---

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

           Monday, November 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 235

                             Headlines

ASHFORD GEAR: 7th Cir. Overturns Ruling in Junk-Fax Class Action
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Wolfe" Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: Got Court OK of "Eagen" Suit Settlement in June
AXA EQUITABLE: Faces Suit on Investment Management Services Fees
BOK FINANCIAL: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $19 Mil.

BUSINESS IN MOTION: Canada Court Certifies Class Action
CARROLL ELECTRIC: Amends Bylaws to Prohibit Class Actions
CHATTEM INC: Sued in Calif. Over Deceptive Claims on Mouthwash
CITIGROUP INC: Judge Certifies Class in Overtime Suit
CITY OF NEW YORK: Sued Over Parking Ticket Surcharges

FELTEX: Shareholders Seek Orders for Discovery of Documents
FNB UNITED: Negotiating Settlement of "Isser" Suit
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Sales Leaders' Suit Remains Pending in Mass.
HORIZON BLUE CROSS: St. Joseph's Doctors File Class Action
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Price-Fixing Class Action Can Proceed

IPAYMENT INC: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Green" Suit
IPAYMENT INC: Awaits Stipulation Order in Vericomm Suit in Calif.
NETFLIX: Judge Dismisses Antitrust Class Action
NETLOGIC MICROSYSTEMS: Awaits Court OK of Shareholder Suits Deal
PFIZER INC: Protonix Suit Remains Stayed Due to Patent Case

PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Celebrex/Bextra Suit in New Jersey
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Off-Label Promotions Suit in N.Y.
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Hormone-Replacement Therapy Suits
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Neurontin Class Suits
PFIZER INC: Faces Lipitor-related Suit in Pennsylvania

PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Suits Remain Pending in U.S. & Canada
PFIZER INC: Awaits Ruling of Appeal in Elan/Bapineuzumab Suit
PFIZER INC: Securities Class Suit vs. Wyeth Remains Pending
PFIZER INC: Still Awaits OK of Settlement of King-merger Suit
PFIZER INC: Awaits Court OK of Settlement of Pharmacia AWP Suit

POWER BALANCE: Files for Bankruptcy Following Class Actions
RANGELAND FOODS: Employment Appeals Tribunal Tosses Class Action
SOLAR POWER: California Shareholder Suit Dismissed
SUGARLAND CONCERT: State Fair Tragedy Victims File Class Action
SUTTER MEDICAL: Harris & Ruble Files Class Action

TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
XFONE INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Israeli Unit Suit





                          *********

ASHFORD GEAR: 7th Cir. Overturns Ruling in Junk-Fax Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that in a rare move, a
federal appeals court overturned a lower court's decision to allow
a lawsuit to proceed as a class action, and criticized the conduct
of the lawyers who brought the case.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 22 reversed the lower
court's decision to certify the class in a suit brought on behalf
of recipients of so-called junk faxes.  In its ruling, the court
disapproved of the way the lawyers filing the class action
recruited clients and found companies to sue.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act imposes damages of $500 per
fax on anyone who sends an unsolicited fax advertisement and up to
$1,500 per fax if the transmission is intentional.  Creative
Montessori Learning Centers sued under the act, accusing Ashford
Gear LLC of sending two unsolicited one-page faxes.  Ashford Gear
sells a blanket, pillow and sleeping mat combination called the
"Rollee Pollee."

Lawyers who filed the suit, of the Chicago firm Bock & Hatch,
specialize in bringing class actions under the act.  Looking for
clients and companies to sue, they approached Caroline Abraham,
the owner of a faxing service that transmits advertisements on
behalf of advertisers, according to the opinion.  Obtaining
Abraham's fax transmission report on the condition of
confidentiality, the lawyers gathered the names of fax senders to
sue and fax recipients to serve as clients.  The result was
Creative Montessori's suit and 50 others like it.

The 7th Circuit found the firm's breach of Ms. Abraham's
confidentiality to be troubling.  It also criticized how the
lawyers persuaded Creative Montessori to sue by promising a
potential reward of up to $1,500 per fax, implying that a class
had already been certified.

"Class counsel have demonstrated a lack of integrity that casts
serious doubt on their trustworthiness as representatives of the
class," Judge Richard Posner wrote on behalf of a three-judge
panel.  The lawyers appeared more likely to serve their own
interests than that of their clients, he wrote.

Lawyers representing the class, including Phillip Bock of Bock &
Hatch and Brian Wanca of Anderson & Wanca, did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

Michael Resis, a lawyer for Ashford Gear, was not immediately
available for comment.

The appeals court sent the case back down to the Illinois district
court to reevaluate whether the lawyers' misconduct would impede
their ability to adequately represent the class in light of the
panel's opinion.

The case is Creative Montessori Learning Centers v. Ashford Gear
LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 11-8020.

For Creative Montessori Learning Centers: Brian Wanca of Anderson
& Wanca.

For Ashford Gear: Michael Resis of Smith Amundsen.


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Wolfe" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aspenbio Pharma, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit filed by John Wolfe,
according to the Company's November 14, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned
John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No. CV10 7365.
This federal securities purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court in the Central District of California
on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased
common stock of the Company during the period between February 22,
2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint names as
defendants certain officers and directors of the Company during
the period.  The complaint includes allegations of violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants, all related to the Company's blood-based
acute appendicitis test in development known as AppyScore.  On the
Company's motion, this action was also transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado by order dated
January 21, 2011.  The action has been assigned a District of
Colorado Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-KMT.  On July 11, 2011,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel.
On August 23, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative
class action complaint, alleging the same class period.  Based on
a review of the amended complaint, the Company and the individual
defendants believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against these claims.  On
October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The motion is currently pending with the plaintiffs'
response due last November 21, 2011.


AXA EQUITABLE: Got Court OK of "Eagen" Suit Settlement in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement entered into between AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company and plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Eagan et al. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company was approved
by a California federal court in June, according to the Company's
November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

A putative class action entitled Eagan et al. v. AXA Equitable
Life Insurance Company was filed in the District Court for the
Central District of California in December 2006 against AXA
Equitable as plan sponsor and fiduciary for an ERISA retiree
health plan.  The action was brought by two plan participants on
behalf of all past and present employees and agents who received
retiree medical benefits from AXA Equitable at any time after
January 1, 2004, or who will receive such benefits in 2006 or
later, excluding certain retired agents.  Plaintiffs allege that
AXA Equitable's adoption of a revised version of its retiree
health plan in 1993 (the "1993 Plan") was not authorized or
effective.  Plaintiffs contend that AXA Equitable has therefore
breached the retiree health plan by imposing the terms of the 1993
Plan on plaintiffs and other retirees.  Plaintiffs allege that,
even if the 1993 Plan is controlling, AXA Equitable has violated
the terms of the retiree health plan by imposing health care costs
and coverages on plaintiffs and other retirees that are not
authorized under the 1993 Plan.  Plaintiffs also allege that AXA
Equitable breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs and
retirees by allegedly misrepresenting and failing to disclose
information to them.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
restitution and injunctive relief prohibiting AXA Equitable from
violating the terms of the applicable plan, together with interest
and attorneys' fees.  In December 2010, the Court granted
preliminary approval of a settlement between the parties and
notices were sent to the class members.

In Eagan, in June 2011, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement between the parties.


AXA EQUITABLE: Faces Suit on Investment Management Services Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is facing a class action
lawsuit arising from alleged excessive fees paid for investment
management services, according to the Company's November 10, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In July 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court of the District of New Jersey, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC ("FMG LLC").  The lawsuit was filed
derivatively on behalf of eight funds.  The lawsuit seeks recovery
under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
amended (the "Investment Company Act"), for alleged excessive fees
paid to AXA Equitable and FMG LLC for investment management
services.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged overpayments,
or alternatively, rescission of the contracts and restitution of
all fees paid.  In November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, adding claims under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the
Investment Company Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.
In addition, plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class
action in addition to a derivative action.


BOK FINANCIAL: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $19 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Winslow, writing for Tulsa World, reports that BOK
Financial Corp. has entered into a $19 million settlement on three
class action lawsuits that targeted the way the bank company
handled electronic debit transactions and overdraft fees.

"BOK Financial is a reputable industry leader and stands by its
practices, however, the bank chose to settle the lawsuit and
resolve the litigation to avoid any further expense or distraction
it has caused," the Tulsa-based regional services company said in
a written statement.  "[Wednes]day, our management of overdraft
fees is a result of customer feedback and preferences, and
therefore, BOK Financial plans no additional changes as a result
of this lawsuit."

A lawsuit initially was filed against BOK Financial Corp. and Bank
of Oklahoma in August 2010, alleging that the bank manipulated the
order of customers' electronic debit transactions to maximize
overdraft fees.

The complaint alleged that BOK reordered electronic debit
transactions from the highest dollar amount to lowest dollar
amount, which depleted customers' available funds as quickly as
possible and maximized the number of overdraft fees

"We think it's a very good settlement for the class, and a fair
settlement.  I would also say that each side felt strongly about
their position, and in the end I think that BOK and the
plaintiffs' counsel worked well to arrive at a fair resolution,"
said Mark Waller, a plaintiff attorney with Sneed Lang Herrold PC
in Tulsa.

Two of the lawsuits were brought in the District Court of Tulsa
County.  The third action, originally brought in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, was transferred to the
Multi-District Litigation in the Southern District of Florida.

In an 8-k filing with Securities and Exchange Commission, BOK
noted that, "These were opportunistic class action lawsuits in
which BOKF, NA was one of more than 70 U.S. banks, of all sizes,
targeted."

The settlement applies to BOK Financial and its seven market banks
-- Bank of Oklahoma, Bank of Albuquerque, Bank of Arkansas, Bank
of Arizona, Bank of Kansas City, Bank of Texas, and Colorado State
Bank and Trust.

When asked if BOK Financial has changed the way it orders
electronic debit transactions as a result of the lawsuit, Pat
Piper, executive vice president for consumer banking, in an
e-mailed comment noted that the company stands by its practices
and is not changing the way it processes transactions.

"We believe our customers prefer their large transactions, like
mortgage and car payments, processed first because having those
transactions returned could have serious negative implications for
them.

"Over the past two years, we've made changes that help our
customers better manage their account balances and provide more
leniencies for when overdraft fees are charged," Mr. Piper added.
"For example, we don't charge overdraft fees for overdrawn
balances of $5 or less and we limit the number of overdraft fees
we charge in a day.  Ultimately, overdraft coverage is a service
we provide at the option of our customers."


BUSINESS IN MOTION: Canada Court Certifies Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Branch MacMaster LLP and Hordo Bennett Mounteer LLP report that
the Federal Court of Canada has certified the BIM Class Action
against Business in Motion International Corporation ("BIM") and
Alan Kippax.  By order dated November 10, 2011, Mr. Justice Rennie
of the Federal Court officially certified the action on behalf of
the national class, as represented by the Plaintiff, Mr. Mark
Cuzzetto.

The lawsuit was initiated in May, 2010 against BIM and its
principal, Alan Kippax.  BIM operated a plan called the "Time
Leverage System", recruiting representatives to sell "Perpetual
Motion Products".  The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have
been engaged in the operation of an unlawful multi-level marketing
scheme and/or pyramid scheme contrary to the Competition Act.  The
class members seek damages for the money they paid to the
Defendants.

Persons who have purchased the product and who wish to participate
in the action do not need to do anything at this time.  Persons
who do not want to participate in the action must opt out by
January 18, 2012 by completing the online form on the Web site.

Bim CLASS ACTION

DID YOU PURCHASE A PERPETUAL MOTION PRODUCT FROM OR THROUGH
BUSINESS IN MOTION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION? IF SO, PLEASE READ
THIS CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

A class action lawsuit has been certified in the Federal Court of
Canada claiming that Business in Motion International Corporation
and Alex Kippax ("BIM") ran an illegal pyramid scheme and an
illegal multi-level marketing scheme.  A copy of the Statement of
Claim and Order certifying the action as a class proceeding can be
found at http://www.BIMclassaction.com

HOW WILL THE LAWSUIT PROCEED?

A trial will be held to determine the common issues in the action.
If these issues are determine in favor of the class members, there
might still need to be individual hearings to determine the
entitlement of each class member to a refund.

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO PARTICIPATE?

There is nothing you have to do right now. Unless you opt out, you
will be bound by the result of the common issues trial.  However,
in order to make sure you are notified of any important
developments in the action, we recommend you register on our
Web site at http://www.BIMclassaction.com

WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS LAWSUIT?

If you do not want to be part of the class action, you must
complete the online form at http://www.BIMclassaction.com
If you do not have access to the internet, please contact Ulla
Herlev at Branch MacMaster LLP.  You must complete the online form
by no later than January 18, 2012.

DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING?

You will only need to pay legal fees if the action is successful
in obtaining you a refund of some of the monies you paid.  Those
legal fees will be paid directly from the refund you receive.  You
will not need to pay any legal fees out of your own pocket.

Any fee paid to the lawyers must be approved by the Court as being
fair and reasonable.  The fee agreement entered into by the
representative plaintiff provides for the lawyers to be paid up to
1/3 of any amounts recovered or any benefit obtained from the
class action.  If and when this occurs, the lawyers will apply to
Court for approval of that percentage or some lesser amount.

If the class action is unsuccessful at the common issues trial,
you will not pay any legal fees.

WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?

The lawyers for the class are:

          BRANCH MACMASTER LLP
          Barristers and Solicitors
          1410-777 Hornby Street
          Vancouver, BC V6Z 1S4

          HORDO BENNETT MOUNTEER LLP
          Barristers and Solicitors
          1400-128 West Pender St.
          Vancouver, BC V6B 1R8

Mark Cuzzetto (the representative plaintiff) has been appointed by
the Court to instruct the lawyers for the common issues stage.
The lawyers must act in the interest of all class members.

HOW DO I FIND OUT ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS?

For updates or questions please check our Web site at
http://www.BIMclassaction.com

Alternatively, you can contact Ulla Herlev of Branch MacMaster
LLP:

          Ulla Herlev, Paralegal
          E-mail: uherlev@branmac.com
          Tel: (604) 654-2964
          Fax: (604) 684-3429


CARROLL ELECTRIC: Amends Bylaws to Prohibit Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Lucariello, writing for Lovely County Citizen, reports
that in what Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation (CECC) terms
"positive" and attorney Bill Ikard of Ikard Wynne, LLP, terms
"unacceptable" and "egregious," the electric co-op Board of
Directors changed its bylaws on Oct. 27 to prohibit class action
suits against itself, among other changes.

The board voted these changes in while the merits of a complaint
filed by Mr. Ikard in July, initiated by Gordon Watkins and Dane
Schumacher on behalf of all co-op members, have yet to be decided
by the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC).

The complaint requests declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking
"increased transparency, more democratic governance, repayment of
capital credits, a halt to the use of herbicides without the
landowners' permission" and more.

The bylaw amendments compel members to bring disputes to
arbitration.

The party requesting arbitration must pay for its initiation, and
whoever loses will pay the costs, including attorney's fees.  If
the dispute is dismissed, the party bringing the complaint must
still pay the costs of the other.

"There won't be any situation where the claimant will be the co-
op, it will always be a member," Mr. Ikard said.  "The only time
the co-op would have a claim against the member is for account
delinquency, and they'll just cut off the electric."

He said arbitration can incur costs anywhere from $5,000 to
$50,000, depending on the nature of the claim and how long it
takes.

The prohibition against participating in "any class action, or
putative class action" against the co-op could constitute a
violation of the membership agreement, Mr. Ikard said.

"That would mean you would not be able to obtain electricity, and
Carroll Electric has a monopoly on providing electricity to its
service areas."

Asked why the co-op board amended the bylaws while there is a
pending class action complaint before the APSC, Nancy Plagge,
Director of Corporate Communications, replied with this written
statement:

"The board recognizes the irony of any class action complaint or
lawsuits against a cooperative.  The cooperative exists for the
benefit of its members.  Class action litigation can be very
expensive and boils down to a member suing themselves.  As a
cooperative, these expenses would just drive up the cost of
services received and enjoyed by members.

"The board believes adding mediation and arbitration measures to
resolve disputes are fair, productive, and in the best interest of
Carroll Electric's membership."

She said she believes the change is not retroactive to before Oct.
27 and "probably" would not affect the current complaint.
However, Mr. Ikard said the APSC has not yet certified the class
of members under the complaint as either B-2 "non-opt out" or
"putative."  When it does, either way the members could be found
in violation of the bylaws.

"That's why it seems to me that that single sentence is so
preposterous and unworkable that I can't imagine this was done in
good faith," Mr. Ikard said.

He said his team is contemplating taking action with regard to the
amendment.

Some other changes include board members being subjected to random
drug testing when they show up to meetings, appointment of a
"nominating official" to review applications of those seeking a
board position, a change in the nomination application window, a
nominee being a resident member of the co-op for at least three
years, and other changes.

Ms. Plagge said the full text of the amended bylaws will be
included in the December issue of the co-op's monthly publication,
Arkansas Living.


CHATTEM INC: Sued in Calif. Over Deceptive Claims on Mouthwash
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Chattem pushes its ATC Total Care mouthwash with unsubstantiated
claims that it "strengthens teeth, rebuilds enamel, helps prevent
cavities, fights unsightly plaque," and does other stuff too.

A copy of the Complaint in Gaerin v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 11-
cv-02735 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/23/Overkill.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1550
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com


CITIGROUP INC: Judge Certifies Class in Overtime Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on Nov. 22
certified a class of Citigroup loan consultants and specialists
who say the bank owes them overtime wages.

A copy of the Opinion in Raniere, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-02448 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/es475m

The Plaintiffs were represented by:

         Douglas Wigdor, Esq.
         David Gottlieb, Esq.
         Kenneth Thompson, Esq.
         Stephen Vargas, Esq.
         THOMPSON WIGDOR LLP
         85 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10003
         E-mail: dwigdor@thompsonwigdor.com
                 kthompson@thompsonwigdor.com
                 dgottlieb@thompsonwigdor.com
                 svargas@thompsonwigdor.com

The Defendants were represented by:

         Sam Shaulson, Esq.
         Ellyn Pearlstein, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS LLP
         101 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10178


CITY OF NEW YORK: Sued Over Parking Ticket Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a driver who
parked too close to a fire hydrant has put his shoulder to the
wheel and demands $500 million in class damages, claiming New York
City adds surcharges to parking tickets, which make the amount of
the fine illegal.

Bernard Weitz was cited on Oct. 3 for parking too close to a fire
hydrant.  He paid the $115 fine rather than contest it, according
to his class action in New York County Court.

Mr. Weitz says that when he paid his fine online through the
NYCSERV system, the bill included a $10 penalty, which he presumed
was a late fee.

He paid the bill in full, plus a $2 credit card fee, for a total
of $127, on Nov. 10.

Citing Vehicle and Traffic Law Sec. 237(2), Mr. Weitz says that
the additional fees pushed his fine over the legal limit.  Vehicle
and Traffic Law Sec. 237(2) states that "(i) in a city with a
population of one million or more, violations committed in spaces
where stopping or standing is prohibited for which monetary
penalties shall not exceed one hundred dollars and, (ii)
handicapped parking violations for which monetary penalties shall
not exceed one hundred fifty dollars; and (b) abandoned vehicle
violations, except in a city with a population of one million or
more, provided however, that monetary penalties shall not be less
than two hundred fifty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars
for each abandoned vehicle violation," according to the complaint.

But Mr. Weitz says that for at least 6 years, the city has added
surcharges that make its fines illegal.

"Since on or prior to November 28, 2005, defendant has frequently,
routinely and persistently imposed, demanded payment for and
collected Parking Ticket fines in amounts that exceeded the lawful
amounts permitted by VTL Sec. 237(2)," according to the complaint.

The complaint begins in high dudgeon: "As is the case for the
named representative plaintiff, and as is believed to be the case
for all or most parking summonses that have been issued in the
City of New York going back many years and which continue to be
issued with no end in sight, defendant has and continues to issue
hundreds of thousands if not millions of parking summonses whereby
the amounts of the so-called fines -- which amounts appear on the
summonses and the payments of which are systematically and
unrelentlessly [sic] demanded and collected by defendant under
threat and power of significant penalties, late charges and
interest, and the imposition of various severe punitive measures,
including but not limited to seizure and confiscation, and/or the
suspension or revocation of license and other privileges -- exceed
the lawful fine amounts that defendant can legally impose and
collect under the state's enabling statute, Vehicle and Traffic
Law [VTL] Sec. 237(2), and/or includes a 'surcharge' that
defendant cannot lawfully impose and collect for the vast majority
of parking violations where the owner/operator has not contested
the summons and instead paid the so-called fine without requesting
and receiving any adjudication of guilt or liability," the
complaint states.

Mr. Weitz seeks class damages of $500 million for unlawful fines
and surcharges, and injunctive relief.

Lawyers for New York City said that they have not yet received
notice of the suit.

A copy of the Complaint in Weitz v. City of New York, Department
of Finance, Parking Violations Burea, Index No. 11113196 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., N.Y Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/23/Parking.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sanford F. Young, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANFORD F. YOUNG, P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 2008
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 227-9755


FELTEX: Shareholders Seek Orders for Discovery of Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marta Steeman, writing for BusinessDay.co.nz, reports that
proponents of the more than NZD100 million shareholder class
action against the former directors of failed carpetmaker Feltex
are hoping the High Court will issue orders for the discovery of
documents before the end of the year.

It will be a milestone for the 1,800 shareholders taking action
against the former directors of the company and the sellers and
promoters of the Feltex public offering of shares which raised
just over NZD250 million in June 2004.

Feltex collapsed into receivership two years later, followed by
liquidation, and shareholders lost their investments.

The plaintiff, Eric Houghton, representing 1800 shareholders,
alleges the Feltex prospectus was misleading and breached the Fair
Trading Act and Securities Act.

The first defendants are the seven former directors of the company
at the time of the public offer of shares in May-June 2004.  They
were Tim Saunders, Sam Magill, John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter
Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers.

The other defendants include the sellers of the shares, Credit
Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners, said to have made a
profit of NZD182 million on the shares, the High Court has been
told.  Several thousand investors bought Feltex shares at NZD1.70
each.

The plaintiff is seeking that each shareholder be refunded the
purchase price of the shares, interest and costs.

The driving force is Auckland merchant banker Tony Gavigan who set
up Joint Action Funding Limited to lead and source funding for the
case.

It has secured funding from Harbour Litigation Funding, a London
company, and insurance against loss of the case, required by the
Court of Appeal.

Mr. Gavigan said on Nov. 23 if the orders were issued by the court
it would be the first time the plaintiffs had access to documents.

"We are hoping to have orders for discovery by the end of this
year."

The plaintiff had to provide his documents but there was little
besides Mr. Houghton's documents related to his investment in
Feltex.

"We will be seeking discovery of every piece of information
because we are not sure what is still in the hands of the
company."

The Securities Commission would have records from its
investigation into the prospectus and Mr. Gavigan said he hoped
the Financial Markets Authority, the successor to the commission,
would help them.  The Securities Commission found the prospectus
was not misleading.

Mr. Gavigan said there were about 4000 shareholders who had not
joined the action who had lost on average NZD10,000 each and the
plaintiff would be writing to them to offer them the chance to
join.

"We will have to spend a year getting every piece of paper out
there that will prove the case," Mr. Gavigan said.

Most of the proceedings have been conducted in chambers so far.

Mr. Gavigan said the Feltex directors were insured by Chartis and
that money should be paid out and could be used to help pay out
shareholders.  The High Court rejected in October that the
defendants' application to shift the case to Auckland.

Justice Potter said while there might be cost savings they were
more than outweighed by "the convenience and efficiency of
continuing the close management and control of the proceedings by
French J in the Christchurch registry."


FNB UNITED: Negotiating Settlement of "Isser" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
FNB United Corp. is in the process of negotiating a settlement of
a purported class action lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder,
Robert Isser, arising from the Company's merger with Bank of
Granite Corporation, according to the Company's November 10, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On May 23, 2011, Robert Isser, a purported shareholder of Granite,
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against Granite, Granite's directors and FNB
United challenging the merger between FNB United and Granite.  The
purported class action alleged that the Granite directors breached
their fiduciary duties, including their duties of good faith,
loyalty and due care, to the Granite shareholders by engaging in
self-dealing and obtaining for themselves personal benefits not
shared equally by other Granite shareholders and by failing to
take steps to maximize the value of Granite to its shareholders in
a change of control transaction.  The action further alleged that
Granite and FNB United aided and abetted the Granite directors'
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff sought
class action certification and injunctive relief preventing the
defendants from consummating the merger, or, to the extent already
implemented, rescinding the merger or granting plaintiff and the
purported class rescissory damages.  The plaintiff further sought
compensatory damages suffered as a result of the alleged
wrongdoing as well as the costs and disbursements of the purported
class action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
On September 20, 2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") providing for the resolution of the claims
asserted by Mr. Isser.  Pursuant to the MOU and an order entered
by the Delaware chancery court on September 23, 2011, the case is
now stayed.  The parties are in the process of negotiating the
terms of a final settlement agreement, which will be presented to
the Delaware chancery court for approval.


HEALTHMARKETS INC: Sales Leaders' Suit Remains Pending in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed by Healthmarkets, Inc. sales
leaders remains pending in a Massachusetts court, according to the
Company's November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On July 6, 2010, HealthMarkets, Inc., MEGA and Mid-West were named
as defendants in a putative class action (Jeffrey Cutter, Rina
Discepolo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. HealthMarkets, Inc. et al.) pending in the Norfolk County
Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:10-
cv:11488-JLT.  On August 13, 2010, this matter was removed to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The complaint alleges that the named plaintiffs (former district
sales leaders contracted with the Company's insurance
subsidiaries) were employees (rather than independent contractors)
under Massachusetts law and are therefore entitled, among other
relief, to recover certain business costs under the Massachusetts
Wage Act.  On July 21, 2011, the Court certified the class and on
September 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' motion to appeal the class certification.

The Company is mounting a vigorous defense of these actions.
However, given the early stage of each matter, the Company is
unable to determine at this time what, if any, impact they may
have on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results
of operations.


HORIZON BLUE CROSS: St. Joseph's Doctors File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Jo Layton, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that doctors
affiliated with St. Joseph's Regional Medical Center in Paterson
filed a class action suit on Nov. 23 against Horizon Blue Cross
Blue Shield of New Jersey, the latest round in hardball
negotiations between the state's largest health insurer and
Passaic County's largest hospital system.

The lawsuit filed by IPA of North Jersey seeks an injunction to
prevent Horizon from terminating physicians from the Horizon
network, a move in response to the insurer sending letters to
dozens of Passaic County doctors alerting them they were no longer
in network.

The battle over the new contract, which goes into effect Jan. 1,
2012, could affect tens of thousands of patients with Medicaid and
FamilyCare coverage, state employee benefits, individual, small-
business and commercial plans, and Medicare.

Nearly 42,000 Passaic County residents had Horizon coverage as of
June 30.  It is the single largest payer at the St. Joseph's
system, which includes the 651-bed regional medical center in
Paterson and a 229-bed community hospital in Wayne.

"This action was necessitated by Horizon's decision to put its
business and profits ahead of the delivery of superior medical
services to the Paterson and Passaic County public," said Sean A.
Smith, the physicians' attorney.  "We filed this action to
vindicate a physician's right to practice and a patient's right to
choose their physician."

It's possible the contract will be resolved before it expires, but
state law required insurers to notify physicians if their
contracts will be terminated and they need to notify members of a
change in contract.  The vast majority of termination notices
don't lead to actual termination of the contract, state officials
have said.  Mr. Smith said more than 50 physicians have received
the notice.

"If you're on the receiving end of one of these letters, you're
asking where am I going," said attorney Charles X. Gormally, who
is also representing physicians.  "Patients are bailing because of
this.  That's why we want the court to maintain the status quo,"
he said.

Horizon spokesman Thomas Rubino said St. Joseph's terminated the
contract and chose to leave the Horizon network because the
insurer wouldn't agree to a 50% increase in rates.

"Horizon refused such unreasonable demands, particularly in this
difficult economy, since they would only work to increase premiums
on our customers," Mr. Rubino said.  The insurer has offered
"reasonable" rate increase, but the hospital has not rescinded its
termination.

Attorneys for physicians say Horizon has given St. Joseph's less
than a 1% rate increase since 2009.

Officials at St. Joseph's acknowledged the lawsuit had been filed
but declined further comment.


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Price-Fixing Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe Charest-Beaudry and Enrico Forlini, writing for Fasken
Martineau, reports that on November 16, 2011, the Quebec Court of
Appeal authorized the institution of a class action on behalf of
persons who allegedly suffered damages due to allegations of
conspiracy to fix the prices of dynamic random-access memory
(DRAM) in "Option consommateurs v. Infineon Technologies AG et
al".


IPAYMENT INC: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Green" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
iPayment, Inc., reached a tentative a settlement of a purported
class action lawsuit filed by L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes,
according to the Company's November 14, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.,
Online Data Corporation, and iPayment, Inc., United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 09CV05679-
RJD-SMG, is a purported class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff L.
Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, naming the Company, and one of the
Company's subsidiaries, Online Data Corporation, as defendants.
In October 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss count one
(unjust enrichment) of plaintiff's First Amended Class Action
Complaint ("FAC"), which the Court denied on August 3, 2011.  The
Company has filed an answer and counterclaim to the FAC, denying
various allegations in the complaint, asserting affirmative
defenses and the Company's counterclaims and requesting that the
District Court enter judgment on the Company's counterclaim
against plaintiff and the Company also attended a settlement
conference held on September 6, 2011, which did not result in a
settlement resolution.  However, subsequently the parties engaged
in settlement discussions, and as of November 14, 2011, the
parties have reached a tentative understanding regarding the terms
of a proposed settlement.  As of November 14, 2011, the Company
believes that if this matter is settled on terms substantially
similar to the terms of the proposed settlement, the settlement
will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial
condition or results of operations.  However, as of November 14,
2011, settlement documents have not been finalized or executed and
no assurance can be given that any settlement will be entered
into, completed or if completed, that the terms thereof will be
substantially similar to the settlement terms that have been
tentatively agreed to by the parties.  If the proposed settlement
is not completed, the Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself against the claims asserted; however, at this time,
the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and the Company's potential
liability associated with the claims asserted against the Company
cannot be predicted with any certainty and there can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or
that a failure to prevail will not have a material adverse effect
on its business, financial condition or results of operations.


IPAYMENT INC: Awaits Stipulation Order in Vericomm Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
iPayment, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on a stipulation it
entered into with Vericomm, Inc., in a purported class action
lawsuit filed by Vericomm in a California court, according to the
Company's November 14, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Vericomm, Inc., one of the Company's independent sales groups,
filed a purported class action complaint (the "Complaint") against
the Company on January 20, 2011 in the District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division.  On June 20,
2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second, third,
seventh, and eighth causes of action alleged in Vericomm's
Complaint, and to strike Vericomm's request for attorneys' fees
under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.  The
Court set September 26, 2011 as the date for the hearing on the
Company's motion to dismiss and to strike.  Pursuant to the joint
stipulations filed by the parties with the Court, the Court issued
an order that provided for Vericomm to file a first amended
complaint asserting claims on behalf of Vericomm only by
October 3, 2011; for the Company's motion set for hearing on
September 26, 2011 to be withdrawn and taken off-calendar without
prejudice to assert any applicable defense or response to
Vericomm's first amended complaint; for the Company to have until
October 24, 2011, to answer, move to dismiss, move to strike, or
otherwise respond to Vericomm's first amended complaint; set a
Scheduling Conference for November 21, 2011; and ordered the
parties to file an updated Joint 26(f) Report by November 14,
2011.  On October 3, 2011, Vericomm filed its first amended
complaint (the "Vericomm FAC") in which it asserts that the
Company has wrongfully and incorrectly calculated, reported, and
paid certain residual compensation due to Vericomm, and that the
Company engaged in certain activities that Vericomm believes to be
intentional and wrongful, including interfering with merchant
relationships in order to deprive Vericomm from residual
compensation related to those merchants in violation of the terms
of the Company's contract.  The Vericomm FAC does not include
claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act that were
included in the original Vericomm Complaint nor does it seek class
action treatment and relief, trebled damages, injunctive relief,
restitution, or attorneys' fees and costs as were included in the
original Complaint.  The Vericomm FAC seeks damages in an amount
yet to be determined, but which it believes to be in excess of
$7.0 million, including general, special and punitive damages, an
accounting, and other relief deemed proper.  As a result of the
parties' met-and-confer meetings of October 19 and 20, 2011, the
parties agreed to submit the claims that are the subject of the
Vericomm FAC to arbitration under the terms of the Company's
contract and to file a joint stipulation with the Court.  On
October 24, 2011, the parties filed a joint stipulation with the
Court, requesting that the Court enter an order pursuant to which
the claims that are asserted in the Vericomm FAC will be submitted
to arbitration, and that the parties will select an arbitrator(s)
from those available in the JAMS, Inc. panel; that the Court
vacate any and all dates on calendar, including the Scheduling
Conference currently set for November 21, 2011, and that the Court
will administratively stay the case pending a resolution of the
arbitration, whether by judgment, dismissal, or otherwise.
Although the Company believes that the Court will enter an order
upon the terms requested in the joint stipulation filed by the
parties with the Court on October 24, 2011, as of November 14,
2011, the Court has not entered or denied any order in regards to
the joint stipulation filed by the parties.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself
against the claims asserted; however, at this time, the ultimate
outcome of the lawsuit and the Company's potential liability
associated with the claims asserted against the Company cannot be
predicted with any certainty, and there can be no assurance that
the Company will be successful in its defense or that a failure to
prevail will not have a material adverse effect on its business,
financial condition or results of operations.


NETFLIX: Judge Dismisses Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
federal judge in California has dismissed a class action against
Netflix that alleged the online movie retailer had struck an
illegal "market allocation" agreement with Walmart.  On Nov. 22,
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton handed Netflix a victory on
summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs couldn't show any
collusive agreement.

The dismissal cuts short a trial that was tentatively scheduled
for January.

The plaintiffs brought their claims to federal court in 2009,
pointing to an agreement made between Netflix and Walmart four
years earlier.

At the time, Blockbuster had just entered the DVD online rental
market and rumors circulated that Amazon would soon do the same.
Netflix approached Walmart in a purported effort to stave off the
perceived Amazon threat.  At first, the talks went nowhere, but
then Walmart decided to exit the DVD rental business.  In 2005,
the two companies reached a deal on a so-called "Promotion
Agreement," whereby existing Walmart DVD rental customers would be
transitioned to Netflix.

Amazon didn't jump into the DVD business, and Blockbuster later
flopped, leading eight individuals to lead a class action lawsuit
that alleged that antitrust behavior between Netflix and Walmart
had led to higher prices.  The plaintiffs estimated that damages
could be as high as $654 million.

But now, Judge Hamilton has curtailed a trial that was scheduled
to feature Netflix CEO Reed Hastings as well as former top media
executives from Amazon, Walmart and Blockbuster.  She ruled that
the plaintiffs simply couldn't show that the "Promotion Agreement"
was illegal.  According to the decision:

"The Promotion Agreement on its face discloses an agreement by
both parties to undertake cross-promotional efforts with respect
to each other's complementary online DVD rental and sales
services, in light of Walmart's independent decision to exit the
DVD rental market.  Not only does the agreement expressly
acknowledge the 'independent nature of Walmart's decision to exit
the market, but it furthermore expressly states that Walmart is
free to re-enter the same market.  Under these circumstances, the
court cannot agree that the agreement on its face reflects a
blatant agreement to eliminate Walmart from the online DVD rental
market as a form of market allocation."

The class plaintiffs are free to appeal the decision, but in the
meantime, they won't walk away empty-handed.

Walmart made an independent decision about a year ago to settle
instead of spending money on lawyers.  In retrospect, given the
judge's decision on Nov. 22, Walmart seems to have made a $27.25
million error.  That's the amount that Walmart agreed to pay out
in order to avoid this class action fight.

The retail giant can't even claim to have saved that much in legal
costs.

Walmart first reached a very complicated settlement with the
plaintiffs in December 2010 that included a pay-out range (between
$29 million and $40 million depending on the number of claims),
that included a sub-class of customers who rented DVDs online from
Blockbuster, and a provision where Wal-Mart had the right to
"blow-out" the entire settlement if a substantial portion of
potential class members opted-out of the deal.

The judge didn't like this deal very much, and Netflix objected
too, leading to seven months of continued revisions before a final
settlement was reached.  Most importantly, the pay-out became
fixed and Blockbuster class members were removed.

In September, a judge blessed the settlement, leading to an e-mail
from plaintiffs' lawyers about a week ago to many Netflix
subscribers, informing them of the settlement.  Per the agreement,
all those who rented DVDs from Netflix anytime between May 19,
2005 and September 2, 2011 have the opportunity to claim a piece
of the $27.25 million pot in the form of gift cards or cash.
Initially, Walmart's settlement was criticized by customers who
worried they were only getting pennies on the dollar of potential
damages.  The aggrieved individuals noted that the class action
lawyers would take home 25% of the settlement fund, or nearly $7
million, and also be reimbursed up to $1.7 million in legal costs.
Now, that remaining money looks better than nothing.


NETLOGIC MICROSYSTEMS: Awaits Court OK of Shareholder Suits Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
NetLogic Microsystems, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a
settlement dismissing two shareholder class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's November 14, 2011 Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 20, 2011, on September 16, 2011, a putative class
action lawsuit, New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund v. Broyles, et
al., Case No. 111CV209381, challenging the merger by and among the
Company, Broadcom Corporation and I&N Acquisition Corp., was filed
in California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara (referred to
as the "California Action") against Broadcom, Merger Sub and the
members of the Company's board of directors.  On September 20,
2011, another putative class action lawsuit, Vincent Anthony
Danielo v. NetLogic Microsystems, Inc., et al., CA No. 6881,
challenging the Merger was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (referred to as the "Delaware Action") against
NetLogic, Broadcom, Merger Sub and the members of the Company's
board of directors.  The complaints in both lawsuits (collectively
the "Shareholder Litigations") allege that the Company's directors
violated their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by,
among other things, failing to ensure a fair sale process and a
fair price in connection with the Merger, and acting to further
their personal interests and the interests of Broadcom at the
expense of NetLogic's stockholders.  Each lawsuit also alleges
that Broadcom and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Company's
directors in breaching their fiduciary duties.  On October 7,
2011, the plaintiff in the California Action filed an amended
complaint adding allegations that the preliminary proxy statement
filed on October 5, 2011 contained inadequate and misleading
disclosures under Delaware law by failing to provide additional
and more detailed disclosures regarding the events leading up to
the merger, the analysis and opinion of Qatalyst Partners LP, and
the NetLogic financial forecasts.  On October 19, 2011, the
plaintiff in the Delaware Action filed his amended complaint
adding similar disclosure claims.  The plaintiffs in both lawsuits
seek to enjoin the consummation of the Merger and seek an award of
the costs of the action, including reasonable allowances for
attorneys' and experts' fees, among other relief.  On October 7,
2011, defendants in the California Action filed a motion to stay
that action pending the resolution of the Delaware Action.  A
hearing on that motion is set for December 23, 2011.  On
October 3, 2011, the Broadcom defendants filed an answer to the
original Delaware Action complaint denying all the substantive
allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.  On October 13,
2011, the NetLogic defendants filed their answer to the original
Delaware Action complaint denying all the substantive allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses.  On October 19, 2011, the
NetLogic defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware Action.
On October 27, 2011, the plaintiff in the California Action filed
an application for an order to show cause and a temporary
restraining order ("TRO Application") to enjoin the shareholder
vote scheduled for November 22, 2011.  A hearing on that
application is set for November 18, 2011.  On November 3, 2011,
the NetLogic defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint
in the California Action.  The demurer is set for hearing on
December 23, 2011.  On November 7, 2011, the Broadcom defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware Action.  On November 9,
2011, the NetLogic and Broadcom defendants filed their opposition
to plaintiff's TRO Application.

On November 11, 2011, the defendants in both actions reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in both actions
regarding settlement of the Shareholder Litigations.  In
connection with the settlement contemplated by that agreement in
principle, the Shareholder Litigations and all claims asserted
therein will be dismissed.  The terms of the settlement
contemplated by that agreement in principle require that NetLogic
make certain additional disclosures related to the Merger.  The
parties also agreed that plaintiffs may seek attorneys' fees and
costs in an amount up to $795,000, with NetLogic to pay those fees
and costs if those fees and costs are approved by the court in the
California action.  There will be no other settlement payment by
NetLogic, any of the members of the NetLogic board of directors,
or Broadcom.  The agreement in principle further contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which
will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to NetLogic's shareholders.  In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.  Both the
California and the Delaware Actions will be stayed pending court
approval of the settlement.  There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement,
that the court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the agreement in principle.


PFIZER INC: Protonix Suit Remains Stayed Due to Patent Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Nycomed GmbH and Pfizer Inc.'s
subsidiary, Wyeth, relating to Protonix remains stayed pending
resolution of a related patent infringement case, according to the
Company's November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

Wyeth has a license to market Protonix in the U.S. from Nycomed
GmabH (Nycomed), which owns the patents relating to Protonix.  The
basic patent (including the six-month pediatric exclusivity
period) for Protonix expired in January 2011.

Following their filings of abbreviated new drug applications with
the FDA, Teva USA and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Sun
Pharmaceutical Advanced Research Centre Ltd. and Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (collectively, Sun) and KUDCO
Ireland, Ltd. (KUDCO Ireland) received final FDA approval to
market their generic versions of Protonix 20mg and 40mg delayed-
release tablets.  Wyeth and Nycomed filed actions against those
generic manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, which subsequently were consolidated into a single
proceeding, alleging infringement of the basic patent and seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief.  Following the court's denial
of a preliminary injunction sought by Wyeth and Nycomed, Teva USA
and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Sun launched their generic
versions of Protonix tablets at risk in December 2007 and January
2008, respectively.  Wyeth launched its own generic version of
Protonix tablets in January 2008, and Wyeth and Nycomed filed
amended complaints in the pending patent-infringement action
seeking compensation for damages resulting from Teva USA's, Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries' and Sun's at-risk launches.

In April 2010, the jury in the pending patent-infringement action
upheld the validity of the basic patent for Protonix.  In July
2010, the court upheld the jury verdict, but it did not issue a
judgment against Teva USA, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries or Sun
because of their other claims relating to the patent that still
are pending. Wyeth and Nycomed will continue to pursue all
available legal remedies against those generic manufacturers,
including compensation for damages resulting from their at-risk
launches.

Wyeth and Nycomed GmbH are defendants in purported class actions
brought by direct and indirect purchasers of Protonix in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Plaintiffs seek
damages, on behalf of the respective putative classes, for the
alleged violation of antitrust laws in connection with the
procurement and enforcement of the patents for Protonix.  These
purported class actions have been stayed pending resolution of a
related patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Celebrex/Bextra Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated class
action lawsuit arising from alleged misrepresentation of the
safety of Celebrex and Bextra, according to the Company's
November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2011.

Beginning in late 2004, actions, including purported class
actions, were filed in various federal and state courts against
Pfizer, Pharmacia Corporation (Pharmacia) and certain current and
former officers, directors and employees of Pfizer and Pharmacia.
These actions include (i) purported class actions alleging that
Pfizer and certain current and former officers of Pfizer violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex
and Bextra, and (ii) purported class actions filed by persons who
claim to be participants in the Pfizer or Pharmacia Savings Plan
alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former officers,
directors and employees of Pfizer or, where applicable, Pharmacia
and certain former officers, directors and employees of Pharmacia,
violated certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by selecting and maintaining Pfizer
stock or Pharmacia stock as an investment alternative when it
allegedly no longer was a suitable or prudent investment option.
In June 2005, the federal securities and ERISA actions were
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-
District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and
"ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In 2003, several purported class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Pharmacia, Pfizer and certain former officers of Pharmacia.  The
plaintiffs seek damages, alleging that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting the data from a study
concerning the gastrointestinal effects of Celebrex.  These cases
were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the District of New
Jersey (Alaska Electrical Pension Fund et al. v. Pharmacia
Corporation et al.).  In January 2007, the court certified a class
consisting of all persons who purchased Pharmacia securities from
April 17, 2000 through February 6, 2001 and were damaged as a
result of the decline in the price of Pharmacia's securities
allegedly attributable to the misrepresentations.

In October 2007, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.  In November 2007,
the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.  In January 2009, the Third Circuit vacated
the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
defendants and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.  The Third Circuit also held that the District Court
erred in determining that the class period ended on February 6,
2001, and directed that the class period end on August 5, 2001.
In June 2009, the District Court stayed proceedings in the case
pending a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to
defendants' petition for certiorari seeking reversal of the Third
Circuit's decision.  In May 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied
defendants' petition for certiorari, and the case was remanded to
the District Court for further proceedings.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Off-Label Promotions Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit in New York arising from alleged failure to
disclose off-label marketing of certain drugs, according to the
Company's November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Pfizer and several of the Company's current and former officers.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that Pfizer was engaged in
off-label marketing of certain drugs.  Plaintiffs seek damages in
an unspecified amount.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Hormone-Replacement Therapy Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself from several class action
lawsuits alleging personal injury and economic loss related to the
use or purchase of hormone-replacement therapy, according to the
Company's November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

Pfizer and certain wholly owned subsidiaries and limited liability
companies, including Wyeth and King, along with several other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in
approximately 10,000 actions in various federal and state courts
alleging personal injury or economic loss related the use or
purchase of certain estrogen and progestin medications prescribed
for women to treat the symptoms of menopause.  Although new
actions are occasionally filed, the number of new actions was not
significant in the third quarter of 2011, and the Company does not
expect a substantial change in the rate of new actions being
filed.  Plaintiffs in these suits allege a variety of personal
injuries, including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, stroke and
heart disease.  Certain co-defendants in some of these actions
have asserted indemnification rights against Pfizer and its
affiliated companies.  The cases against Pfizer and its affiliated
companies involve one or more of the following products, all of
which remain approved by the FDA: femhrt (which Pfizer divested in
2003); Activella and Vagifem (which are Novo Nordisk products that
were marketed by a Pfizer affiliate from 2000 to 2004); Premarin,
Prempro, Aygestin, Cycrin and Premphase (which are legacy Wyeth
products); and Provera, Ogen, Depo-Estradiol, Estring and generic
MPA (which are legacy Pharmacia & Upjohn products).  The federal
cases have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings
to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Prempro Products Liability
Litigation MDL-1507) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.  Certain of the federal cases have been
remanded to their respective District Courts for further
proceedings including, if necessary, trial.

This litigation consists of individual actions, a few purported
statewide class actions and a purported province-wide class action
in Quebec, Canada, a statewide class action in California and a
nationwide class action in Canada.  In March 2011, in an action
against Wyeth seeking the refund of the purchase price paid for
Wyeth's hormone-replacement therapy products by individuals in the
State of California during the period from January 1995 to January
2003, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California certified a class consisting of all individual
purchasers of those products in California who actually heard or
read Wyeth's alleged misrepresentations regarding those products.
This is the only hormone-replacement therapy action to date
against Pfizer and its affiliated companies in the U.S. in which a
class has been certified.  In addition, in August 2011, in an
action against Wyeth seeking damages for personal injury, the
Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a class consisting of
all women who were prescribed Premplus and/or Premarin in
combination with progestin in Canada between January 1, 1997 and
December 1, 2003 and who thereafter were diagnosed with breast
cancer.

Pfizer and its affiliated companies have prevailed in many of the
hormone-replacement therapy actions that have been resolved to
date, whether by voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs, summary
judgment, defense verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict;
a number of these cases have been appealed by the plaintiffs.
Certain other hormone-replacement therapy actions have resulted in
verdicts for the plaintiffs and have included the award of
compensatory and, in some instances, punitive damages; each of
these cases has been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated
companies.  The decisions in a few of the cases that had been
appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies or by the
plaintiffs have been upheld by the appellate courts, while several
other cases that had been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated
companies or by the plaintiffs have been remanded by the appellate
courts to their respective trial courts for further proceedings.
Trials of additional hormone-replacement therapy actions are
underway or scheduled for 2011.

As of October 2, 2011, Pfizer and its affiliated companies had
settled, or entered into definitive agreements or agreements-in-
principle to settle, approximately 46% of the hormone-replacement
therapy actions pending against the Company and its affiliated
companies.  The Company has recorded aggregate charges with
respect to those actions, as well as with respect to the actions
that have resulted in verdicts against the Company or its
affiliated companies, of $280 million in the first nine months of
2011 and $300 million in prior years.  In addition, the Company
has recorded a charge of $260 million in the first nine months of
2011 that provides for the minimum expected costs to resolve all
remaining hormone-replacement therapy actions against Pfizer and
its affiliated companies, consistent with the Company's current
ability to quantify those future costs.  The $260 million charge
is an estimate and, while the Company cannot reasonably estimate
the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount
accrued for these contingencies given the uncertainties inherent
in this product liability litigation additional charges may be
required in the future.

Most of the unresolved actions against Pfizer and/or its
affiliated companies have been outstanding for more than five
years and could take many more years to resolve.  However,
opportunistic settlements could occur at any time, the Company.
The litigation process is time-consuming, as every hormone-
replacement action being litigated involves contested issues of
medical causation and knowledge of risk.  Even though the vast
majority of hormone-replacement therapy actions concern breast
cancer, the underlying facts (e.g., medial causation, family
history, reliance on warnings, physician/patient interaction,
analysis of labels, actual provable injury and other critical
factors) can differ significantly from action to action, and the
process of discovery has not yet begun for a majority of the
unresolved actions.  The Company said its ability to estimate the
range of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is complicated
by these factors.

In addition, the hormone-replacement therapy litigation involves
fundamental issues of science and medicine that often are
uncertain and continue to evolve.  Key scientific court rulings
may have a significant impact on the litigation as a whole.  An
integral part of the litigation process involves understanding the
evolving science as well as seeking key scientific rulings.
Equally important, the discovery process is lengthy and complex
and has not yet begun for a majority of the unresolved actions.
Therefore, the Company may not have sufficient information to
determine the percentage of unresolved actions that could be
impacted by scientific developments and/or key scientific rulings.
The Company's ability to estimate the range of possible loss in
excess of amounts accrued is complicated by these fundamental
issues of science and medicine, because the Company does not know
how the science may evolve, how the courts will rule on key
motions or which unresolved actions will be impacted by these
scientific matters.

Accordingly, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for these
contingencies.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Neurontin Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself from class action lawsuits
relating to the promotion and sale of Neurontin, according to the
Company's November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been
filed against the Company in various federal and state courts
alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin.
The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent
nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of persons,
including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and
other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications
other than those included in the product labeling approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  In 2004, many of the suits
pending in federal courts, including individual actions as well as
purported class actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin
Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-
1629) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

In the Multi-District Litigation, in 2009, the court denied the
plaintiffs' renewed motion for certification of a nationwide class
of all consumers and third-party payers who allegedly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for off-label
uses from 1994 through 2004.  In May 2011, the court denied a
motion to reconsider its class certification ruling.

In 2010, the Multi-District Litigation court partially granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of
all of the proposed class representatives for third-party payers
and four of the six proposed class representatives for individual
consumers.  In June 2011, the plaintiffs whose claims were
dismissed appealed both the dismissal and the denial of class
certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Also in the Multi-District Litigation, in February 2011, a third-
party payer who was not included in the proposed class action
appealed a dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification of statewide classes of
Neurontin purchasers in actions pending in California, Illinois
and Oklahoma.  State courts in New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri
and New Mexico have declined to certify statewide classes of
Neurontin purchasers.

In January 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered an order trebling a jury verdict against the
Company in an action by a third-party payer seeking damages for
the alleged off-label promotion of Neurontin in violation of the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
verdict was for $47.4 million, which was subject to automatic
trebling to $142.1 million under the RICO Act.  In November 2010,
the court had entered a separate verdict against the Company in
the amount of $65.4 million, together with prejudgment interest,
under California's Unfair Trade Practices law relating to the same
alleged conduct, which amount is included within and is not
additional to the $142.1 million trebled amount of the jury
verdict.  In August 2011, the Company appealed the District
Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.

A number of individual lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in various U.S. federal and state courts and in certain
other countries alleging suicide, attempted suicide and other
personal injuries as a result of the purported ingesting of
Neurontin.  Certain of the U.S. federal actions have been
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to the same
Multi-District Litigation.

In addition, purported class actions have been filed against the
Company in various Canadian provincial courts alleging claims
arising from the promotion, sale and labeling of Neurontin and
generic gabapentin.  In February 2010, in a proceeding pending in
Ontario, Canada, the court certified a class consisting of all
persons in Canada, except in Quebec, who purchased and ingested
Neurontin prior to August 2004.  The plaintiffs claim that Pfizer
failed to provide adequate warning of the alleged risks of
personal injury associated with Neurontin.  Two purported
provincewide class actions pending in Quebec that include
substantially similar allegations will be included in that
national class action by agreement of the parties and order of the
Quebec court, subject to approval by the Ontario court.

In January 2011, in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin
Antitrust Litigation MDL-1479) that consolidates four actions, the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a
nationwide class consisting of wholesalers and other entities who
purchased Neurontin directly from Pfizer and Warner-Lambert during
the period from December 11, 2002 to August 31, 2008 and who also
purchased generic gabapentin after it became available.  The
complaints allege that Pfizer and Warner-Lambert engaged in
anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act that
included, among other things, submitting patents for listing in
the Orange Book and prosecuting and enforcing certain patents
relating to Neurontin, as well as engaging in off-label marketing
of Neurontin.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, which may be
subject to trebling.


PFIZER INC: Faces Lipitor-related Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is facing a purported class action lawsuit filed in a
Pennsylvania federal court arising from various allegations
relating to Lipitor, according to the Company's November 10, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 2, 2011.

On November 9, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Pfizer and certain affiliates of Pfizer, including Warner-
Lambert Company.  The plaintiffs seek to represent a class
consisting of all persons in the U.S. who purchased and/or paid
for Lipitor directly from any of the defendants between March 25,
2010 and the present.  The plaintiffs allege fraud in connection
with Warner-Lambert Company's application to the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office for the enantiomer patent for Lipitor, which
(including the six-month pediatric exclusivity period) expired in
June 2011, as well as antitrust violations in connection with the
enforcement of that patent.  The suit seeks to recover treble
damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price
overcharges for Lipitor in the U.S. from March 25, 2010 to the
present that plaintiffs claim resulted from the delay in the
launch of generic Lipitor in the U.S. attributable to the
enantiomer patent.


PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Suits Remain Pending in U.S. & Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Several class action lawsuits relating to Pfizer Inc.'s Chantix
and Champix products remain pending in U.S. and Canada courts,
according to the Company's November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2011.

A number of individual lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in various federal and state courts alleging suicide,
attempted suicide and other personal injuries as a result of the
purported ingesting of Chantix, as well as economic loss.
Plaintiffs in these actions seek compensatory and punitive damages
and the disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of
Chantix.  In October 2009, the federal cases were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL-
2092) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.

Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed
against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of
Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial
District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia
(Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party
payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix.  Each of these
actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law,
including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and,
on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including
punitive damages.  The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British
Columbia have been stayed pending the decision regarding class
certification in the Ontario action.


PFIZER INC: Awaits Ruling of Appeal in Elan/Bapineuzumab Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is awaiting a court ruling of an appeal from a
dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit filed against Elan
Corporation related to bapineuzumab, a product in development for
the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, according to the Company's
November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2011.

In June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer, as
successor to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth.  The
complaint alleges that Wyeth and the individual defendants
violated federal securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to
make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose
or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material information,
concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab,
a product in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased Wyeth securities from May 21, 2007 through July 2008
and seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the
purported class.

In July 2010, a related action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Elan
Corporation (Elan), certain directors and officers of Elan, and
Pfizer, as successor to Wyeth.  Elan participated in the
development of bapineuzumab until September 2009.  The complaint
alleges that Elan, Wyeth and the individual defendants violated
federal securities laws by making or causing Elan to make false
and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose or causing
Elan to fail to disclose material information, concerning the
results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab.  The plaintiff
seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased
Elan call options from June 17, 2008 through July 29, 2008 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the purported
class.  In June 2011, the court granted Pfizer's and Elan's
motions to dismiss the complaint.  In July 2011, the plaintiff
filed a supplemental memorandum setting forth the bases that the
plaintiff believed supported amendment of the complaint.  In
August 2011, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  In
September 2011, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


PFIZER INC: Securities Class Suit vs. Wyeth Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities class action against Wyeth and certain of
its former officers alleging misrepresentation of the safety of
Pristiq remains pending, according to Pfizer Inc.'s November 10,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2011.

In late 2007 and early 2008, the following actions were filed in
various federal courts: (i) a purported class action alleging that
Wyeth and certain former officers of Wyeth violated federal
securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Pristiq during
the period before the FDA's issuance in July 2007 of an
"approvable letter" for Pristiq for the treatment of vasomotor
symptoms, which allegedly caused a decline in the price of Wyeth
stock; (ii) a shareholder derivative action alleging that certain
former officers of Wyeth and certain former directors of Wyeth,
two of whom are now directors of Pfizer, breached fiduciary duties
and violated federal securities laws by virtue of the alleged
misrepresentation; and (iii) a purported class action against
Wyeth, the Wyeth Savings Plan Committee, the Wyeth Savings Plan-
Puerto Rico Committee, the Wyeth Retirement Committee and certain
former Wyeth officers and committee members alleging that they
violated certain provisions of ERISA by maintaining Wyeth stock as
an investment alternative under certain Wyeth plans
notwithstanding their alleged knowledge of the aforementioned
alleged misrepresentation.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the ERISA action and denied the plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint in March and August 2010, respectively.  In
September 2010, the plaintiff appealed both of those rulings to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  In November
2010, the plaintiff withdrew the appeal, but reserved the right to
reinstate the appeal by December 2011.  In addition, in January
2011, the shareholder derivative action was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff.  The purported securities class action remains
pending.


PFIZER INC: Still Awaits OK of Settlement of King-merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving a
consolidated class action challenging the Company's acquisition of
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's
November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2011.

In October 2010, several purported class action complaints were
filed in federal and state court in Tennessee by shareholders of
King challenging Pfizer's acquisition of King.  King and the
individuals who served as the members of King's Board of Directors
at the time of the execution of the merger agreement are named as
defendants in all of these actions.  Pfizer and Parker Tennessee
Corp., a subsidiary of Pfizer, also are named as defendants in
most of these actions.

In November 2010, all of the actions filed in state court were
consolidated in the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, Tennessee
Second Judicial District, at Bristol.  The parties to the
consolidated state court action have reached an agreement-in-
principle to resolve that action as a result of certain
disclosures regarding the transaction made by King in its amended
Schedule 14D-9 recommendation statement for the tender offer dated
January 21, 2011.  The proposed settlement is subject to, among
other things, court approval.

In September 2011, the court granted defendants' unopposed motion
to dismiss the federal action.


PFIZER INC: Awaits Court OK of Settlement of Pharmacia AWP Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a settlement
resolving a consolidated class action relating to the average
wholesale price information of certain Pharmacia Corporation
products, according to the Company's November 10, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 2, 2011.

A number of states as well as most counties in New York have sued
Pharmacia, Pfizer and other pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging
that they provided average wholesale price (AWP) information for
certain of their products that was higher than the actual prices
at which those products were sold.  The AWP is used to determine
reimbursement levels under Medicare Part B and Medicaid and in
many private-sector insurance policies and medical plans.  The
plaintiffs claim that the alleged spread between the AWPs at which
purchasers were reimbursed and the actual sale prices was promoted
by the defendants as an incentive to purchase certain of their
products.  In addition to suing on their own behalf, many of the
plaintiff states seek to recover on behalf of individual Medicare
Part B co-payers and private-sector insurance companies and
medical plans in their states.  These various actions generally
assert fraud claims as well as claims under state deceptive trade
practice laws, and seek monetary and other relief, including civil
penalties and treble damages.  Several of the suits also allege
that Pharmacia and/or Pfizer did not report to the states their
best price for certain products under the Medicaid program.

In addition, Pharmacia, Pfizer and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers are defendants in a number of purported class action
suits in various federal and state courts brought by employee
benefit plans and other third-party payers that assert claims
similar to those in the state and county actions.  These suits
allege, among other things, fraud, unfair competition and unfair
trade practices and seek monetary and other relief, including
civil penalties and treble damages.

All of these state, county and purported class action suits were
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-
District Litigation (In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average
Wholesale Price Litigation MDL-1456) in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  Certain of the state and
private suits have been remanded to their respective state courts.
In 2006, the claims against Pfizer in the Multi-District
Litigation were dismissed with prejudice; the claims against
Pharmacia are still pending.

In 2008, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted
preliminary approval with respect to the fairness of a proposed
settlement of the claims against 11 defendants, including
Pharmacia, for a total of $125 million.  It is expected that the
court will consider final approval of the settlement later this
year.  If the settlement is approved, Pharmacia's contribution
would not be material, the Company said.

In addition, Wyeth is a defendant in AWP actions brought by
certain states, which are not included in the Multi-District
Litigation, as well as AWP actions brought by most counties in New
York, almost all of which are included in the Multi-District
Litigation.  Wyeth also is a defendant in a purported class action
in state court in New Jersey brought by two union health and
welfare plans on behalf of a putative class consisting of third-
party payers, certain consumers and Medicare beneficiaries.  In
addition, King and/or certain of its subsidiaries are defendants
in AWP actions brought by certain states, which are not included
in the Multi-District Litigation.  These actions against Wyeth and
King would not be included in the proposed settlement.


POWER BALANCE: Files for Bankruptcy Following Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Stafford, writing for SmartCompany, reports that the
American manufacturer of the Power Balance bracelet has filed for
bankruptcy after being inundated with lawsuits months after its
Australian distributor ran into trouble with the competition
regulator over claims the product helped improve athletic
performance without any evidence.

The American parent claims the lawsuits have put a tremendous
financial strain on the business, but insists it has been careful
to ensure all of its advertisements are compliant and do not
promise unobtainable athletic improvements.

In a statement delivered to various press publications, Power
Balance confirmed its company -- whose list of creditors includes
basketball superstar Kobe Bryant -- had filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy on November 18.

"Due to the unauthorized marketing tactics of an independent
distributor in Australia and the proliferation of counterfeit
operations of which we obviously have no control, Power Balance
has become the target of number of class action lawsuits."

Although it says the lawsuits are baseless, "they have cost the
company millions of dollars in legal fees and continue to threaten
the core business".

The business also confirmed it is "taking a proactive approach to
continuing growth by restructuring parts of the business".

The move comes after the Australian distributor was slammed by the
ACCC for misleading comments -- local owner Tom O'Dowd told
SmartCompany earlier this year he was "naive" to think the
business would not be subject to local health product regulations.

"There is a degree of naivety on my part as well.  We thought we
were selling a sporting product and we didn't realize that we were
subject to the Therapeutic Goods Act."

The ACCC's key problem was that Power Balance did not conduct
specific scientific testing to determine whether the bracelets
actually work.  Mr. O'Dowd explained he did not know he would be
subject to the Therapeutic Goods Act.

The company eventually admitted the wristbands don't actually do
this.

"The company has gone through extensive efforts to ensure that its
marketing messages are supportable and compliant with local laws."

The company has said it will continue to make new products,
despite the bankruptcy.


RANGELAND FOODS: Employment Appeals Tribunal Tosses Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dundalk Democrat reports that a group of 14 people who took a
case against a Castleblayney food company have had their cases
dismissed following a sitting of the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

The 14 people that hail from the Castleblayney and Carrickmacross
area claimed that Rangeland Foods, Lough Egish Food Park,
Castleblayney, had constructively dismissed them contrary to the
Unfair Dismissals Act.

The dispute appeared to begin after the company lost a major
contract in 2007.  The company introduced new working conditions
and practices which the claimants say were intimidating.  There
was also tension surrounding the issue of coaching notes.

In its determinations, the EAT said: "The coaching notes were
described as not being part of the disciplinary code by the
employer's side, but were intended to be helpful to the recipient
in the performance of their duty.  These notes were always used in
the workplace but there was a very large increase in the use of
these notes in the last year of the claimants' employment that had
the effect of increasing the stress in the workplace.

"All the claimants gave evidence that they were put under pressure
by the use of the coaching note system and as a consequence claim
that they were unfairly dismissed.  They all accepted redundancy.
There was a grievance handling procedure for airing complaints
within the employment.  None of the claimants availed of the
procedure.  Some of the claimants did mention their difficulties
to their union official but the employer was not approached on the
matter.  In the circumstances the Tribunal must hold that they
were not unfairly dismissed."

However, the EAT found that seven of the 14 claimants did not
receive the minimum amount of notice that they were entitled to.
"The Tribunal holds therefore that the employees who were
dismissed in this case were entitled to their statutory minimum
notice."  In total, the seven received roughly EUR18,000 in
awards.


SOLAR POWER: California Shareholder Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
A putative shareholder class action filed in a California court
against Solar Power, Inc., has been dismissed,  according to the
Company's November 14, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On January 25, 2011, a putative class action was brought against
the Company, the Company's directors and LDK Solar Co., Ltd.
("LDK"), in the Superior Court of California, County of Placer.
The complaint alleges violations of fiduciary duty by the
individual director defendants concerning the Stock Purchase
Agreement the Company and LDK entered into on January 5, 2011,
pursuant to which defendant LDK agreed to acquire 70% interest in
the Company.  Plaintiff contends that the independence of the
individual director defendants was compromised because they are
allegedly beholden to defendant LDK for continuation of their
positions as directors and possible further employment.  Plaintiff
further contends that the proposed transaction is unfair because
it allegedly contains onerous and preclusive deal protection
devices, like no shop, standstill and no solicitation provisions
and a termination fee that operates to effectively prevent any
competing offers.  The complaint alleges that the Company aided
and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
director defendants by providing aid and assistance.  Plaintiff
asks for class certification, the enjoining of the sale, or if the
sale is completed prior to judgment, rescission of the sale and
damages.  The Company has insurance coverage for this type of
action.

In October, 2011, the plaintiff entered a dismissal with prejudice
dismissing the case against the Company.


SUGARLAND CONCERT: State Fair Tragedy Victims File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Pilgrim, writing for Fox59, reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed Nov. 22 on behalf of 47 of the victims of the
State Fair tragedy.  The suit is the first class action lawsuit to
go after the private companies who helped put on the Sugarland
Concert at the State Fairgrounds back in August.  The lawsuit is
asking for damages and help with medical bills.

Mario Massillamany, an attorney in the suit said by banding
together, the group is able to pay for their own experts to find
out what happened.

"We're able to share the cost of such a litigation.  We're able to
hire some of the best experts in the country to help us prove the
liability caused by these separate entities."

Those experts are blaming all those responsible for promoting the
event, for setting up the stage and lights saying they failed to
make sure the stage was safe and failed to give adequate warning.

Mr. Massillamany said these experts also point blame to Sugarland
for not only going through with the event when they could have
called it off, but also for the equipment they required in their
contract.

"In the rider, it requires them to have 40,000 pounds that they
can put on the ceiling of the state for rigging purposes.  From
our experts that we've hired, they believe that the cause of the
stage collapse is the partially due to the amount of equipment and
also the rigging of the stage."


SUTTER MEDICAL: Harris & Ruble Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Harris & Ruble, a prominent class-action law firm based in Los
Angeles, announced their November 16, 2011, filing of a class-
action lawsuit against Sutter Medical Foundation and Sutter
Physician Services, alleging the medical provider did not properly
safeguard medical information for more than 4 million of its
patients affected by the mid-October theft of a computer from the
Sutter Medical Foundation headquarters.  The suit was filed on the
same day that Sutter admitted the unencrypted stolen computer
contained patients' medical records.

Sutter officials have acknowledged this is the largest data breach
the health network has ever experienced as it impacts millions of
patients seen in their facilities between 2005 and 2011.  Filed in
Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of plaintiff Javier
Garcia, the class-action lawsuit alleges Sutter was negligent in
protecting patient information stored in computer databases and
failed to properly notify patients within the timeframes required
by law.

A month earlier -- October 17, 2011 -- a computer with unencrypted
patient data was reported stolen from the administrative offices
of the Sutter Medical Foundation.  Patients first learned of the
security breach from the media and did not receive notices from
Sutter until late last week.  Some 3.3 million patients with
providers supported by Sutter Physician Services and 943,000
Sutter Medical Foundation patients are affected.  The stolen data
includes names, addresses, e-mail addresses, dates of birth,
telephone numbers, health insurance plans, and in some cases,
descriptions of medical diagnoses or procedures.

The Defendants "utterly failed to protect private medical
information for the millions of patients who entrusted their
healthcare and private information to these companies," said
attorney Alan Harris.  "Securing equipment and encrypting data
were not a priority for Sutter and now patients will have to worry
about what medical or insurance information is out there for
others to view.  That Pat Fry, Sutter Health President and CEO,
has acknowledged his responsibility to work harder to protect such
information in the future, does not excuse the failure to
safeguard the confidential information that has already been
disclosed."

For additional information, patients impacted by this data breach
may contact:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Harris & Ruble
          6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          E-mail: Sutterlitigation@gmail.com


TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim
Transatlantic Holdings is selling itself too cheaply through an
unfair process to Alleghany Corp., for $3.4 billion, in a stock
and cash deal that values Transatlantic at $59.79 a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Clark v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.,
Index No. 653256/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/23/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY FRANK LLP
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990


XFONE INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Israeli Unit Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
XFone, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving
certain claims in a class action lawsuit filed against its former
Israeli unit, according to the Company's November 14, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur et al. (the "Petitioners") filed
a request to approve a claim as a class action (the "Class Action
Request") against Xfone 018 Ltd. ("Xfone 018"), the Company's
former 69% Israel-based subsidiary, and four other Israeli telecom
companies, all of which are entities unrelated to the Company
(collectively with Xfone 018, the "Defendants"), in the District
Court in Petach Tikva, Israel (the "Israeli Court").  The
Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully
fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of
telephone calls by consumers to the Defendants' respective
technical support numbers.  One of the Petitioners, Mr. Eli
Sharvit ("Mr. Sharvit"), seeks damages from Xfone 018 for the cost
those telephone calls allegedly made by him during the 5.5-year
period preceding the filing of the Class Action Request, which he
assessed at NIS 54.45 (approximately $15.71).  The Class Action
Request, to the extent it pertains to Xfone 018, states total
damages of NIS 7,500,000 (approximately $2,164,502) which reflects
the Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to all consumers
that (pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly called Xfone
018's technical support number during a certain period defined in
the Class Action Request.

On February 22, 2011, Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit entered into a
settlement agreement, which following the request of the Israeli
Court was supplemented on May 3, 2011 and amended on July 18, 2011
(the "Settlement Agreement").  Pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, Xfone 018 agreed to compensate its current and past
registered customers of international calling services (the
"Services") who called its telephone service center from
December 15, 2004 until December 31, 2009, due to a problem in the
Services, and were charged for such calls (the "Compensation").
The Compensation includes a right for a single, up to ten minutes,
free of charge, international call to one landline destination
around the world, and will be valid for a period of six months.
In addition, Xfone 018 agreed to pay Mr. Sharvit a one-time
special reward in the amount of NIS 10,000 (approximately $2,886)
(the "Reward").  Xfone 018 further agreed to pay Mr. Sharvit
attorneys' fee for professional services in the amount of NIS
40,000 (approximately $11,544) plus VAT (the "Attorneys Fee").  In
return, Mr. Sharvit and the members of the Represented Group (as
defined in the Settlement Agreement) agreed to waive any and all
claims in connection with the Class Action Request.  As required
by Israeli law in those cases, the Settlement Agreement is subject
to the approval of the Israeli Court.  A deliberation with respect
to the Class Action Request has been scheduled by the Israeli
Court for March 4, 2012.  It is expected that the Israeli Court
will consider Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit's request to approve the
Settlement Agreement on or before said date.

On May 14, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement (including
any amendment and supplement thereto, the "Agreement") with
Marathon Telecom Ltd. for the sale of the Company's majority (69%)
holdings in Xfone 018.  Pursuant to Section 10 of the Agreement,
the Company is fully and exclusively liable for any and all
amounts, payments or expenses which will be incurred by Xfone 018
as a result of the Class Action Request.  Section 10 of the
Agreement provides that the Company will bear any and all expenses
or financial costs which are entailed by conducting the defense on
behalf of Xfone 018 and/or the financial results thereof,
including pursuant to a judgment or settlement (it was agreed that
in the event that Xfone 018 will be obligated to provide services
at a reduced price, the Company will bear only the cost of such
services).  Section 10 of the Agreement further provides that the
defense by Xfone 018 will be performed in full cooperation with
the Company and with mutual assistance.  It is agreed between the
Company and Xfone 018 that subject to and upon the approval of the
Settlement Agreement by the Israeli Court, the Company will bear
and/or pay: (i) the costs of the Compensation; (ii) the Reward;
(iii) the Attorneys Fee; and (iv) Xfone 018 attorneys' fees for
professional services in connection with the Class Action Request,
estimated at approximately NIS 75,000 (approximately $21,645).

In the event the Settlement Agreement is not approved by the
Israeli Court, Xfone 018 will vigorously defend the Class Action
Request.



                           *********

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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *