CAR_Public/100804.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 4, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 152

                             Headlines

AETNA INC: Continues to Defend UCR Litigation in New Jersey
AETNA INC: Plaintiff's Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending
BELINDA FRANCOIS: Marked-Up Commissary Prices in Excess of Limits
COMCAST CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Remains Pending
COMCAST CORP: Appeal of Plaintiffs on Dismissal of Suit Pending

COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Penn.
COMCAST CORP: Settles ERISA-Violations Suit for $5 Million
COMMSCOPE INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in N.C.
ENBRIDGE INC: Faces Class Action Over Oil Spill
NEXCEN BRANDS: Faces Suit on Planned Sale of Franchise Business

ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Defends 3 Suits Over Planned Gentiva Merger
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit in Israel for Overcharging
PHARMAPRIX: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Optimum Points Card
SHELL OIL: 7th Cir. Holds Denial of Certification Request

SOLUTIA INC: Flexsys Unit Defends Suit Over Dioxin Exposure
SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Contamination
SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal in ERISA Suit Still Pending
SPI ELECTRICITY: Law Firms Confirm Class Action Will Continue
STERLING EQUITIES: Faces Class Action in New York Over Losses

TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
TOTAL CABLE: Sued for Violations of Illinois Wage and Hour Laws
UNITED CONSTRUCTION: Sued for Failing to Pay Prevailing Wage Rates
WELLPOINT INC: Settlement Agreement Gets Preliminary Approval
WELLPOINT INC: Defends "Gold" Suit After Court Reversal Ruling

WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend "Ormond" Suit
WELLPOINT INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Mell" Suit Remains Pending
WELLPOINT INC: "Jorling" Suit Over AICI Demutualization Pending
WELLPOINT INC: Remains a Defendant in OON Reimbursement Suit
WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif.

XENOPORT INC: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Laws
XENOPORT INC: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action Lawsuit in Calif.

                            *********

AETNA INC: Continues to Defend UCR Litigation in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. continues to defend the matter In re: Aetna UCR
Litigation, MDL No. 2020, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, according to the company's July 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

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

Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs
who are members in the company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of its members who received services from out-
of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present.
Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the company violated
state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with
our competitors.

The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits,
recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts,
unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory penalties,
injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and
attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us from acting as a
fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA.
Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations and
seek similar relief have been brought by a health plan member and
by out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.

The federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has
consolidated these class action cases in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey under the caption In re: Aetna UCR
Litigation, MDL No. 2020.   In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  Discovery has
commenced in MDL 2020, and the court has not set a trial date.

Aetna Inc. -- http://www.aetna.com/-- is a diversified health
care benefits company.  Its offers a range of traditional and
consumer-directed health insurance products and related services,
including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group life
and disability plans, and medical management capabilities and
health care management services for Medicaid plans.  Aetna's
customers include employer groups, individuals, college students,
part-time and hourly workers, health plans, governmental units,
government-sponsored plans, labor groups and expatriates.  It
operates under three segments: Health Care, Group Insurance and
Large Case Pensions.  In November 2009, Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc., completed the sale of its employee assistance program (EAP)
business to the company.  In addition, on Nov. 1, 2009, Aetna,
Inc. completed the acquisition of Horizon Behavioral Services,
LLC.


AETNA INC: Plaintiff's Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal on the dismissal of a consolidated
complaint against Aetna Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's July 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Two purported class action lawsuits were pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Aetna and certain of its current or former officers and/or
directors.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority filed suit on behalf of all purchasers of Aetna common
stock between Oct. 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006.  The second
lawsuit was filed on Nov. 27, 2007, by the Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock between July 28, 2005 and July 27,
2006.

On June 3, 2008, plaintiffs in these two lawsuits filed a
consolidated complaint in the Pennsylvania Federal Court on behalf
of all purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct. 27,
2005 and July 27, 2006.

The consolidated complaint supersedes and replaces the two
previous complaints.  The plaintiffs allege that Aetna and four of
its current or former officers and/or directors, John W. Rowe,
M.D., Ronald A. Williams, Alan M. Bennett and Craig R. Callen,
violated federal securities laws.

The plaintiffs allege misrepresentations and omissions regarding,
among other things, our medical benefit ratios and health plan
pricing practices, as well as insider trading by Dr. Rowe and
Messrs. Bennett and Callen.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees, among other remedies.

On June 9, 2009, the Pennsylvania Federal Court granted Aetna's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On July 7, 2009,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania
Federal Court's order dismissing the consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 11, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals conducted
oral arguments on the plaintiff's appeal.

Aetna Inc. -- http://www.aetna.com/-- is a diversified health
care benefits company.  Its offers a range of traditional and
consumer-directed health insurance products and related services,
including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group life
and disability plans, and medical management capabilities and
health care management services for Medicaid plans.  Aetna's
customers include employer groups, individuals, college students,
part-time and hourly workers, health plans, governmental units,
government-sponsored plans, labor groups and expatriates.  It
operates under three segments: Health Care, Group Insurance and
Large Case Pensions.  In November 2009, Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc., completed the sale of its employee assistance program (EAP)
business to the company.  In addition, on Nov. 1, 2009, Aetna,
Inc. completed the acquisition of Horizon Behavioral Services,
LLC.


BELINDA FRANCOIS: Marked-Up Commissary Prices in Excess of Limits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Giancana, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Belinda Francois, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-32773 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 29, 2010), accuses the Francois Parties
of forcing inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections to
pay commissary prices exceeding the statutory limits imposed by
the Illinois legislature.  Mr. Giancana, an IDOC inmate assigned
to the Vandalia (Illinois) Correctional Center from 2007 until
March 2009, explains that the law allows prisons to mark-up
commissary items to recover the costs of operating the commissary
(up to 25% for non-tobacco items and 35% for tobacco items).  Mr.
Giancano says IDOC has evaded these statutory limits by first
marking-up commissary prices by the amount it costs to operate the
commissary and then applying the second mark-up of 25% or 35%, as
the case may be, on top.

Defendants Belinda Francois, the Business Manager of the Vandalia
Correctional Center, is being sued in her personal and official
capacities.  Mr. Giancana says that in 2008 and 2009, he purchased
non-tobacco commissary items that were marked-up more than 25%,
but when he complained, IDOC responded by saying that the Vandalia
Correctional Center commissary pricing was "in accordance with
Department [IDOC] Policy."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur Loevy, Esq.
          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon Loevy, Esq.
          Daniel Twetten, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          312 North May St., Suite 100
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900


COMCAST CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation's appeal on the class certification ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
remains pending, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company is a defendant in two purported class actions
originally filed in December 2003 in the U.S. District Courts for
the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The potential class in the Massachusetts case,
which has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is the company's customer base in the "Boston
Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is
the company's customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints.  In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under
antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Philadelphia Cluster and Chicago Cluster customers were
certified in May 2007 and October 2007, respectively.

In March 2009, as a result of a Third Circuit Court of Appeals
decision clarifying the standards for class certification, the
order certifying the Philadelphia Cluster class was vacated
without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing a new motion.

In January 2010, in its decision on the plaintiffs' new motion,
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified a class subject to
certain limitations.  In June 2010, the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals granted the company's petition for an interlocutory appeal
from the class certification decision.

In March 2010, the company moved for summary judgment dismissing
all of the plaintiffs' claims in the Philadelphia Cluster; the
summary judgment motion is stayed pending the class certification
appeal.  The plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters
are stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster
claims.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of
video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services),
offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the
District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The company operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95%
of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable
systems in the United States.  The Cable segment also includes the
operations of its regional sports networks.  The Programming
segment consists primarily of its consolidated national
programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMCAST CORP: Appeal of Plaintiffs on Dismissal of Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a purported class
action against Comcast Corporation remains pending in the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's
July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company is a defendant in a purported class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
September 2007.

The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
United States who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of
video service provided by one of the defendants.  The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants who produce video programming have
entered into agreements with the defendants who distribute video
programming via cable and satellite (including the company), which
preclude the distributor defendants from reselling channels to
customers on an "unbundled" basis in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief requiring
each distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its
customers on an "unbundled" basis.  In October 2009, the Central
District of California issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of
video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services),
offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the
District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The company operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95%
of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable
systems in the United States.  The Cable segment also includes the
operations of its regional sports networks.  The Programming
segment consists primarily of its consolidated national
programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to defend a consolidated suit
alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

The company is a defendant in 21 purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the United States.

All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings.

In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of
all plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation, the plaintiffs
allege that the company improperly "tie" the rental of set-top
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust
laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California,
Illinois and Alabama.

The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek
relief on behalf of a nationwide class of the company's premium
cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium
cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania
and Washington.

In January 2010, the company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama.

                     West Virginia AG's Case

The West Virginia Attorney General filed a complaint in West
Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that the company
improperly "ties" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of
premium cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust
Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act.

The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment
and restitution.

The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for West
Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated
with the multi-district litigation.

There were oral arguments in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
in December 2009 in connection with a motion by the Attorney
General to remand the case back to West Virginia state court.  In
March 2010, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
Attorney General's motion to remand the case back to West Virginia
state court.

In June 2010, the Attorney General moved to sever and remand the
portion of his claims seeking civil penalties and injunctive
relief back to West Virginia state court.

The company filed a brief in opposition to the motion in July
2010.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of
video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services),
offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the
District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The company operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95%
of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable
systems in the United States.  The Cable segment also includes the
operations of its regional sports networks.  The Programming
segment consists primarily of its consolidated national
programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMCAST CORP: Settles ERISA-Violations Suit for $5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation has agreed to settle a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 for $5 million, according to the company's
July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company and several of its current officers have been named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
February 2008.

The potential class comprises participants in our retirement
investment (401(k)) plan that invested in the plan's company stock
account.

The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA in managing the plan by allowing participants
to continue to invest in the company stock account during a time
in 2007 when the company allegedly knew (but had not disclosed)
that it would not meet its forecasted results.

In July 2010, the parties agreed to settle this action with a
payment by the company of $5 million and its agreement to take
certain action with respect to the administration of the plans.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider of
video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable services),
offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and the
District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The company operates in two segments: Cable and
Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates approximately 95%
of the company's consolidated revenue, manages and operates cable
systems in the United States.  The Cable segment also includes the
operations of its regional sports networks.  The Programming
segment consists primarily of its consolidated national
programming networks, E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMMSCOPE INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
CommScope Inc., defends a putative class action lawsuit asserting
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the
company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on May 12, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina against CommScope and
certain current and former officers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In
particular, the lawsuit alleges that during the putative class
period, from April 29, 2008 to Oct. 30, 2008, the company made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions about its
financial condition, specifically by allegedly failing to disclose
weakness in its current and future sales prospects in the
company's cabinets and apparatus business.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all those who purchased
CommScope common stock during the putative class period, and
seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages and interest.

CommScope, Inc. -- http://www.commscope.com/-- provides essential
infrastructure that makes communication possible.  The company
empowers people to connect and communicate seamlessly where, when
and how they choose.  The company's solutions and services for
wired and wireless networks enable high-bandwidth data, video, and
voice applications everywhere -- at home, at work, and on the go.
Through every wave of technology, CommScope helps the world
connect and evolve. Backed by numerous respected brands such as
Andrew(R), SYSTIMAX(R) and Uniprise(R), CommScope supports
customers in more than 100 countries around the world through its
focus on integrity, ethics, quality and technical innovation.


ENBRIDGE INC: Faces Class Action Over Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------
Sarah Lambert, writing for The Enquirer newspaper in Michigan,
reports that Gloria Volstromer went to a hospital emergency room
July 24 Saturday afternoon with a rash, a headache and an upset
stomach -- all symptoms of overexposure to benzene.

The volatile organic compound has been found at unsafe levels
along the Kalamazoo River, where the Volstromers live, after a
ruptured pipe spewed about 1 million gallons of oil into it last
week.

Now, Gloria and her husband Eugene are suing Enbridge Inc., the
company responsible for the spill. They are plaintiffs in a
federal class-action lawsuit filed Friday on behalf of residents
affected by the spill.

"This is just an outrage at this point," said lawyer Liz Thomson,
Esq., at Hertz-Schram P.C. in Bloomfield Hills.  Ms. Thomson is
one of two lawyers working the case. "People's very basic needs
are not being met: fresh air and clean water."

On July 26 Monday, the Volstromers' back yard on G. Drive North,
along the river southeast of Battle Creek, was flooded to the back
porch after heavy rains the week before the spill.

"When the water recedes, it's never normally like this," Eugene
Volstromer said, pointing toward the plane of swampy, black grass
on his property.

Mr. Volstromer said he wasn't sure what it would take to get his
property back to the way it was before the spill.  But the lawsuit
is about more than just restoring the river banks.

"In addition to just getting back to where they were, people
should be compensated for the interference with their property
rights," Ms. Thomson said.

The suit is intended to represent all residents affected by the
spill -- whether they've had to buy water, pay for a hotel or
visit a doctor or hospital.  It is meant to ensure that residents'
properties are returned to their former states and that air and
water quality are monitored in the long-term.

Enbridge President and Chief Executive Officer Patrick Daniel said
Saturday that he had not heard of the lawsuit and could not
comment on it.  But the company has promised to clean up all
traces of the mess.

"Companies are motivated by dollars," Ms. Thomson said. "They're
still a business.  Although they claim at this point that that's
what they're going to do, what's really done is not always what
needs to be done."

After Enbridge is served with the Western District Court lawsuit,
it will have 30 days to respond to the claim.  Then Ms. Thomson
and her partner will begin gathering material and testimony for
the case.

Residents who are interested in learning more about the lawsuit or
having an active role in it can attend a public meeting at
6 p.m. Thursday at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall at 800
Michigan Ave. in Marshall.  In the mean time, Mr. Volstromer will
take his wife away from home, somewhere that won't make her sick.

"I couldn't come back here with her," he said. "It's a slimy
mess."

Contact:

     Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq.
     HERTZ SCHRAM P.C.
     1760 South Telegraph Road, Suite 300
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183
     Telephone: (248) 335-5000
     Facsimile: (248) 335-3346
     Email: lthomson@hertzschram.com


NEXCEN BRANDS: Faces Suit on Planned Sale of Franchise Business
---------------------------------------------------------------
NexCen Brands, Inc., faces a purported class action lawsuit in
connection with the planned sale of its franchise business to
Global Franchise Group, LLC, according to the company's July 28,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The company, members of the company's board of directors and
management and Global Franchise and its parent entity have been
named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York and captioned Soheila
Rahbari v. NexCen Brands, Inc., et al., Index No. 651063/2010.

The complaint was served on the company on July 26, 2010.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
Company's directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties
of candor, loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
dealing in connection with the proposed sale of the company's
franchise business assets to GFG.  Among other things, the
plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the
sale of the company's franchise business assets.

On July 28, 2010, the company removed the lawsuit to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

NexCen Brands, Inc. is a strategic brand management company with a
focus on franchising.  It owns a portfolio of franchise brands
that includes two retail franchise concepts: TAF(TM) and Shoebox
New York(R), as well as five quick service restaurant (QSR)
franchise concepts: Great American Cookies(R), MaggieMoo's(R),
Marble Slab Creamery(R), Pretzelmaker(R) and Pretzel Time(R). The
brands are managed by NexCen Franchise Management, Inc., a
subsidiary of NexCen Brands.


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., defends a class action lawsuit alleging
failure to pay overtime.

The company has been named in a collective action lawsuit filed on
Jan. 25, 2010, in the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Texas Houston Division by Bobby Blevins, a former employee,
alleging failure to pay overtime to a purported class of similarly
situated hourly-paid current and former nurse employees.

The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
damages and attorney fees.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- provides
hospice care in the country in terms of both average daily patient
census and number of locations.  Odyssey seeks to improve the
quality of life of terminally ill patients and their families by
providing care directed at managing pain and other discomforting
symptoms and by addressing the psychosocial and spiritual needs of
patients and their families.


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Defends 3 Suits Over Planned Gentiva Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., defends three suits resulting from its
agreement and plan of merger with Gentiva Health Services, Inc.,
according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

The first, filed on May 27, 2010, is captioned Pompano Beach
Police & Firefighters' Retirement System v. Odyssey Healthcare,
Inc., et al., Cause No. CC-10-03561-E in the County Court at Law
No. 5 in Dallas County, Texas.  The second, filed on June 9, 2010,
is captioned Eric Hemminger, et al. v. Richard Burnham, et al.,
Cause No. DC-10-06982, in the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas
County, Texas.  The third, filed on July 7, 2010, is captioned
Hansen v. Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case 3:10-cv-01305-G
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

All three suits name the company, the members of its board of
directors, Gentiva, and Merger Sub as defendants.  All three
lawsuits are brought by purported stockholders of the company,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
stockholders, alleging that its board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to
maximize stockholder value, and that the company and Gentiva aided
and abetted the purported breaches.

The Pompano Beach Police and Firefighters suit seeks additional
proxy disclosures regarding the Merger.  The petitions each seek
equitable relief, including, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger Agreement,
and an award of all costs of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- provides
hospice care in the country in terms of both average daily patient
census and number of locations.  Odyssey seeks to improve the
quality of life of terminally ill patients and their families by
providing care directed at managing pain and other discomforting
symptoms and by addressing the psychosocial and spiritual needs of
patients and their families.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit in Israel for Overcharging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli mobile
communications operator, disclosed that it was served on
August 1, 2010, with a lawsuit and a motion for the recognition of
this lawsuit as a class action, filed against Partner in the
Central District Court (Petach-Tikva) in Israel.

The claim alleges that Partner overcharged its subscribers who
were registered to a certain voice discount package, as a result
of miscalculating the discount.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action, the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS106
million.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.

Partner is an approximately 45%-owned subsidiary of Scailex
Corporation Ltd.  Scailex's shares are traded on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange under the symbol SCIX and are quoted on "Pink
Quote" under the symbol SCIXF.PK. Scailex currently operates in
two major domains of activity in addition to its holding in
Partner: (1) the sole import, distribution and maintenance of
Samsung mobile handset and accessories products primarily to the
major cellular operators in Israel (2) management of its financial
assets.

Contact:

     Mr. Emanuel Avner
     Chief Financial Officer
     Telephone: +972-54-7814951
     Facsimile: +972-54-7815961
     E-mail: emanuel.avner@orange.co.il

     -- or --

     Mr. Oded Degany
     V. P. Corporate Development, Regulation and IRO
     Telephone: +972-54-7814151
     Facsimile: +972-54-7814161
     E-mail: oded.degany@orange.co.il


PHARMAPRIX: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Optimum Points Card
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newstalk radio CJAD reports that a motion to proceed with a class
action lawsuit against the Shoppers drug mart chain which includes
Pharmaprix has been deposited with Quebec Superior court.

The lawsuit is all about the Optimum points card, which gives
rebates on store merchandise.  Since July 1st, the card has been
devalued, meaning you need 1,000 more points for a $10 dollar
saving.

Petitioner Pierre Gaumond alleges that Pharmaprix modified their
cards without advance warning and retroactively.

Pharmaprix says all clients were informed via email, although
class action lawyer Marie-Anais Sauve says not everyone has an e-
mail address.

It's still not known the amount of the class action lawsuit, but
Ms. Sauve says 10 million Canadians hold cards at 1,200 pharmacies
across the country.

Contact:

     Marie-Anais Sauve, Esq.
     SYLVESTRE FAFARD PAINCHAUD
     740 Avenue Atwater
     Montreal (Quebec), Canada H4C 2G9
     Telephone: (514) 937-2881
     Facsimile: (514) 937-6529
     Email: ma.sauve@sfpavocats.ca


SHELL OIL: 7th Cir. Holds Denial of Certification Request
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed a district court order denying class certification in In
re Siegel v. Shell Oil Company, Case No. No. 09-3451
(July 30, 2010).

The 7th Circuit notes that Michael Siegel, like many Americans,
didn't like the price he was paying for gasoline. So he sued five
of the eight largest oil companies. Mr. Siegel moved for class
certification, seeking relief under both the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the common law
doctrine of unjust enrichment.  The district court denied class
certification and entered summary judgment for the defendants.
The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision.

The 7th Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in determining that questions of fact common to
class members did not predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members.  The 7th Circuit added that Mr. Siegel
failed to show that he was harmed and he fails to demonstrate that
the defendants' conduct caused him harm.

A copy of the 7th Circuit's decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100730156


SOLUTIA INC: Flexsys Unit Defends Suit Over Dioxin Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flexsys, Solutia Inc.'s subsidiary, continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit alleging exposure to dioxin from
Flexsys' Nitro, West Virginia facility.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia against Flexsys,
Pharmacia, Monsanto and Akzo Nobel (Solutia is not a named
defendant) alleging exposure to dioxin from Flexsys' Nitro, West
Virginia facility, which is now closed.  The relevant production
activities at the facility occurred during Pharmacia's ownership
and operation of the facility and well prior to the creation of
the Flexsys joint venture between Pharmacia (whose interest was
subsequently transferred to us in the Solutia Spinoff) and Akzo
Nobel.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for loss of property value,
medical monitoring and other equitable relief.

Beginning in February 2008, Flexsys, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo
Nobel and another third party were named as defendants in
approximately seventy-five individual lawsuits, and Solutia was
named in two individual lawsuits, filed in various state court
jurisdictions by residents or former residents of Putnam County,
West Virginia.  The largely identical complaints allege that the
residents were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxin
particles from the Nitro facility.  Plaintiffs did not specify the
amount of their alleged damages in their complaints.  In 2009,
over fifty additional nearly identical complaints were filed by
individual plaintiffs in the Putnam County area, which named
Solutia and Flexsys as defendants.

The claims in this matter concern alleged conduct occurring while
Flexsys was a joint venture of Solutia and Akzo Nobel, and any
potential damages in these cases would be evenly apportioned
between Solutia and Akzo Nobel, according to the company's July
28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Solutia Inc. -- http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading
performance materials and specialty chemicals company.  The
company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through a
range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for laminated
glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under
the LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties
including the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber
industry, Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R)
heat transfer fluid.  Solutia's businesses are world leaders in
each of their market segments.  With its headquarters in St.
Louis, Missouri, USA, the company operates globally with
approximately 3,100 employees in more than 50 locations.


SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc., continues to defend a purported class action
lawsuit alleging contamination in St. Clair County, Illinois.

In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against Solutia,
Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants alleging
the contamination of their property from PCBs, dioxins, furans,
and other alleged hazardous substances emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including our W.G.
Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).

The proposed class is comprised of residents who live within a
two-mile radius of the Sauget facilities.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the
costs associated with remediation and removal of alleged
contaminants from their property.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty
additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009
against the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised of
claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who
claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as property
damages as a result of the same PCB's, dioxins, furans, and other
alleged hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget.  Moreover, two additional
individual lawsuits comprised of claims from eight plaintiffs have
been filed in Madison County, Illinois, alleging the plaintiffs
suffered illnesses resulting from exposure to benzene, PCBs,
dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances.

Upon assessment of the terms of the Monsanto Settlement Agreement
and other defenses available to the company, it believes the
probability of an unfavorable outcome to the company on the Putnam
County, West Virginia, Escambia County, Florida, and St. Clair and
Madison Counties, Illinois litigation against the company is
remote and, accordingly, the company has not recorded a loss
contingency.

No further developements were reported in the company's July 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Solutia Inc. -- http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading
performance materials and specialty chemicals company.  The
company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through a
range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for laminated
glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under the
LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties including
the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber industry,
Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R) heat transfer
fluid.  Solutia's businesses are world leaders in each of their
market segments.  With its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri,
USA, the company operates globally with approximately 3,100
employees in more than 50 locations.


SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal in ERISA Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the summary judgment in favor of
Solutia Inc. on the sole claim against the company's U.S.
Employees' Pension Plan, remains pending, according to the
company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Starting in October 2005, separate purported class action lawsuits
were filed by current or former participants in the company's U.S.
pension plan, which were ultimately consolidated in September 2006
into a single case.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged three separate
causes of action against the U.S. Plan:

     (1) the U.S. Plan violates ERISA by terminating interest
         credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55;

     (2) the U.S. Plan is improperly backloaded in violation of
         ERISA; and

     (3) the U.S. Plan is discriminatory on the basis of age.

In September 2007, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' second and
third claims, and by consent of the parties, certified a class
action against the U.S. Plan only with respect to plaintiffs'
claim that the U.S. Plan violates ERISA by allegedly terminating
interest credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55.

On June 11, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois entered a summary judgment in favor of the
U.S. Plan on the sole remaining claim against the U.S. Plan.

The district court entered its final appealable judgment in the
case on Sept. 29, 2009, and plaintiffs have appealed the decision
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Seventh Circuit held oral argument on the appeal in April
2010, and a decision is pending.

Solutia Inc. -- http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading
performance materials and specialty chemicals company.  The
company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through a
range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for laminated
glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under
the LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties
including the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber
industry, Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R)
heat transfer fluid.  Solutia's businesses are world leaders in
each of their market segments.  With its headquarters in St.
Louis, Missouri, USA, the company operates globally with
approximately 3,100 employees in more than 50 locations.


SPI ELECTRICITY: Law Firms Confirm Class Action Will Continue
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New Lawyer reports that the release on August 1, 2010, of the
final report from the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission
has been welcomed by the law firm conducting a major class action
against an electricity company it has charged with the disaster.

Australian law firms Maurice Blackburn and Oldham Naidoo Lawyers
welcomed the release of the final report, confirming the class
action would continue.

The Maurice Blackburn firm has declined to comment further, but
said it is conducting proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria
against SPI Electricity Pty Ltd, alleging that inadequate
maintenance standards led to the Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire.

The fire resulted in 121 deaths, the destruction of 1,244 homes,
damage to 530 homes and the devastation of 75,744 hectares of
land.

In receiving the Final Report the firms said in a combined
statement: "We welcome the findings of the Royal Commission, which
only strengthen our resolve to pursue compensation for the victims
of the Kilmore East bushfire."

More than 630 people have signed up to the class action.


STERLING EQUITIES: Faces Class Action in New York Over Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that New York Mets principal
owner Fred Wilpon was sued on Friday over alleged losses suffered
by retirement plan participants at his firm Sterling Equities.

The complaint, filed Friday in Manhattan federal court, said
Sterling invested $16.2 million, or 92%, of the 401(k) plan's
$17.6 million of assets with Bernard Madoff.

It accused Mr. Wilpon and two other plan trustees of breaching
their fiduciary duties to plan participants by mishandling
investments with Mr. Madoff and his firm Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC.

The complaint seeks class-action status on behalf of plan
participants, a number it estimates in the hundreds.  There were
267 participants at the start of 2008, the complaint said.

Lawyers for the plaintiff and Sterling did not immediately return
calls seeking comment.  A call to Mr. Wilpon's office was not
immediately returned.

The complaint was filed by Elyse Goldweber, a New Yorker who said
she had $280,420 invested in her late husband's individual 401(k)
plan.  A majority of this sum was invested directly with Mr.
Madoff and has been "wiped out," she said.

"While defendant Wilpon has been quoted as claiming that he and
his business family are 'fine,' his loyal employees (many of whom
had previously been laid off) have lost their retirement savings,"
apart from some insurance money that "does not come close" to
covering losses, the complaint said.

The lawsuit seeks to recover losses arising from the defendants'
breaches, and other remedies.

In October 2009, Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee
liquidating Madoff's investment firm, said Mets LP, a team
affiliate, withdrew $47.8 million more from Mr. Madoff's firm than
it put in.  Mr. Picard has been trying to recover money from such
former clients, whom he considers "net winners."

Mr. Madoff, 72, was arrested on December 11, 2008, and pleaded
guilty three months later to running an estimated $65 billion
Ponzi scheme. He is serving a 150-year sentence in a North
Carolina federal prison.

The case is Goldweber v. Sterling Equities Associates, et al.,
Case No. 10-05786 (S.D.N.Y).


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. continues to defend Jacobs, et al.
v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-00002
(N.D. Ga.) (Vining, J.), a class-action antitrust proceeding.

On Jan. 5, 2007 a purported class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division.  The action alleges violations of federal
antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic mattress
products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain distributors.

The action further alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-
Pedic mattresses in the United States since Jan. 5, 2003 and seeks
damages and injunctive relief.

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25,
2007 based on a motion filed by the company.  Then, following a
decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin Creative
Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.," on June 28, 2007, the company
filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the
complaint on July 10, 2007.

On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment," which has been fully briefed.

On May 1, 2008, that motion was denied.  The Jacobs appealed the
dismissal of their claims, and the parties argued the appeal
before the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on Dec. 11,
2008.

The matter has been taken under advisement by the court.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. -- http://www.tempurpedic.com/
-- is a manufacturer, marketer and distributor of mattresses and
pillows, which it sells in approximately 80 countries under the
TEMPUR and Tempur-Pedic brands. The Company has two operating
segments: Domestic and International.  The Domestic operating
segment consists of United States manufacturing facilities, whose
customers include its United States distribution subsidiary and
certain third party distributors in the Americas.  The
International segment consists of its manufacturing facility in
Denmark, whose customers include all of the company's distribution
subsidiaries and third party distributors outside the Domestic
segment.


TOTAL CABLE: Sued for Violations of Illinois Wage and Hour Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Thomas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Total Cable Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-32259 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 27, 2010), accuses
Total Cable of improperly classifying its technicians as
independent contractors, failing to keep true and accurate time
records, failing to compensate class members for actual hours
worked, making improper deductions from workers' pay for improper
charges, and failing to pay overtime, in violation of state wage
and hour laws.

Mr. Thomas worked as a non-exempt technician for Total Cable, an
Illinois corporation with offices located in Chicago.  Co-
defendants Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable Communications
Management, LLC employed the services of Total Cable on a
contractual basis to provide cable television services in the
State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550

               - and -

          Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
          Brian D. Massatt, Esq.
          JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES
          431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 939-2100


UNITED CONSTRUCTION: Sued for Failing to Pay Prevailing Wage Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Cortes, Ezequiel Gonzalez, and Nelson Morazan,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. United
Construction Services of New York, et al., Case No. 109936/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. July 27, 2010), accuse United
Construction of breaching its public works contracts (covering
work and services performed on various public works projects
contracted by the defendants for the City of New York) by failing
to ensure that its workers received the prevailing rates of wages
and supplemental benefits for all labor performed at the various
project sites, failing to furnish an itemized statement of wages
as required by New York Labor Law, and failing to pay overtime.
Plaintiffs explains that these prevailing rates of wages and
supplemental benefits were made part of the public works contracts
or subcontracts for the benefit of the class members.

United Construction is engaged in the construction, demolition and
asbestos removal business.  Plaintiffs worked for United
Construction at various public works projects of the City and
State of New York.

For the same reasons, Plaintiffs also bring claims against Neelam
Construction Corporation, who subcontracted or joint-ventured a
portion of its public works contracts with United Construction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          111 Broadway, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


WELLPOINT INC: Settlement Agreement Gets Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement resolving a class action against WellPoint, Inc.,
alleging wrongful rescission of individual insurance policies, has
received preliminary approval from the court, according to the
company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

In various California state courts, the company is defending a
number of individual lawsuits, including one filed by the Los
Angeles City Attorney, and one purported class action alleging the
wrongful rescission of individual insurance policies.  The suits
name WellPoint as well as Blue Cross of California, and BC Life &
Health Insurance Company, (which name changed to Anthem Blue Cross
Life and Health Insurance Company in July 2007), both WellPoint
subsidiaries.

The lawsuits generally allege breach of contract, bad faith and
unfair business practices in a purported practice of rescinding
new individual members following the submission of large claims.

The parties agreed to mediate most of these lawsuits and the
mediation resulted in the resolution of some of these lawsuits.

Preliminary approval of the class action settlement was granted on
June 3, 2010.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Defends "Gold" Suit After Court Reversal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend the matter Ronald Gold, et
al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al., after the Connecticut Supreme Court
reversed the ruling of the trial court, according to the company's
July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.,
demutualization.  The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc.,
n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.  AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, provided
for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a
stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.  Under the Plan,
AICI distributed the fair value of the company at the time of
conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, in the form of cash
or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests
in the mutual company.  The lawsuits generally allege that AICI
distributed value to the wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient
value to the ESMs.

In the Gold action, cross motions for summary judgment were
granted in part and denied in part with regard to the issue of
sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the State of
Connecticut.  The State appealed this denial to the Connecticut
Supreme Court.  The company filed a cross-appeal.  Oral argument
was held in November 2008.  On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed
the judgment of the trial court denying the State's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims under sovereign immunity.  The
company's cross-appeal was dismissed by the Court.

The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend "Ormond" Suit
------------------------------------------------
The matter Mary E. Ormond, et al. v. Anthem, Inc,. et al., remains
pending, according to WellPoint, Inc.'s July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.,
demutualization. The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or
Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion,
provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance
company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.
Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, in the
form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their
membership interests in the mutual company.  The lawsuits
generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or
distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.

In the Ormond suit, the company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in
part and denied in part on March 31, 2008.  The Court dismissed
the claims for violation of federal and state securities laws, for
violation of the Indiana Demutualization Law and for unjust
enrichment.

On Sept. 29, 2009, a class was certified in the Ormond suit.  The
class consists of all ESMs residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or
Connecticut who received cash compensation in connection with the
demutualization.  The class does not include employers located in
Ohio and Connecticut that received compensation under the Plan.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Mell" Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the matter Ronald
E. Mell, Sr., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al, is pending in the
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to WellPoint,
Inc.'s July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.,
demutualization. The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or
Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion,
provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance
company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.
Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, in the
form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their
membership interests in the mutual company.  The lawsuits
generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or
distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.

On Nov. 4, 2009, a class was certified in the Mell suit.  That
class consisted of persons who were employees or retirees who were
continuously enrolled in the health benefit plan sponsored by the
City of Cincinnati between the dates of June 18, 2001 and Nov. 2,
2001.

On March 3, 2010, the Court issued an order granting the company's
motion for summary judgment.  As a result, the Mell suit has been
dismissed.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: "Jorling" Suit Over AICI Demutualization Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend the matter Jeffrey D.
Jorling, et al., v. Anthem, Inc. (n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.) et al.

The company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.,
demutualization. The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or
Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion,
provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance
company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.
Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, in the
form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their
membership interests in the mutual company.  The lawsuits
generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or
distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.

No other information regarding the Jorling Action was disclosed in
the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Remains a Defendant in OON Reimbursement Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., remains a defendant in a putative class action
relating to Out-of-Network (OON) reimbursement of dental claims
called American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health Networks,
Inc. and Blue Cross of California, according to the company's July
28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2002 by the American Dental
Association, and three dentists who are suing on behalf of
themselves and are seeking to sue on behalf of a nationwide class
of all non-participating dental providers who were paid less than
their actual charges for dental services provided to WellPoint
dental members.  The complaint alleges that WellPoint Health
Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California and other WellPoint
affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively, WellPoint) improperly
set usual, customary and reasonable payment for OON dental
services based on HIAA/Ingenix data.

The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the HIAA/Ingenix
databases fail to account for differences in geography, provider
specialty, outlier (high) charges, and complexity of procedure.
The complaint further alleges that WellPoint was aware that this
data was inappropriate to set usual, customary and reasonable
rates.

The dentists sue as assignees of their patients' rights to
benefits under WellPoint's dental plans and assert that WellPoint
breached its contractual obligations in violation of ERISA by
routinely paying OON dentists less than their actual charges and
representing that its OON payments were properly determined usual,
customary and reasonable rates.

The suit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The company's motion for summary judgment was denied without
prejudice to refiling it after additional discovery is conducted.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated complaint
relating to out-of-network reimbursement, according to the
company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company is currently a defendant in eleven putative class
actions relating to out-of-network reimbursement.  The cases have
been made part of a WellPoint-only multi-district litigation
called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation
and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The first lawsuit (Darryl and Valerie Samsell v. WellPoint, Inc.,
WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.) was filed in
February 2009 by two former members on behalf of a putative class
of members who received out-of-network services for which the
defendants paid less than billed charges.  The plaintiffs in that
case allege that the defendants violated RICO, the Sherman
Antitrust Act, ERISA, and federal regulations by relying on
databases provided by Ingenix in determining out-of-network
reimbursement.

The second lawsuit (AMA et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in
March 2009 by the American Medical Association, four state medical
associations and two individual physicians on behalf of a putative
class of out-of-network physicians.

The third lawsuit (Roberts v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was
brought in March 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons or entities who have paid premiums
for out-of-network health insurance coverage.

The fourth lawsuit (JBW v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was
brought in April 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons who have paid premiums for out-of-
network health insurance coverage.

The fifth lawsuit (O'Brien, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., et al.) was
brought in May 2009 by three WellPoint members as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons who received out-of-network
services.

The sixth lawsuit (Higashi, D.C. d/b/a Mar Vista Institute of
Health v. Blue Cross of California d/b/a WellPoint, Inc.) was
brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network chiropractor as a
putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network
chiropractors.

The seventh suit (North Peninsula Surgical Center v. WellPoint,
Inc., et al.) was brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network
surgical center as a putative class action on behalf of all out-
of-network surgical centers.

The eighth lawsuit (American Podiatric Medical Association, et al.
v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in June 2009 by the American
Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic
Association, California Psychological Association and an out-of-
network clinical psychologist as a putative class action on behalf
of out-of-network podiatrists, chiropractors and psychologists.

The ninth lawsuit (Michael Pariser, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was
brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a
putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network providers
who are not medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy.

The tenth lawsuit (Harold S. Bernard, Ph.D., et al. v. WellPoint,
Inc.) was brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist
as a putative class action on behalf of all non-medical doctor
health care providers.

The eleventh lawsuit (Ken Unmacht, Psy.D., et al. v. WellPoint,
Inc.) was brought in August 2009 by an out-of-network licensed
psychotherapist as a putative class action on behalf of all non-
medical doctor health care providers.

A consolidated complaint has been filed for the eleven cases.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which broadened the
allegations in the lawsuit to out-of-network reimbursement
methodologies beyond the use of Ingenix.  The company relates it
intends to file a revised motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.

At the end of 2009, the company filed a motion to enjoin the
claims brought by the medical doctors and doctors of osteopathy
based on prior litigation releases.  Plaintiffs recently filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment asking the Court to find that
those claims are not barred by the prior litigation releases.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


XENOPORT INC: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Bellomo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
XenoPort, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-03301 (N.D. Calif. July 28,
2010), accuses the biopharmaceutical company of (i) disseminating
misleading and incomplete information about its Phase 3 clinical
program for the development stage drug Horizant as a treatment for
Restless Legs Syndrome, including that "there was strong evidence
of safety and indication that it remained on track, creating
opportunity for the Company to raise money," and (ii) concealing
negative information that results had shown a risk of pancreatic
cancer, in violation of the federal securities laws.

On February 17, 2010, XenoPort disclosed that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration declined approval of Horizant as a treatment
for RLS.  As a result, XenoPort's stock closed at 6.67 per share
on February 18, 2010, a one-day decline of 65% on volume of 36.5
million shares, over 16 times the average three-month daily
volume.

Mr. Bellomo explains that XenoPort's false statements and
concealment of adverse facts about Horizant constitute fraud
perpetrated upon the purchasers of XenoPort common stock who
purchased the stock at inflated prices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764


XENOPORT INC: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP said it has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased XenoPort, Inc.,
common stock between May 5, 2009 and February 17, 2010, inclusive.
The complaint charges XenoPort and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the court
no later than September 27, 2010. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A.
Berens, Esq. at (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764, or via email at
jeff@dyerberens.com  Any member of the putative class may move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants disseminated false and misleading statements to the
investing public and concealed negative information related to the
prospects for approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a
new drug application for an extended-release tablet called
Horizant, also known as XP13512, a potential treatment for
moderate-to-severe Restless Legs Syndrome. These false, positive
statements caused XenoPort stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, until the true facts were
eventually revealed, resulting in significant losses to investors.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of XenoPort
investors. The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP,
which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions
involving financial fraud. The firm's extensive experience in
securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the
recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
investors. For more information about the firm, please go to
http://www.DyerBerens.com/

Contact:

     Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
     DYER & BERENS LLP
     303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80203
     Telephone: (888) 300-3362
                (303) 861-1764
     Email: jeff@dyerberens.com

                           *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *