 order approving the global settlement.
The bond has been posted and a briefing schedule with respect to
the appeals has been set, with the objecting appellants' briefs
due no later than October 6, 2010, and answering briefs due no
later than February 3, 2011.

The distribution of settlement proceeds is currently being held in
abeyance.


KABA CORP: Sued for Selling Defective Push-Button Door Locks
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Kaba Corp.'s keyless push-button door locks can be broken
into with magnets, which makes the locks not so good.

A copy of the Complaint in Glucksman, et al. v. Kaba Ilco Corp.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (E.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/01/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Simcha D. Schonfeld, Esq.
          KOSS & SCHONFELD, LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3130
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 796-8916

               - and -

          Solomon N. Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON KLEIN
          1410 Broadway, Suite 1802
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 575-0202


KENEXA CORP: Motion to Reconsider Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Motion for reconsideration of a dismissal of a 2009 securities
class action commenced against Kenexa Corporation is pending, the
Company disclosed in its November 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On June 11, 2009 and July 16, 2009, two putative class actions
were filed against Kenexa Corporation and its chief executive
officer and chief financial officer in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on
behalf of a class of our investors who purchased our publicly
traded securities between May 8, 2007 and November 7, 2007.

The complaint filed on July 16, 2009 has since been voluntarily
dismissed.

On September 28, 2010, the court granted Kenexa's motion to
dismiss the complaint filed on June 11, 2009 in its entirety.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
decision on October 12, 2010.


LOOKSMART LTD: Settlement of Pay-Per-Click Lawsuit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Looksmart, Ltd., continues to settle a class action lawsuit
related to its Internet pay-per-click advertising, according to
the Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On March 14, 2005, the Company was served with a second amended
complaint in a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Miller
County, Arkansas.  The complaint names 11 search engines and web
publishers as defendants, including the Company, and alleges
breach of contract, restitution/unjust enrichment/money had and
received, and civil conspiracy claims in connection with contracts
allegedly entered into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click
advertising.  The named plaintiffs on the second amended complaint
are Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., U.S. Citizens for Fair
Credit Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max
Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations.

On March 30, 2005, the case was removed to United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

On April 4, 2005, plaintiffs U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card
Terms, Inc. and Savings 4 Merchants, Inc. filed a motion of
voluntary dismissal without prejudice.  The motion was granted on
April 7, 2005.  Plaintiffs Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C.
and Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations filed a motion to
remand the case to state court on April 13, 2005, which was
granted in September 2005.

In July 2005, defendants, including the Company, petitioned the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for an appeal of the remand order,
and moved to stay the proceedings while the appeal was pending.
The petition was denied on September 8, 2005, and the case was
remanded to the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas.  The
Company was served with discovery requests on October 7, 2005.

The Company has filed or joined motions to dismiss on the basis of
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, lack of
personal jurisdiction, and improper venue.

Pursuant to the court's initial scheduling order, plaintiffs had
until January 27, 2006, to respond to the motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; and until
September 9, 2006, to respond to the motion to dismiss on the
basis of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  However the court entered an order staying all
proceedings for a period of 60 days on January 9, 2006.

On April 20, 2006, the Court preliminarily approved a class
settlement among plaintiffs, defendant Google, Inc., and certain
defendants who display Google advertisements on their networks.
The Google Settlement purports to release Google of all claims and
also purports to release certain defendants, including the
Company, for any claims associated with the display of Google
advertisements on their networks.  On July 24 and 25, 2006, the
Court had a final settlement hearing on the Google Settlement, and
on July 26, 2006, the Court approved the settlement.

On April 21, 2006, the Court ordered the remaining defendants,
including the Company, to mediation and further stayed the
proceedings to September 21, 2006.  The Court further extended the
stay as to LookSmart until August 16, 2006.  The parties
thereafter stipulated that the stay would remain in effect while
the parties continue to comply with the Court's order regarding
mediation.

On January 10, 2007, the Court further extended the stay until
May 1, 2007.

On November 20, 2007, the Plaintiffs and the Company entered into
a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement to settle the matter in its
entirety.

On November 29, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement and on February 29, 2008, the court entered
an order to approve as final the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed to
establish a Settlement Fund in the amount of up to approximately
$2.5 million to be allocated as:

   (a) the Class Member Fund, which should not exceed
       approximately $2.0 million in advertising credits,

   (b) the Fees Award to Class Counsel, which will not exceed the
       amount of approximately $0.6 million; and

   (c) the Incentive Award to the three Class Representatives,
       which will not exceed a collective immaterial amount.

In the event that the total of the credit claims paid is less than
approximately $0.8 million, the difference between the total
amount of the credit claims paid and approximately $0.8 million
will be paid to charities in the form of advertising credits.

Should the total of the credit claims paid to the Settlement Class
Members as a group plus any amounts allocated to charities be more
than approximately $0.8 million but less than approximately $2.5
million, then the amount if any will be retained by the Company.

Settlement payments from the Class Member Fund will be paid out in
advertising credits to members of the Class who file timely claims
to participate in the settlement.

On December 28, 2007, the Company provided the notices to class
members required by the Settlement Agreement who had until
February 11, 2008, to file claims.

Upon the completion of the thirty day appeals period, which ended
on March 30, 2008, the Company on April 7, 2008, paid
approximately $0.6 million of legal fees to the plaintiff's
counsel representing the Fees Award to Class Counsel and the
Incentive Award as is stipulated in the Settlement Agreement.

On April 29, 2008, the Company began to issue advertising credits
to the Class Members who filed timely claims.  The deadline for
submitting redemption credits expired on April 29, 2009.

No charitable organization has submitted a claim for advertising
credits to date.  The Company recorded an estimate in accrued
liabilities of the amount of the loss on settlement which
management determined was probable and estimable during the year
ended December 31, 2007.  This estimate may change as a result of
the cost of the final settlement arrangement.  In addition, during
2007, the Company recovered settlement proceeds from the insurance
carrier, which exceeded the recorded estimate of the amount of
loss on settlement.

As of September 30, 2010, the Company has provided approximately
$0.1 million of advertising credits to Class Members.


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Recalls 6MM Roman Shades & 5MM Roll-Up Blinds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., of Wilkesboro, N. C. and Lowe's HIW,
Inc., of Tukwila, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 6
million Roman shades and about 5 million roll-up blinds.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Roman Shades: Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her
neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside
of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it
around his/her neck.

Roll-Up Blinds: Strangulations can occur if the lifting loop
slides off the side of the blind and a child's neck becomes
entangled on the free-standing loop or if a child places his/her
neck between the lifting loop and the roll-up blind material.

CPSC is aware of two incidents of children that became entangled
in the exposed cord found on the backside of Roman shades while
looking out of windows.  In November 2009, a 2-year-old boy from
Arvada, Colorado was found with the inner cord wrapped around his
arm and neck.  In July 2010, a 4-year-old boy from Lexington,
South Carolina suffered a rope burn to his neck after becoming
entangled in the cord of a Roman shade.  No incidents have been
reported related to roll-up blinds.

This recall involves all styles and sizes of Roman shades and
roll-up blinds sold by Lowe's.  Roman shades with repair kits and
roll-up blinds with release clips right below the head rail on the
backside of the blind are not included in this recall.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11054.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China, United States,
Mexico, and Taiwan and sold through Lowe's stores, other retail
stores and at http://www.lowes.com/since at least 1999 through
June 2010 (Roman shades) and between at least 1999 and January
2005 (roll-up blinds) for between $10 and $1,800.

Consumers should stop using the recalled Roman shades and roll-up
blinds immediately and contact the Window Covering Safety Council
(WCSC) for free repair kits at (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit
http://www.windowcoverings.org/

For additional information, contact Lowe's at (800) 445-6937
anytime or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.lowes.com/


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Conditional Certification Motion Due Jan. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2009, a lawsuit against NPC International, Inc.,
entitled Jeffrey Wass, et al. v. NPC International, Inc., Case No.
2:09-CV-2254-JWL-KGS, was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas. A First Amended Complaint,
entitled Jeffrey Wass and Mark Smith, et al. v. NPC International,
Inc., was filed on July 2, 2009. The Complaint was brought by
Plaintiffs Wass and Smith individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees who work or previously worked as delivery
drivers for NPC. The First Amended Complaint alleged a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover unpaid
wages and excessive deductions owed to plaintiffs and similarly
situated workers employed by NPC in 28 states, and as a class
action under Colorado law on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and all
other similarly situated workers employed by NPC in Colorado to
recover unpaid minimum wages and excess payroll deductions and
certain costs relating to uniforms and special apparel. The First
Amended Complaint alleged among other things that NPC deprived
plaintiffs and other NPC delivery drivers of minimum wages by
providing insufficient reimbursements for automobile and other
job-related expenses incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's
pizza and other food items.

On March 2, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting NPC's
motions for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims brought by
plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint, with the exception of
a claim for the reimbursement of uniform costs under Colorado
law.  The Order provided that the claims failed to state a claim
under the FLSA and Colorado law and, therefore, would be
dismissed with prejudice unless plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint that cured the deficiencies in the First Amended
Complaint.  The Order also operated to moot plaintiffs' then-
pending motion for conditional collective action certification.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 22, 2010,
which alleges a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of
plaintiffs and similarly situated workers employed by NPC in 28
states, and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and similarly
situated workers employed in states in which the state minimum
wage is higher than the federal minimum wage. The Second Amended
Complaint contends that NPC deprived delivery drivers of minimum
wages by providing insufficient reimbursements for automobile
expenses incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's pizza and
other food items. NPC filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on April 8, 2010.

On June 24, 2010, the Court granted NPC's motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint as to all claims filed by Plaintiff Wass,
all Plaintiffs who had opted in to the class and all putative
class members.  The only claims not dismissed were the individual
claims of one remaining class representative, Mark Smith.  The
Court's Order did not grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the Second
Amended Complaint, but Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
amend. NPC filed an opposition to the motion on July 27, 2010.

On September 1, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file
their Third Amended Complaint, which was filed on September 3,
2010, again asserting claims by Wass and all class members.  NPC
filed a motion for summary judgment as to named plaintiff Wass'
claims on September 17, 2010. Wass filed his opposition on
October 8, 2010. NPC replied on October 22, 2010.

Because the motion is pending before the Court, NPC is not able to
predict the outcome of this suit or possible loss ranges, nor, its
effect on NPC's operations or financial condition.

On September 30, 2010, the Court entered a routine scheduling
order, setting January 21, 2011 as the deadline for plaintiffs to
file a motion for conditional certification of a collective action
under FLSA.  It also set deadlines for class discovery, but did
not at that time set deadlines for Rule 23 certification, final
discovery, dispositive motions, decertification, or trial,
according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2010.


PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Court Sets April 2012 Trial for Gobel Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David W. Gobel, individually and allegedly as representative of
all royalty owners in Petroleum Development Corporation's West
Virginia oil and gas wells, filed a lawsuit against the Company
alleging that the Company failed to properly pay royalties.  The
allegations state that the Company improperly deducted certain
charges and costs before applying the royalty percentage.
Punitive damages are requested in addition to breach of contract,
tort and fraud allegations.

On August 31, 2010, the federal judge issued an order remanding
the case to state court.

On October 27, 2010, the state court set a trial date of April
2012. The Company and the plaintiff have been engaged in
settlement discussions.

During the three months ended 2010, the Company recorded a charge
to natural gas and oil sales in the statement of operations of
$3.3 million.

As of September 30, 2010, the Company has a total accrual of $6.2
million related to the suit, according to its Nov. 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Proposed Acquisition of Stock
------------------------------------------------------------
Playboy Enterprises, Inc., faces 11 class action lawsuits as a
result of a proposed acquisition of shares of Playboy common
stock, according to the Company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The complaints have been filed against Playboy and certain of its
officers and directors in connection with Hugh M. Hefner's July 8,
2010 proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Class A
common stock and Class B common stock not currently owned by Mr.
Hefner for $5.50 per share in cash.

In each complaint, the plaintiffs challenge Mr. Hefner's proposal
and allege, among other things, that the consideration to be paid
in the proposal is unfair and grossly inadequate.

The complaints seek, among other relief, to enjoin defendants from
consummating Mr. Hefner's proposal and to direct defendants to
exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in
the best interests of the Company's shareholders.

Seven of these complaints were filed in the Chancery Division of
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and the remaining four
complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery in Delaware.

On October 6, 2010, all of the Illinois cases were dismissed with
prejudice.

The Company has reviewed the allegations contained in the various
complaints and believe they are without merit.  The Company says
it intends to defend the litigation vigorously.


POCONO MOUNTAIN: Judge Dismisses Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has dismissed a discrimination lawsuit against the
Pocono Mountain School District in Pennsylvania brought by the
Pocono Mountain Charter School.

The charter school and its families filed a class action
discrimination suit in June, claiming preferential treatment for
Evergreen Community School because its students are "predominantly
white," according to the suit.

The charter school's students are about 90 percent minority,
school officials said.

Judge A. Richard Caputo handed down the dismissal on Nov. 23.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Statewide Class Actions Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Several statewide class actions filed against Priceline.com
Incorporated remain pending, according to the Company's Nov. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective
state against the Company and other defendants, including, but not
in all cases, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which
are the Company's subsidiaries, and Hotels.com, L.P.; Hotels.com
GP, LLC; Hotwire, Inc.; Cheaptickets, Inc.; Travelport, Inc.
(f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.); Expedia,
Inc.; Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
Maupintour Holding LLC; Orbitz, Inc.; Orbitz, LLC; Site59.com,
LLC; Travelocity.com, Inc.; Travelocity.com LP; and Travelnow.com,
Inc.

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 ordinance.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.

The actions include:

   * City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.
   * City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and Marshall
      County, Indiana v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.
   * City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * The City of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, et al. v.
      priceline.com Incorporated, et al.
   * The Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey v. priceline.com
      Incorporated, et al.
   * County of Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com, Inc. et al.
   * County of Genesee, Michigan, et al. v. Hotels.com L.P. et al.
   * Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson
      County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.
   * County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

These developments regarding the legal proceedings occurred during
or after the three months ended September 30, 2010:

   (a) City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.:

       The parties were unable to resolve the case in mediation.
       The Company expects plaintiffs to seek class certification
       and move forward with the litigation.

   (b) City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.:

       On March 1, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
       partial summary judgment.  Plaintiffs moved for
       reconsideration on March 9, 2010, and that motion was
       denied on October 7, 2010.

   (c) The City of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, et al. v.
       priceline.com Incorporated, et al.:

       The court granted plaintiff's motion for class
       certification on April 20, 2010.  Notice of the pendency of
       the class action was sent to class members in June 2010.
       The opt out period expired July 23, 2010, and the only city
       to opt out of the class was South Fulton.  The parties are
       currently conducting discovery.

   (d) County of Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com, Inc. et al.:

       The court granted class certification on March 15, 2010.
       The opt-out period expired on May 24, 2010.  As of the opt-
       out date, these counties opted-out of the Monroe class
       action:  Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte,
       Escambia, Flagler, Gulf, Hillsborough, Lee, Leon, Manatee,
       Marion, Nassau, Okaloosa, Orange, Palm Beach, Pasco,
       Pinellas, Polk, St. Johns, Seminole, Volusia, Wakulla and
       Walton.

       The parties to the lawsuit signed a settlement agreement
       resolving the claims asserted by the remaining class
       members in the action.  As part of the agreement, the
       remaining class members have agreed to not assert claims
       based on the tourist development tax ordinances at issue in
       the action for a period of three years.  On September 3,
       2010, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
       the class settlement agreement and establishing deadlines
       for, among other things, class members to object to the
       terms of the settlement or request exclusion from the
       class.  One additional county, Gilchrist, opted out of the
       class because it had no alleged tax amounts at issue.  A
       fairness hearing is currently scheduled for January 6,
       2011.

   (e) County of Genesee, Michigan, et al. v. Hotels.com L.P. et
       al.:

       Defendants filed a notice of plaintiffs' failure to timely
       file a motion for class certification on May 14, 2010.
       Plaintiffs have elected not to pursue class certification.
       On September 10, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
       partial summary disposition.  The parties are currently
       conducting discovery.

   (f) Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson
       County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.:

       Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
       failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  The court held
       a hearing on the motion to dismiss on August 27, 2010.  The
       parties are awaiting a decision on the motion.

   (g) County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
       al.:

       Defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint on
       March 9, 2010.  The plaintiff then filed an amended
       complaint on March 26, 2010, and Defendants moved to
       dismiss on April 15, 2010.  After full briefing and oral
       argument, on October 25, 2010, the Court dismissed the
       action on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust
       administrative remedies.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in all of these proceedings.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Consumer Class Actions Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class actions brought by consumers against
Priceline.com Incorporated were pending during the three months
ended September 30, 2010, according to the Company's November 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

These developments regarding the legal proceedings occurred during
or after the three months ended September 30, 2010:

   (a) Marshall, et al. v. priceline.com, Inc.:

       The court granted the Company's motion for summary
       judgment, and denied plaintiff's competing motion for
       summary judgment, on March 8, 2010.  On October 14, 2010,
       the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the
       lower court on the basis of and for the reasons set forth
       in the March 8, 2010 decision.

   (b) Chiste, et al. v. priceline.com Inc., et al.:

       The parties appeared for a status conference on October 26,
       2010.  At the conference, the Court indicated that a
       decision on the pending motion to dismiss would be issued
       shortly.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in all of the proceedings.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal of Securities Suits Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order approving the settlement of two purported
class actions brought by consumers against Priceline.com
Incorporated remains pending, according to the Company's Nov. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On March 16, March 26, April 27, and June 5, 2001, four putative
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York naming Priceline.com, Inc.,
Richard S. Braddock, Jay Walker, Paul Francis, Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
as defendants (01 Civ. 2261, 01 Civ. 2576, 01 Civ. 3590 and 01
Civ. 4956).

Shives et al. v. Bank of America Securities LLC et al., 01 Civ.
4956, also names other defendants and states claims unrelated to
the Company.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and
the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling priceline.com common stock in its March 1999
initial public offering without disclosing to investors that some
of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead
underwriters, had allegedly solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

After extensive negotiations, the parties reached a comprehensive
settlement on March 30, 2009.  On April 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement.  On
June 9, 2009, the court granted the motion and scheduled the
hearing for final approval for September 10, 2009.  The
settlement, previously approved by a special committee of the
Company's Board of Directors, compromised the claims against the
Company for approximately $0.3 million.  The court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement on October 5, 2009.

Notices of appeal of the Court's order have been filed with the
Second Circuit.  All but one of the appeals has been resolved.
The remaining appeal is still pending.


RAZA COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Deceptive Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Richardson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. Raza Communication Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-50578 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 29, 2010), brings claims against the
privately owned company over its deceptive trade practices in the
sale, distribution, and marketing of prepaid calling cards,
particularly, the "A+ Illinois" card "Tarjeta Prepagada," in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

Raza markets and sells prepaid phone cards through retail outlets
and wholesale distributors across North America, primarily at
convenience stores, gas stations, and other retail locations often
in low income and immigrant communities.

Ms. Richardson says consumers actually receive only a fraction of
the calling time that they purchased.  Furthermore, as explained
by Ms. Richardson, Raza makes uniform and systematic material
omissions in its prepaid calling card disclosures so that
consumers find it impossible to determine the amount of actual
talk time provided by the prepaid phone card.  Raza, Ms.
Richardson adds, fails to include the value of the card in minutes
or the domestic rate per minute on its calling cards.  Without
this disclosure, consumers cannot reasonably determine the amount
of calling time that they will actually receive when they purchase
a calling card.  This is "especially true given the slue of
complicated conditions, fees and charges written in the extremely
fine text on the back of the cards or in a perforated attachment
to the card," the Complaint alleges.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Lezell, Esq.
          Irina Slavina, Esq.
          EDELSON McGuire, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: slezell@edelson.com
                  islavina@edelson.com


SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. 10 Deadline Set for Dismissal Plea
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has consolidated two class actions filed
against Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and set deadlines,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In August 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
certain of its officers as defendants.

In September 2010, a second purported securities class action
lawsuit was filed in the same court.  The lawsuits allege
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in
connection with allegedly false, misleading and incomplete
statements issued by the defendants related to potential
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Company's
reported revenues, income and sales growth, and marketing and
sales activities.

Plaintiffs seek damages, an award of their costs and attorney's
fees, and injunctive and/or equitable relief on behalf of a
purported class of stockholders who purchased the Company's common
stock during the period between May 11, 2009 and August 10, 2010.

On October 27, 2010, the securities class action lawsuits were
consolidated under the caption In re SciClone Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 10-03584-JW, and the court
appointed lead plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs must file an amended
consolidated complaint on or before November 29, 2010.  The
Company's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, if
made, must be filed by January 10, 2011.  A hearing on our motion
to dismiss has been scheduled for March 21, 2011.


SKECHERS USA: Tamara Grabowski Case Still Pending in Calif. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 18, 2010, Tamara Grabowski filed an action against
Skechers USA, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, Case No. 10 CV 1300 JM (WVG), on
her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
alleging that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups violates
California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and constitutes a breach of express warranty.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, damages,
restitution and disgorgement of profits, declaratory and
injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The matter is still in the early stages.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses, vehemently
denies the allegations, believes that class certification is not
warranted, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

No further updates are reported in the Company's November 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.


SKECHERS USA: Sonia Stalker Case Still Pending in Calif. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit filed by
Sonia Stalker against the Company in California, according to the
Company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On July 2, 2010, Ms. Stalker filed an action against the Company
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, alleging that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups
violates California's Unfair Competition Law and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, seeks certification of a
nationwide class, actual and punitive damages, restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 23, 2010, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, and
it is now pending as Sonia Stalker v. Skechers USA, Inc., CV 10-
5460 SJO (JEM).

On August 23, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
action or transfer it to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, in view of a prior pending action
filed by Tamara Grabowski.

On August 27, 2010, plaintiff moved to certify the class, which
motion the Company has opposed.

The matter is still in its early stages.  The Company believes it
has meritorious defenses, vehemently denies the allegations,
believes that class certification is not warranted, and intends to
defend the case vigorously.


SKECHERS USA: Venus Morga Case Still Pending in Calif. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit filed by
Venus Morga against the Company in California, according to the
Company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On August 25, 2010, Ms. Morga filed an action against the Company
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, Case No. 10 CV 1780 JM (WVG), on her behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that the
Company's advertising for Shape-ups violates California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and gives rise to a claim
for unjust enrichment.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class,
restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 10, 2010, a motion was filed to consolidate the
action with a prior pending action captioned Tamara Grabowski v.
Skechers USA, Inc.

The matter is still in the early stages.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses, vehemently
denies the allegations, believes that class certification is not
warranted, and intends to defend the case vigorously.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Sued Over Private Mortgage Insurance Kickbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that SunTrust Banks
and subsidiaries steer homebuyers to mortgage insurance companies
and take kickbacks from the insurers for it, a class action claims
in Federal Court.  The class claims the deals reap "millions of
dollars in referral fees" for the bank, and "over time
artificially inflate the cost of mortgage insurance."

The named plaintiffs, Archie and Violet Moses, say the scheme
involves the bank and its subsidiaries referring borrowers to
private mortgage insurance companies, in exchange for a portion of
the borrowers' monthly premium payments.

SunTrust carries out the scheme "under the guise of so-called
'captive reinsurance,'" and never tells its customers that it is
collecting "millions of dollars through its captive reinsurance
arrangements, far in excess of the value of any services rendered
as valued at the time of the transaction," according to the
complaint.

"The terms and conditions of the private mortgage insurance,
including the cost of the policy, are determined by the lender and
the private mortgage insurance provider," the class claims.

"Borrowers are not given an opportunity to negotiate with the
private mortgage insurance insurer about the cost or to comparison
shop for the best private mortgage insurance price."

The complaint claims that "the borrower typically is not even
informed of the identity of the company providing the private
mortgage insurance."

Named as defendants are SunTrust Banks Inc., SunTrust Bank,
SunTrust Mortgage Inc., Twin Rivers Insurance Company, Twin Rivers
II Inc., United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co., Genworth
Financial Inc. and its mortgage insurance subsidiaries, Mortgage
Guaranty Insurance Corp., PMI Mortgage Insurance Company, PMI
Mortgage Assurance Company, The PMI Group Inc., Republic Mortgage
Insurance Company, and Radian Guaranty Inc.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for violations
of the kickbacks and referral fees provisions of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, violations of the Truth in Lending Act,
the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, and for fraud and
conspiracy.

A copy of the Complaint in Moses, et ux. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-02029 (D.D.C.) (Friedman, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/01/SunTrust.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
          Janell M. Byrd, Esq.
          Janelle M. Carter, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com
                  jbyrd@findjustice.com
                  jcarter@findjustice.com


SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals on Consolidated Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Notices of appeal regarding the approval of SWK Holdings
Corporation's settlement of a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit are pending with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, according to the Company's November 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In July 2001, the Company, its underwriters, and certain officers
and directors were named as defendants in a securities class
action lawsuit.  This case is one of several hundred similar cases
that have been consolidated into a single action.  The complaint
alleges misstatements and omissions concerning underwriters'
compensation in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.

In February 2003, the Court denied a motion to dismiss that would
have disposed of the claims against the Company.  A settlement
proposal, which did not admit wrongdoing, had been approved by the
Company's Board of Directors and preliminarily approved by the
Court.  While the parties' request for court approval of the
settlement was pending, in December 2006 the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's finding that six focus cases could
be certified as class actions.

In April 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that the District Court
might certify a more limited class.  At a June 26, 2007 status
conference, the Court terminated the proposed settlement as
stipulated among the parties.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 14, 2007.

On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the six focus cases, which was withdrawn on
October 10, 2008.  On November 13, 2007, defendants in the six
focus cases filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, which the Court denied in March 2008.

Plaintiffs, the issuer defendants, including the Company, the
underwriter defendants, and the insurance carriers for the
defendants, engaged in mediation and settlement negotiations.
They reached a settlement agreement, which was submitted to the
District Court for preliminary approval on April 2, 2009.  As part
of this settlement, the Company's insurance carrier agreed to
assume the Company's entire payment obligation under the terms of
the settlement.

On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement agreement.  After a September 10, 2009
hearing, the District Court gave final approval to the settlement
on October 5, 2009.  Several objectors have filed notices of
appeal with the United States Court of Appeal for the Second
Circuit from the District Court's order granting final approval of
the settlement.

Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, there can be no guarantee that it will not
be reversed on appeal.  The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims. If the settlement is not
implemented and the litigation continues against the Company, the
Company would continue to defend against this action vigorously.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
regulatory SEC disclosure.


TECO PEOPLES GAS: Seven More Restaurants Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Marco Eagle reports a class-action lawsuit against TECO Peoples
Gas and Posen Construction grew Wednesday from one plaintiff, a
North Naples pizzeria, to include seven more restaurants in Naples
and Lee counties.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Lee Circuit Court last week, had
listed one plaintiff, Lucarelli's Pizza & Deli, which sued on
behalf of Collier and Lee county businesses that lost money due to
a Nov. 11 gas line explosion during the widening of Colonial
Parkway in Fort Myers.

But on Wednesday, Naples attorneys Michael R.N. McDonnell and Gary
L. Green filed an amended complaint on behalf of five corporations
that represent seven restaurants.

The amended complaint adds Gulf Coast Commercial Corp, which owns
The Inn on Fifth, McCabe's Irish Pub and The Spa on Fifth; BAIG-
NAP LLC, BAIG-BON LLC and BAIG-FM LLC, the owners of three Big
Al's City Grills in Lee and Collier Counties; and TAS Sunshine
Enterprises LLC, which does business as Jaegerhaus restaurant in
Naples.

The lawsuit seeks damages from TECO and Posen on behalf of all
commercial gas customers in Lee and Collier counties whose
businesses lost service following a gas pipe explosion on Nov. 11,
when 2010.

That's when Mario Santos, 26, of Bonita Springs, a Posen employee,
was operating a bulldozer that hit the 8-inch natural gas line,
causing a major break in the Southwest Florida system.  About
6,000 residential and 1,200 commercial customers in Lee and
Collier counties lost gas service and were forced to shut down or
operate with limited services.

Mr. Santos remains in critical but stable condition in the
intensive care unit at Tampa General Hospital's Regional Burn
Center.

If a circuit judge certifies the lawsuit as a class-action claim,
all other Lee and Collier businesses whose gas service was
interrupted will receive formal notification that they can be
included in the class.  That would enable them to participate as
plaintiffs to recover their economic losses.

The lawsuit alleges TECO and Peoples Gas System negligently failed
to adequately mark and protect the gas line during the
construction project and that Posen was negligent because it was
warned not to dig until the lines were remarked.

Most businesses had no gas for about three days.

The damages sought by the plaintiffs include lost revenues due to
being unable to use gas appliances for food preparation and other
services, the elimination or significant reduction of customers
while gas was not available and the expenditure of unnecessary
business expenses to compensate for the loss of gas.

Peoples Gas President Gordon Gillette has said they're
investigating and it was unclear whether TECO will pay any claims.
If the accident is determined to be out of its control, he said,
it won't be responsible for paying customer losses.


THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuits in Missouri Over IPC Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thermadyne Holdings Corporation is facing two lawsuits in Missouri
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, according to the Company's
November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 28, 2010, Connie Shivers, a purported stockholder of
Thermadyne Holdings Corporation, filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri against
the Company, the Company's directors, and Irving Place Capital
regarding the proposed acquisition of the Company by an affiliate
of Irving Place Capital.  The action is entitled Shivers v.
Thermadyne Holdings Corp., et al., 10SL-CC04383, and is identical
to an action that was filed in the same court on October 19, 2010,
entitled Israeli v. Thermadyne Holdings Corp., et al., 10SL-
CC04238.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders, including their duties of loyalty, good faith, and
independence, by entering into a merger agreement which provides
for inadequate consideration to stockholders of the Company, and
the Company and Irving Place Capital aided and abetted the
directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing the defendants
from consummating the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement, or in the event the defendants consummate the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of
such transactions, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company and the other defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Lexus RX Vehicles' Defective Headlights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that headlights in 2004-09 Lexus RXs let water and condensation
enter and damage the lights' interior components.

A copy of the Complaint in Jackson v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-09183 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/01/ToyotaCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23277 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040

               - and -

          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-1040
          E-mail: pshahian@splattorney.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Estrella, Esq.
          David M. Medby, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: mestrella@initiativelegal.com
                  dmedby@initiativelegal.com


U.S. CONCRETE: Pays $1.6 Million Settlement of Four Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Concrete, Inc., paid $1.6 million in September in resolution
of four pending class actions, according to the Company's Nov. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In May 2010, U.S. Concrete entered into a settlement agreement for
approximately $1.6 million related to four consolidated class
actions then pending in Alameda Superior Court (California).  This
settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court as part of the
Company's Plan, which was confirmed on July 29, 2010.

The original class actions were filed between April 6, 2007, and
September 27, 2007, on behalf of various Central Concrete Supply
Co., Inc., ready-mixed concrete and transport drivers, alleging
primarily that Central, which is one of the Company's
subsidiaries, failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required
under California law.

The Company previously entered into settlements with one of the
classes and a number of individual drivers.  The approximate $1.6
million settlement was paid in September 2010.


UNITED STATES: House Approves Pigford Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Pergram, writing for FoxNews.com, reports The House of
Representatives approved a decades-old settlement worth $4.6
billion Tuesday that resolves two class-action suits filed against
the federal government by black farmers and Native Americans.

The thousands who joined the suit argued that the government
discriminated against them as they applied for loans for
agricultural ventures.

The House approved the package 256-to-152.

Black farmers would receive $1.2 billion, after they alleged they
were cheated out of loans from the Agriculture Department.  The
government will direct $3.4 billion to American Indians who say
the Interior Department swindled them out of royalties from
natural resources like gas and timber.  The Senate has already
approved the package, but some lawmakers objected.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., opposed the settlement. She says
that many of the programs designed to accommodate black farmers
are easy targets for fraud.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, tried to delete money from the program
with an amendment but was blocked by the House Rules Committee.

"By cutting off consideration of my amendment, and by refusing to
investigate serious allegations of Pigford fraud prior to voting
on legislation allocating an additional $1.15 billion to the
program, the lame duck Congress is, in effect, enabling Pigford
fraud and this calls for an investigation by the 112th Congress,"
King said in a statement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised the settlement's passage as did
several administration officials.

"President Obama and I made a firm commitment not only to treat
all farmers fairly and equally, but to right the wrongs in USDA's
past," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.  "I applaud those
who took this historic step to ensure black farmers who faced
discrimination by their government finally receive justice."

The legislation is often referred to as "Pigford."  Timothy
Pigford, a black farmer from North Carolina, brought the original
claim.

For the black farmers, it is the second round of funding from a
class-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999 over allegations
of widespread discrimination by local USDA offices.

The government already has paid out more than $1 billion to about
16,000 farmers, with most getting payments of about $50,000. The
new money is intended for people who were denied earlier payments
because they missed deadlines for filing.  Tens of thousands of
new claims are expected, and the amount of money each would get
depends on how many are successful.

The costs of the bill would be offset by diverting dollars from a
surplus in nutrition programs for women and children, extending
customs user fees and new efforts for the Treasury to recoup
excess unemployment insurance payments.

Would-be farmer Carl Eggleston said he has been waiting for the
bill to pass for years so he can refile his claim for the
discrimination he says he faced when he tried to start a hog farm
on his Virginia property.  The African-American from Farmville
said his application for a government loan was never even
processed, and he ultimately turned to other work.  Mr. Eggleston,
60, said he worked at a furniture store and a shoe company before
eventually moving into the funeral home business, where he works
today.

"I could never get it off the ground," he said of his venture to
expand on the handful of hogs his father raised.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Meanwhile, Bill McAllister, writing for Native American Times,
reports Elouise Cobell, lead plaintiff in the 15-year-old class
action lawsuit over the federal government's mismanagement of its
Indian Trust, hailed Tuesday's House vote as a landmark milestone
on the road to justice for Native People.

"This is truly an historic day in Indian Country as well as in
America's history" said Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet
Nation.  "By Congress placing a seal of approval on this
settlement, a monumental step has been taken to remove a stain on
our national honor, and create a better future for Indians as our
government begins to make some amends for grave past injustices",
she said.

The House action completes the long delayed legislative phase of
the settlement of Cobell, et al v. Salazar, et al and sends the
bill to President Barack Obama for his anticipated signature.

Following that action, the case will return to court for a hearing
before D.C. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan in accordance with
federal court rules to confirm the fairness of the settlement,
determine appropriate attorneys fees and to establish distribution
of funds to the class members.

"This unprecedented Congressional action paves the way for a
brighter and better relationship with government," Ms. Cobell
said.  "There is still much to be done in trust reform and
improving trustee performance by the Department of Interior, but
this huge step makes those other steps possible."

"While the money is not as much as we believe we are entitled to,
there was no end in sight to this litigation and the settlement
will be recognized by Native People as an acknowledgment by the
federal government that it wronged them by its mismanagement of
Indian money and Indian lands."

"I am saddened that this process, which I began with the filing of
our lawsuit in 1996, has taken so long," she said.  "Too many
account holders, as I have often said, have died awaiting this
settlement."

"I want to extend my thanks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California,
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Dale Kildee of Michigan,
Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, House Resources
Chairman Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma,
Appropriations Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin, and Ways and
Means Chairman Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan."

Complete terms of the settlement are available at
http://www.cobellsettlement.com.


VALASSIS COMMS: No Appeal Filed on Final Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valassis Communications, Inc., disclosed that no appeal was filed
from the final order approving a settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated class action lawsuit against ADVO Inc.

Upon completion of the company's acquisition of ADVO, Valassis
assumed responsibility for ADVO's pending securities class action
lawsuits.

In September 2006, three securities class action lawsuits (Robert
Kelleher v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Jorge Cornet v. ADVO, Inc., et
al., Richard L. Field v. ADVO, Inc., et al.) were filed against
ADVO and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut by certain ADVO shareholders seeking
to certify a class of all persons who purchased ADVO stock
between July 6, 2006 and Aug. 30, 2006.

The cases were consolidated under a single action titled Robert
Kelleher et al. v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Civil Case No.
3:06CV01422(AVC) and a consolidated amended complaint was filed
on June 8, 2007.

The complaint generally alleges ADVO violated federal securities
law by making a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning ADVO's business and financial results in
connection with the proposed merger and, as a result, the price
of ADVO's stock was allegedly inflated.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint, which was denied.

On Aug. 29, 2008, plaintiff moved for certification of the case
as a class action.  This motion was granted on March 27, 2009.

On Oct. 28, 2009, the parties entered into an agreement providing
for the settlement of the action and filed papers seeking
preliminary approval of a settlement agreement in the Court.  The
settlement amount of $12.5 million will be paid from the proceeds
of ADVO's directors and officers' insurance policy, with no
adverse impact to Valassis' financial statements.

The deadline for objecting to the settlement or for opting out of
the class passed without any members of the class providing
notice of objection or opting out.

On March 3, 2010, the court held a settlement approval hearing,
issued final approval of the settlement.

No appeal was filed from the final order and the settlement amount
of $12.5 million was paid from the proceeds of ADVO's directors'
and officers' insurance policy, with no adverse impact to
Valassis' financial statements, according to the Company's
November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


VAN RU: Accused of Not Paying Employees for All Hours Worked
------------------------------------------------------------
Danwoyne Williams, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Van Ru Credit Corporation, Case No.
2010-CH-50359 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 24, 2010),
accuses the collections company of not paying its hourly paid call
center workers for all hours worked.  Specifically, Mr. Williams
says that he and other call center workers engaged in numerous
work-related activities before the start and the after the end of
their scheduled shift, for which they were not paid, in violation
of Illinois law.

In addition, Mr. Williams says that defendant also did not pay its
workers overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 hours per
workweek.

Mr. Williams worked in defendant's call center facility in Des
Plaines, Illinois.  Van Ru provides accounts receivable and
collections services to companies nationwide, including retail
companies, financial institutions, energy companies and healthcare
organizations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400

               And

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575


VERENIUM CORP: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2004, Verenium Corporation executed a formal settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in
December 2002 in a U.S. federal district court.  This lawsuit is
part of a series of related lawsuits in which similar complaints
were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other public
companies that conducted an Initial Public Offering of their
common stock in 2000 and the late 1990s.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar
orders contemplated by the settlement.

On August 31, 2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
the lower Court's earlier decision certifying as class actions the
six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases."  The Company is not one
of the six focus cases.

Thereafter, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings
in all of the IPO Cases pending the outcome of the plaintiffs'
petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and
resolution of the class certification issue.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing
petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a
more limited class in the District Court.  Accordingly, the
settlement as originally negotiated was terminated pursuant to
stipulation of the parties and will not be finally approved.

On August 14, 2007, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six
focus cases, and thereafter moved for certification of the classes
and appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in those
cases.  The six focus case issuers filed motions to dismiss the
claims against them in November 2007 and an opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in December 2007.  The
Court denied the motions to dismiss on March 16, 2008.

On October 2, 2008, the plaintiffs withdrew their class
certification motion.

On February 25, 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the
district court that a settlement of the IPO Cases had been agreed
to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties and
preliminary and final approval by the court.

On April 2, 2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement
agreement to the court and moved for preliminary approval of the
agreement.

On June 11, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
tentative settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement to
be published and mailed.  The District Court held a final fairness
hearing on September 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District
Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted
final approval to the settlement.

On October 23, 2009, three shareholders filed a Petition for
Permission To Appeal Class Certification Order, objecting to the
District Court's final approval order and, in particular,
asserting that the District Court's certification of the
settlement classes violates the Second Circuit's earlier class
certification decisions in the IPO Cases.

Beginning on October 29, 2009, a number of shareholders also filed
direct appeals, objecting to final approval of the settlement.

If the settlement is affirmed on appeal, the settlement will
result in the dismissal of all claims against the Company and its
officers and directors with prejudice, and the Company's pro rata
share of the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance.

No further updates were provided in the Company's November 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Class Action Over Medical Leave
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) has agreed to pay up to
$6,011,190 to current and former California employees to settle a
class action lawsuit filed by the state Department of Fair
Employment and Housing.

The complaint challenged the company's family medical leave
practices.  The settlement, which is subject to court approval,
covers Verizon's voice, data and video operations in California,
which employ more than 7,000 people.

The lawsuit alleges that from 2007 to 2010, Verizon denied or
failed to timely approve class members' requests for leave for
their own serious health condition, to care for a family member
with a serious health condition, or to bond with a new child.  The
Department further alleged that the company fired some class
members for violating Verizon's attendance policy when they missed
work for a CFRA-qualifying reason.

Settlement of the lawsuit -- the largest in DFEH history -- could
result in payment to class members of more than $6 million
dollars, an amount equivalent to an entire year of DFEH
Enforcement Division settlements.

Verizon cooperated fully with the investigation and did not admit
to any wrongdoing in settling the lawsuit, says DFEH.

As part of the settlement, Verizon agreed to review and revise its
leave policies and procedures and to continue an existing internal
review process that employees can invoke to appeal denials.
Verizon also agreed to train all California officers, managers,
supervisors and human resources personnel on the procedures and to
submit regular updates to the DFEH regarding the company's
compliance.


VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Court Denies Dismissal of Merix-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Oregon state court has refused to dismiss a class action
relating to ViaSystems Group, Inc.'s merger transaction with Merix
Corporation, according to the Company's November 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 13, 2009 and November 5, 2009, respectively, Asbestos
Workers Pension Fund and W. Donald Wybert, both former Merix
shareholders, filed putative class action complaints in Oregon
state court (Multnomah County), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Merix, the members of its board
of directors and Viasystems.  The complaints, which were
substantively identical and sought to enjoin the Merix
Acquisition, alleged, among other things, that Merix' directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Merix' shareholders by
attempting to sell Merix to Viasystems for an inadequate price and
that Viasystems aided and abetted those breaches.

On November 23, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases.

On or about December 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, which largely mirrored the
original complaints, but also added Maple Acquisition Corp. -- the
merger vehicle -- as a defendant and alleged that Merix' proxy
statement for the Merix Acquisition was materially deficient.

On January 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the Merix Acquisition, scheduled to take place
on February 8, 2010.  On January 29, 2010, the defendants filed
oppositions to plaintiffs' motion, and, on February 2, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their reply.  On February 5, 2010, following oral
arguments, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion.

The Merix Acquisition was consummated on February 16, 2010.

After the Court denied plaintiff's motion to enjoin the
transaction, plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint dated
April 19, 2010 naming only Merix Corporation's former board
members as defendants.  All defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on July 8, 2010.

On October 29, 2010, the court heard arguments on the Defendant's
motion to dismiss and the court denied the Defendant's motion.

The Defendants are insured by Merix Corporation's Directors and
Officers Liability Insurance coverage.

The Company has exhausted the self insured retention of the D&O
Insurance and therefore, anticipates any expenses or potential
damages should be covered by the D&O Insurance.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Sale to M&T Bank
----------------------------------------------------------
Wilmington Trust Corporation is defending itself from two lawsuits
filed by stockholders, according to the Company's Nov. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On November 5, 2010, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed purported class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of
Chancery captioned Medich v. Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al.,
C.A. No. 5958 (Del. Ch.) and Yi v. Wilmington Trust Corporation,
et al., C.A. No. 5959 (Del. Ch.).  Both lawsuits name as
defendants the Company, each of the current members and a former
member of the Company's Board of Directors, M&T Bank Corporation
and Merger Sub.  The complaints allege that the Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value in connection with the Merger and also allege
that M&T and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive
relief to prevent the consummation of the Merger and a
constructive trust over any benefits improperly received by
defendants.


XENOPORT INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
XenoPort Inc. and certain of its officers and directors have been
sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the Company's November 9, 2010 filing
with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

The purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in July
2010.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with allegedly false,
misleading and incomplete statements issued by the defendants
related to Horizant(TM) as a potential treatment of moderate-to-
severe primary restless leg syndrome, which allegedly made it
impossible for investors to meaningfully understand the drug's
potential for approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

The plaintiff seeks damages, an award of its costs and injunctive
and/or equitable relief on behalf of a purported class of
stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period between May 5, 2009 and February 17, 2010.

Another lawsuit was filed in September 2010 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California making
substantially similar allegations, on behalf of a purported class
of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period between March 16, 2009 and May 5, 2010.

A motion to consolidate the complaints and appoint a lead
plaintiff has been granted.

In its SEC disclosure, the Company says it will not respond until
after a consolidated complaint is filed.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


* Bill C-36 May Spark Product Recalls & Class Actions in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for Wednesday's Globe and Mail, reports it was
none other than James, the cocky red locomotive from the Thomas
the Tank Engine stories, who proved himself a Really Useful Engine
by sparking a comprehensive rewrite of Canada's consumer-
protection laws.

The public outcry in 2007 about the lead in James's red paint and
the subsequent North-America-wide recall of millions of toys
manufactured in China helped accelerate efforts to tighten
Canada's rules on consumer safety, an article on Health Canada's
Web site acknowledges.

Last week, as holiday-shopping season started in earnest, Health
Minister Leona Aglukkaq said the government is bringing in new
rules to reduce the amount of lead in children's toys and other
products.

More reforms are just around the corner.  Bill C-36, now before
the Senate, would dramatically update Canada's consumer-protection
regime.  Among the changes is a new power for the health minister
to order mandatory recalls for potentially dangerous consumer
products -- not only toys, but everything from razors to toaster
ovens.

Currently, recalls in Canada for consumer products are voluntary
moves by the companies involved.  Even Health Canada acknowledges
that its current Hazardous Products Act is limited, outdated and
well behind the regulations in place in the United States and the
European Union. (Food, drugs and cars in Canada are governed by
other legislation.)

If the new bill becomes law (previous attempts have died on the
order paper) companies would not only have more government
inspectors looking over their shoulders: With potentially more
product recalls, manufacturers can also expect to face more class-
action lawsuits, a prominent product-liability lawyer predicts.

Peter Pliszka, a partner with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP in
Toronto who defends manufacturers hit with lawsuits over defective
products, said companies facing even the remote possibility of
mandatory recalls may be more likely to voluntarily pull products
off the shelves first.  Whether ordered or voluntarily, he said,
there will be more recalls.

And recalls, Mr. Pliszka argued, inevitably attract the attention
of lawyers who specialize in filing class actions on behalf of
consumers: "As sure as night follows day, class-action lawsuits
follow product recalls."

Mr. Pliszka also described other provisions in the bill, which
recently sailed through the House of Commons, as "draconian."  If
the bill becomes law, for example, companies would have to alert
Health Canada within two days of learning of a serious incident
involving one of their products.  Health Canada inspectors would
also have new powers to search facilities and seize documents.
(The department points out its inspectors already have these
powers in food and drug investigations.)

Mr. Pliszka and other lawyers who represent manufacturers support
the current system.  They say companies are usually quick to pull
a potentially dangerous product off the shelves, both because it
is the right thing to do and because they would rather do that
than deal with the disastrous public relations and legal fallout
of a series of deaths or injuries.

Canada has also been able to piggyback on the more powerful U.S.
system of consumer product regulation, which Mr. Pliszka described
as "light years" ahead of Canada's.  In the U.S., recalls can be
ordered.  Many of the products subject to recall there are sold in
Canada as well.

"The people who build these products take real pride in them.  The
last thing they want to see is somebody get hurt," said Glenn
Zakaib, of McCarthy Tetrault LLP in Toronto, who defends companies
in product liability cases.

Toronto lawyer Joel Rochon, who represents plaintiffs in class
actions, acknowledged that a recall is always a key tool in a
class-action case.  "As a class-action litigator, it assists the
case to have a recall in place."

Mr. Rochon, who represented dog owners in a high-profile class
action over tainted pet food, disputed the argument that Canada's
history of piggybacking on U.S. recalls has always worked in favor
of consumer safety.

"You'd be surprised," he said.  "Often it's not an automatic knee-
jerk reaction to have a recall in Canada just because there's one
in the U.S."

Not every lawyer who represents defendants in product-liability
cases agrees that the proposed legislation will result in more
class actions over defective or dangerous products.

Doug Harrison of Stikeman Elliott LLP in Toronto said he isn't
certain the proposed new rules will cause any noticeable increase
in class actions.  He cited the example of Ontario's Electrical
Safety Authority, which was granted enhanced powers to essentially
order electrical appliances off the market three years ago.

"To my mind, there hasn't been a spate of class actions in Ontario
arising from unsafe electrical products," Mr. Harrison said.  "And
there have been many things that have had to have been pulled
back."


* Hagens Berman Opens Office in Colorado
----------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a Seattle-based class-action and
complex litigation firm has opened a Colorado office, led by
class-action attorney Rob Carey.

Hagens Berman Managing Partner Steve Berman sees Colorado as the
next step in expanding the firm's growing national presence.

"Colorado represents a major opportunity for the firm to better
support our clients," Mr. Berman said.  "Our strategy is to place
offices wherever we think we can best serve our clients' needs."

Hagens Berman currently has offices in Boston, Chicago, Los
Angeles, Phoenix, and San Francisco, and recently opened a
Washington, D.C. office.

A former pro tem judge and chief deputy attorney general for the
state of Arizona, Mr. Carey focuses his practice on class-action
consumer, employment, financial, and insurance litigation in
western states, including Colorado.

Mr. Carey has strong roots in the region, having attended high
school in Colorado Springs, and receiving his law and graduate
business school degrees at the University of Denver.  He also
served as adjunct professor for several years at the University of
Colorado.

"Rob has been instrumental in our success in representing
consumers and investors and in helping us to ensure that big
business puts consumers and employees before profits," Mr. Berman
said.

Mr. Carey is currently litigating a class action against EA Sports
and the NCAA for illegally using collegiate athletes' images in
its videogames, the Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration class
action and other auto-defect class actions.

"I'm excited by the opportunity to lead the firm's newest office,"
Mr. Carey said.  "I look forward to helping the firm's clients in
Colorado and growing our presence here."

The Colorado office is located at 2301 E. Pikes Peak Avenue,
Colorado Springs, but it will also have an attorney based in
Denver.

Hagens Berman has tackled numerous class-action cases over the
years.  Some of the firm's current cases include: the Toyota
Refund Litigation, which alleges the world's largest automaker
knew many of its models had throttle control system problems that
lead to sudden, unintended acceleration; Aaron Wagner v. Sony,
Toshiba, Hitachi and other consumer electronics companies, a
class-action suit that alleges several consumer-electronics
companies manipulated the prices of optical disk drives; and Allen
Hale v. Guitar Center, a class-action suit that alleges Guitar
Center conspired to fix pricing on fretted instruments.

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle, Washington-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a consumer-rights class-action law
firm with offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los
Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Founded in
1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer rights in
large, complex litigation.


* Study Says Securities Class Suits Punish Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes.com's Full Disclosure, reports
it's a belief many law-school graduates cling to fiercely, in the
face of all contrary evidence: That the tort system is a mechanism
for discovering the truth, disciplining wrongdoers, and
compensating victims for their losses.

A new study in the Financial Analysts Journal casts serious doubt
on the premise, at least when it comes to shareholder class
actions.  In most cases, the authors found, the litigation mainly
serves to punish shareholders who have already suffered from a
downturn in their stock.  Only suits targeting illegal insider
trading, and to a lesser extent, accounting fraud were associated
with subsequent higher long-term returns.

The study, "Misdeeds Matter: Long-Term Stock Performance after the
Filing of Class-Action Lawsuits" is by Rob Bauer and Robin Braun
of Maastricht University in the Netherlands.  They review a large
body of research on securities class actions that is trying to
answer the question of what, exactly, this expensive and highly
lucrative -- for the lawyers, anyway -- legal enterprise is
actually trying to accomplish.

If it's to punish wrongdoers, that's mostly a fiction.  All but a
handful of cases settle for a fraction of the claimed damages, and
usually for a number suspiciously close to the limits of the
company's director and officer liability insurance policies.
Since Delaware law indemnifies company officers from paying most
civil damages, they are rarely exposed to the direct cost of
shareholder litigation anyway.  And previous studies have found
most lawsuits are against larger companies, perhaps indicating a
desire to empty deep pockets rather than ferret out financial
fraud, which one might suspect would be more common at smaller,
more loosely governed companies.  In the end, most shareholder
lawsuits result in a court-ordered, retroactive cash dividend to
former shareholders, paid by the unlucky current owners of the
firm.

Bauer and Braun started with an interesting premise: That
shareholder class actions are a corporate governance tool
investors can use to discipline the managers in charge of their
assets.  That's a little naive, given that securities class
actions are mostly brought by specialized law firms that have
software constantly monitoring the markets, looking for sudden
stock declines that might provide grist for a suit.  The software
is also installed at labor-union pension funds and other
institutional investors, providing the law firms with a ready-made
client when they're ready to pounce.

The researchers then individually examined 650 shareholder class
actions to determine the type of claims involved.  They split
these broadly into cases where managers breached their duty of
care -- doing something idiotic like buying AOL at the peak of the
tech bubble, or a subprime originator in 2006 -- and those where
they breached their duty of loyalty, a more serious offense where
managers put their personal interests ahead of shareholders.

The researchers seem positively naive when they puzzle over why
stocks always seem to dip before a shareholder suit is filed.  The
answer is above: Securities lawyers use software to find their
targets. (It's probably been tuned to screen out companies whose
stock prices don't fall significantly more than the market, a
game-ender under current legal doctrine.) But no matter.  They
press on to study exactly how the stocks performed after the
shareholders reached for their management-disciplining device and
sued the company.

A lot of very complicated math ensues, but when the dust clears
the researchers see a trend.  Only in cases where managers were
accused of illegal insider trading does the stock price show
above-market returns in the post-disciplining phase.  The
researchers cite other studies to suggest those managers actually
get fired, and in the subsequent housecleaning corporate
governance improves.  They also saw a slight improvement at
companies accused of accounting fraud, which they said might be
attributed to a well-documented pattern of cost-cutting and asset
sales at once-highflying companies that played with the books to
keep their abnormal growth rates going.

Otherwise, the companies tended to drift lower after they, or
their insurance companies, handed over millions to the lawyers
suing them to supposedly discipline their managers for behaving
badly.

The conclusion: Institutional investors who see securities
lawsuits as a mechanism for turning around a losing investment are
kidding themselves, unless the managers were selling stock
illegally.  Otherwise, they're better off selling when the suit is
announced and finding another company to buy.  This won't faze the
securities class action lawyers a bit, but adds to the academic
evidence that this is an industry based on a premise that deserves
closer, and more critical, examination.


* UK Pension Funds Unlikely to Recoup GBP368MM in US Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
GOAL Group reports that at the peak of the economic crisis in
2008, Northern European pension schemes lost a total of
EUR450 billion of their portfolio value, of which EUR60 billion
(GBP51 billion) was in their US investments.  One third,
EUR27.4 (GBP21billion) were attributed to UK pension funds.
Within the Northern European territory, around 7% of those losses
(EUR3.9 billion, of which the UK amounts to EUR1.7 billion) is
expected to be recouped through class action litigations over the
next few years.  However, a proportion of pension schemes are
missing out on the opportunity to participate and are leaving a
significant amount of EUR1 billion unclaimed on the table -- in
the U.K. EUR436 million (GBP368 million).  These are the results
of GOAL Group research, completed in 2010, and drawing on a wide
range of proprietary and third party data sources.

The research aims to measure the scale of losses Northern European
pension funds incurred during the heights of the financial crisis
in 2008 as well as the sums likely to be left unclaimed through
non-participation in U.S. securities class action lawsuits by
countries such as Germany, U.K., Ireland, France and the
Netherlands.  The results show that a significant portion will
remain unclaimed.  Netherlands pension funds are expected to miss
out on EUR466 million, followed by the U.K. at EUR436 million,
France at EUR56 million, Ireland at EUR40 million and Germany at
EUR8 million unclaimed.

Amounts to be left unclaimed

According to a study conducted by Stanford Law School and
Cornerstone Research, the number of U.S. securities class action
filings has fallen slightly compared with the same period last
year.  However, fund managers and custodians are paying attention
to participation opportunities in claims for financial market
crisis losses in the U.S.  The report states that the actual
amount of money represented by losses covered in these lawsuits
has risen on a year-by-year basis.

In the past, class actions used to be a legal practice restricted
to the U.S.  However, this opportunity for investors to
collectively sue to recoup losses suffered as a result of
fraudulent corporate behavior or mismanagement is now creeping
beyond U.S. borders: France, Italy, and Finland have dealt with
class action cases in the past, while Argentina, Australia,
Belgium and Israel are currently doing so.

Encouraging investors to take action

While older cases reach settlements, the present focus appears to
be moving to cases born out of the recent international credit
crisis.  Enron, one of the high-profile U.S. corporate governance
scandals that came in full swing in early 2000, encouraged non-US
stakeholders to fight for the redemption of losses incurred.
However, the extensive timescale to finalize class action cases
can become off-putting: the Enron Victim Trust is expected to
start distributing to investor victims of the fraud this month or
early next year.

The cause for a relatively high non-participation rate (around
25%) is for the most part due to false perceptions.  First of all,
many investors are not aware that they have a valid claim.  This
can be tied to the second possibility, that some fund managers and
custodians may not be making their clients aware of potential
claims.  Thirdly, the perception that filing a case is far too
complex and difficult to manage persists, although the process can
be largely automated through a number of service providers.
Investment funds have incurred large losses during the economic
downturn and their eagerness to find ways to recover these losses
should encourage them to take advantage of this accessible
opportunity to participate in U.S. class actions.

Nevertheless, which pension funds were the most affected?  Those
who invested a third or more of their assets into equities are
those experiencing the greatest distress.  Ireland and the United
Kingdom were the most severely hit, with 52% and 46% respectively
of total assets invested in equities. The Netherlands suffered at
a similar rate.  However, pension funds in Germany and France had
larger proportions of their assets invested in bonds, incurring
less damaging losses.  Moreover, Germany's minor exposure to
foreign assets (about 5%) kept losses to a minimum.

Losses in 2008 have been on such a large scale, that only a small
fraction has been recovered: The Netherlands and Ireland regained
5% up until the middle of 2009.  2009 and 2010 show a more
promising development as pension funds are making gradual
recovery, with sound equity returns.  However, there is growing
responsibility for institutional investors and fund managers to
register and monitor class action claims in order to recoup a
portion of their losses.

Northern Europe: Claims in the U.S. versus claims at home

The prospect for class actions in the U.S. is well-established;
however investors need to be proactive to ensure they are included
in cases over the coming years.  Class actions are beginning to
make headway in local legislatures throughout Northern Europe,
with the Netherlands currently taking the lead and several
Northern European investors are already participating in U.S
shareholder litigation in order to support good governance and
challenge those companies that do not meet best practice.

The Netherlands

Claims in the U.S: The Netherlands has a high level of
participation in U.S. class actions.  Last year, the Dutch
industry-wide pension fund Stichting Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn
(PjZW) was one of five international pension funds granted the
privileged status of lead plaintiff in the case against Bank of
America.  It was alleged that key information had been withheld or
distorted in relation to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.  A
similar case was conducted by the Dutch Pension Fund and
Investment Manager MN Services, who manage around EUR56 billion
for pension funds in the Netherlands and attempted to represent in
the consolidated class action against the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Claims at home: The case against Royal Dutch/ Shell Group was the
first class action to be finalized within Europe, originally
established in the U.S., it was moved to the Netherlands.  In 2005
the Dutch Act on the Collective Settlement of Mass Claims
authorized the Amsterdam Court of Appeals to enforce Shell to pay
$450 million in 2009.  It involved the compensation for
misstatements between 1997 and 2003 regarding oil and gas
reserves.  This Act puts the Netherlands at the forefront for
developments of mass disputes, since it is the only country in
Europe with such legislation in place.  It does not work like the
U.S. model, although it is based around it -- the Dutch version
requires parties to try to settle claims out of court first, which
can be made binding by the court.

Germany

Claims in the U.S: Claiming in the U.S. is particularly attractive
to German investors, since the costs of taking legal actions are
far less in the U.S. than in Germany.  In the U.S., fees only
apply when a case is successful while in Germany the costs have to
be laid out before proceedings.  Hence there is an array of cases
filing to be lead plaintiff, for instance Germany's Activest
Investmentgesellschaft against General Motors.  It was alleged
that forged and misleading statements were issued to deceive
investors as to GM's financial performance going back to 2000.
Frankfurt-based Union Investment was appointed lead plaintiff in
the case against U.S. computer manufacturer DELL.  The German fund
alleges that earning manipulations caused the stock to drop, with
reports estimating losses around $20 million.

Claims at home: Germany is also becoming a forerunner for
collective litigations at home.  Germany's largest investor
lawsuit, the Deutsche Telecom case -- in which investors claim
they were tricked by misleading or omitted prospectus information
issued in 1999 and 2000, overstating the value of its real
property by EUR2 billion -- enacted the Capital Markets Model Act
in 2005.  Depending on the verdict expected this month, the five-
year test case may be implemented into the German Civil Procedural
Code.  If passed, it may lead to many comparable class action
cases, as well as to the installment of a permanent collective
litigation procedure in Germany.

United Kingdom

Claims in the U.S: The West Midlands Pension Fund is one of a
growing number of U.K.-based funds that has been proactively
ensuring to be included in all possible cases of all sizes, among
others, cases against A.T.&T. Wireless, Cable & Wireless and
Federal Home Loan.  In March of last year, Merseyside and North
Yorkshire pension funds filed a motion to become lead plaintiffs
in a U.S. securities class action against RBS.  A court in New
York ruled that only U.S. investors would be entitled to pursue
this action; however, the U.K. pension fund is currently in
discussions to have the case passed on to the U.K. High Court.

Claims at home: The U.K. Civil Justice Council recognized in a
recent report the "unmet need" for better compensation for
potential financial services litigants.  This is due to the fact
that the U.K. has group litigation orders and representative
claims, but no U.S.-style class actions procedure that ensures the
finality of claims in place.  The latest Financial Services Bill
draft included clauses to allow class actions against financial
institutions.  However, these clauses were eliminated before being
passed into law as part of a move to get the Bill enacted before
the Parliament was dissolved in April 2010.  The Financial Reform
Act of May 2010 does not mention class actions but they are
expected to reappear on the governmental agenda.

France

Claims in the U.S:  France is among the 40 European pension funds
which has filed a law suit against the aforementioned Royal Dutch
Shell.

Claims at home: Despite multiple debates on this issue, France has
no working group litigation or class action procedure in place.
French investors are ensuring that class actions remain on the
French court's agenda, but the legal landscape is not yet ready to
put a collective litigation into action.

Ireland

The Irish law doesn't allow for class actions but for restricted
and rarely used test cases and representative actions.  An
independent statutory body that reviews the law and promotes
reforms, the Irish Law Reform Commission, proposed the inclusion
of class action procedures in 2005.  However, the Minister of
Justice disapproved of the recommendation, making it unlikely that
any such laws will be passed into legislation in the near future.

Conclusion

North European pension funds have experienced severe losses, and
although a certain level of recovery took place in 2009, pension
funds still have a long way to go.  According to GOAL Group, its
research shows that over EUR1 billion is likely to be left on the
table by Northern European investors relevant to cases referring
to incidents in 2008, but only now coming to court in the US.
This reinforces the need and legal responsibility for funds to
take action on behalf of their beneficiaries.  As class action
filings come to resolution over the next decade, GOAL Group says
it can expect to see higher average settlement amounts to match.
Yet too many fund managers and institutional investors are not
taking class actions into consideration, nor actively monitoring
or filing claims.

Now is the time for investors and fund managers to become actively
involved in the filing and participation process to recoup a
proportion of their losses through class action litigation, either
in US or European courts.  However, keeping track of the
opportunities to make a claim and the processes required to do so
successfully, can be a complicated and daunting task -- with many
investors mistakenly believing that the cost and time involved
will outweigh the benefits.  In fact, specialist services are now
available to handle the class action participation process, often
on a no-win, no-fee basis.

                         About Goal Group

The Goal Group of Companies -- http://www.goalgroup.com/-- was
incorporated on November 1, 1989 and is widely-acknowledged in the
financial services sector for its innovative and creative
solutions to highly-specialized niche processes.

Goal Group,  ISO 9001:2008 accredited, has a truly global, blue-
chip client base including several of the world's largest global
custodians, asset managers, private banks, pension funds, local
government agencies, hedge funds, high net-worth individuals,
investment banks, prime brokers and fund managers spread widely
across Europe, Asia and the United States.

Goal Group's class actions service is provided via its wholly
owned subsidiary Goal Global Recoveries Limited and supports
investors and corporate entities who have suffered financial loss
from owning shares in a company where there has been proven
mismanagement and/or unlawful behavior.

Goal Group's withholding tax solutions include GTRS, GQI, GOAL
TaxBack and GDMS.  Research by Goal has shown that in excess of
USD10 billion of withholding tax remains unclaimed each year by
the rightful owners and beneficiaries.  Goal's solutions
facilitate the reclamation of circa USD11 billion per annum and
assist its clients to benefit from relief at source wherever
practicable and possible to do so.


* U.S. Consumer Privacy Laws Need Upgrade as Class Actions Rise
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports plaintiffs attorney
Scott Kamber is a privacy watchdog for consumers in the online
world.  Over the years, he's filed many class actions against
companies over various security breaches of online information.

But recently, he's focused his efforts on a different type of
online privacy suit.  He's filed dozens of class actions against
Web sites like Facebook and Netflix claiming they have sold users'
personal information to advertisers, and they shouldn't have.

"It's all about advertising," said Mr. Kamber, who formed New
York-based KamberLaw earlier this year.  "These cases are all
about the extent to which companies will be able to monetize their
internet activities by selling the data of users.  And there's
nobody looking out for consumers' interests."

A growing number of plaintiffs attorneys seem to agree.  As news
outlets chronicle high-profile privacy blunders by companies like
Google, Facebook, and Zynga, lawyers in Silicon Valley are dealing
with a new wave of privacy class actions involving online
advertising.  Plaintiffs accuse companies of misdeeds ranging from
improperly selling users' information to tracking consumers'
online activity without their consent or knowledge.

There's one thing defense and plaintiffs attorneys can agree on:
Current U.S. laws do not clearly define what online companies can
and can't do, nor what remedies are available for violations.

Most of the current privacy class actions involving online
advertising are being filed under statutes written years before
social media sites like Facebook existed.  For example, the
Electronics Communications Privacy Act was written in 1986 to
extend government restrictions on wiretaps to data transmitted via
computers.  Now courts have to decide if that same law also
defines and protects consumers' privacy in an online world, where
it's never been tested before.

"In some ways, it's the Wild West of litigation," said litigator
John Nadolenco, a partner at Mayer Brown in Los Angeles.  "Courts
are trying to apply really old statutes and legal concepts to a
world that is totally different than when the laws were passed,
and it's a struggle by and large."

As public concern grows, legislators, regulators and the White
House have joined the debate, saying existing laws must be
strengthened and new ones written.  The Obama administration
recently announced that it's creating a privacy task force and
appointing a new online privacy czar.

But until that happens, both plaintiffs and defense attorneys will
be watching these class actions closely to see how courts redefine
consumers' privacy in an online world flooded with personal
information, much of which people have willingly provided
themselves.

DEFINING HARM

It's the pollution problem of the information age, said Kevin
Bankston, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group in San Francisco supporting
online freedom of speech and privacy.

People are voluntarily putting a lot of personal information
online, in some cases without considering how their virtual
footprints can be collected and put to use by corporate America.

That's why Facebook's aborted Beacon program was so controversial:
It took information about what a user had browsed or bought and
broadcast that information to others -- sometimes with
embarrassing results.  "I don't think it's a surprise we're seeing
more lawsuits," Mr. Bankston said.  "In the end, I think this is a
good trend."

Mr. Kamber says consumers may willingly put their personal
information online, but they still want to know who is collecting
that information, and how it's being used. " The consumer doesn't
know who the advertiser is that's taking their information,"
Mr. Kamber said.

These cases really are about control, said Mark Lemley, director
of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology and
founding Durie Tangri partner.  People are primarily objecting to
the lack of control they have over how they're depicted in that
online universe.  "Especially if it's in ways they might not like
the world to know about," he said.

But what are the damages? Mr. Kamber admits that actual harm is
difficult to prove and quantify in court.  "We believe we can," he
said.  "But there's limited case law in this area."

Michael Rhodes, one of Kamber's frequent adversaries in court,
argues that it's particularly hard when a consumer cannot be
personally identified and only his or her movements are tracked.
"If the technology is tracking web usage, and doing it
anonymously, how is there a privacy rights implication?" he said.
"That's where we're headed in this litigation."

Mr. Rhodes, chairman of Cooley's national litigation department,
has come up against Mr. Kamber in two class actions involving
Facebook.  They were opposing counsel in 2009 when Facebook agreed
to terminate its controversial Beacon marketing program.  Under
settlement terms struck at mediation and approved by U.S. District
Judge Richard Seeborg, Facebook agreed to pay $9.5 million, with
up to a third of that going to cover attorneys' fees and the rest
set aside to create an online privacy foundation.  Privacy
advocates want the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to undo the
deal.

Messrs. Kamber and Rhodes are opposing counsel again in a current
class action filed in Los Angeles federal court alleging that Web
sites owned by the Walt Disney Internet Group, Warner Bros.
Records, and others violated state and federal privacy laws by
secretly tracking people using flash cookies made by Clearspring
Technologies.

In addition to those suits, Cooley is handling eight federal
privacy class actions for Facebook.  It's also monitoring actions
against Zynga that accuse the Facebook gamemaker of collecting
information from members' pages and sharing it with advertisers,
violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Zynga's
contract with Facebook.

"It's a heightened Silicon Valley issue because the people
attracting the most attention are here," Mr. Rhodes said. " And
the online business models have come out of the Valley."

MORE LAWS OR SELF-REGULATION?

Plaintiffs attorneys are filing more of these suits to see how far
they can take existing laws, Mr. Rhodes said.  And their biggest
challenge is adapting old statutes to fit new business models that
didn't exist when the laws were written.

"Some of it will get sorted out in courts, and I think you're
going to see a combination of regulatory attempts to create some
guidance that will come out of Congress and EU," Mr. Rhodes said.
"In what form, I couldn't say."

Mr. Bankston said he agrees that laws such as the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act need revision.  The law is notoriously
confusing, and on top of that, old.  "That doesn't mean it's not a
correct basis for these claims," he said.

But he concedes that clarity from Congress would help.
Mr. Nadolenco agrees that Congress needs to act, much like it did
in 1998 when it passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which
amended copyright laws to account for online technologies.
"Otherwise you're going to have this piecemeal approach," he said.

Mr. Kamber, however, believes Americans don't want a tightly
regulated internet.  More regulations aren't needed, and consumers
need better rules faster than legislators can take action.
Privacy class actions like the ones he's filing are forcing
companies to take action now to protect consumers' personal
information.

"Companies need to figure out what the rules should be,"
Mr. Kamber said.  "We are the consumer's voice for self-
regulation."


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *