CAR_Public/100816.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 16, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 160

                             Headlines

ALMOST FAMILY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Class Action
AT&T INC: Faces Class Action on International Roaming Fees
AVIS BUDGET: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
BAYER CORP: Lawyers Want to Add Drugs in Contraceptive Class Suit

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA: Faces Class Suit by Ex-Oakalla Inmate
CARDIONET INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
CIBC: Professor Says Bank Failed to Disclose Subprime Exposure
CONSOL ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Suit in Delaware Court
CONSOL ENERGY: Two Pennsylvania Suits Stayed

DOTS LLC: Accused of Engaging in Unlawful Employment Practices
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania
ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations
ENCORE CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Counterclaim
EXPRESS JET: Faces Class Suit in Texas Over Planned SkyWest Merger

FEDEX GROUND: Sued for Illegally Terminating Delivery Drivers
FORD MOTOR: N.Y. Suit Complains About Defective Minivans
GOLDMAN SACHS: Disputes Allegations Over Technicians' Overtime Pay
HAWAII: Micronesians to Fight New Health Plan in Class Action
INTERACTIVE COMMS: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Suit Dismissal

INTRAWEST ULC: Accused of Taking $10MM From Resort Investors
JANUS INVESTMENT: Tillery Mutual Class Action Dismissed
LOWE'S COS: Plaintiffs Object to Defective Drywall Settlement
KAISER PERMANENTE: Settles Overtime Suit for $7.25 Million
MERCK & CO: Vioxx Victims Has Until Aug. 25 to Join Aussie Suit

MERRILL LYNCH: Court Denies Class Action Status to Black Brokers
METLIFE INC: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of ADA Suit
METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending
METLIFE INC: Second Circuit Dismisses Lone Appeal to Settlement
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation

METLIFE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Defends "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit
METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Class Certification Motion in "Clark" Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Faber" Lawsuit

MORGAN STANLEY: Irish Investors, Nuns File Class Action Over Bonds
MOTT'S LLP: Class Cert. Denied in 'All Natural' Snapple Case
OHIO: Girard Traffic Camera Victims to Get Checks Soon
QANTAS: To Face Cargo Cartel Class Action in Australia
P. GRAHAM: Recalls 500 Wooden Toy Rattles

SKECHERS USA: Defends Shape-Up Shoes in Two Class Suits
STATE FARM: Accused in Missouri Suit of Not Paying Overtime
SUPER VALU: Judge Gives Final Approval to Settlement
T-MOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Unlimited Data in California
UNITED AIRLINES: Sued in Washington Over Checking Luggage Fees

UTSTARCOM INC: Court Approves Notice of Securities Class Action
WAL-MART: 9th Circuit Dismisses Objection to $85MM Wage Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Securities Act Violations in Calif.
WELLS FARGO: Ordered to Pay $203MM in Overdraft Fees Suit
WOODBURY COUNTY: Class in Strip-Search Suit Denied Certification

XCELERA INC: Court Dismisses Feiner Family Trust Class Suit
XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
XEROX CORP: Settles Merger-Related Suits for $69 Million
YOUTUBE INC: Bob Tur Withdraws Participation in Class Action

                            *********

ALMOST FAMILY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP said it filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of
Kentucky against Almost Family, Inc., and certain of its top
officials.  The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of
stock during the period of November 4, 2009 to June 30, 2010.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's operations and its business and financial results and
outlook. Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that
the company was deliberately increasing the number of unnecessary
home therapy visits in order to receive increased Medicare
reimbursements; and as a result of defendants' conduct, the
company's reported sales and earnings were materially inflated. As
a direct result of defendants' false statements, Almost Family's
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $43.96 per shares on April 29,
2010.


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Alphatec
Holdings, Inc., during the period from December 18, 2009 through
August 5, 2010.  The suit alleges claims for securities fraud
pursuant to the federal securities laws.  The Complaint was filed
against ATEC and certain of its officers, directors and
controlling persons.

For further information, please contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. toll-
free at 1-888-884-4490 or by e-mail at rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com,
or visit http://www.jacobsclasslaw.comwhere you can obtain
further information and join the action.

ATEC designs, develops, manufactures and markets products for the
surgical treatment of spinal disorders. The Complaint alleges that
on December 17, 2009, the Company announced that it was going to
acquire Scient'x, S.A., from HealthPointCapital Partners, L.P. and
HealthPointCapital Partners II, L.P., which then owned 38% of
ATEC's shares, in an all stock transaction. With respect to the
proposed transaction, the Company praised the Scient'x acquisition
and announced that it expected 2010 pro forma full-year revenue of
$220 million to $225 million, and adjusted EBITDA of $32 million
to $35 million. On this news, ATEC shares rose 8%. ATEC reiterated
the Aggressive Projection on February 23, 2010, April 12, 2010 and
May 10, 2010.

As further alleged in the Complaint, these statements were made to
increase interest in ATEC's stock, so that ATEC and
HealthPointCapital could sell off a significant number of their
ATEC shares at the highest price possible in an upcoming offering.
In fact, the statements were unrealistic because: (a) pricing
pressures were steadily increasing; (b) ATEC planned to dispose of
its Asian distributor without any realistic plan to replace the
revenues the distributor produced; (c) Scient'x had exhibited
almost no revenue growth in the first nine months of 2009, and its
ability to market and sell in 2010 would be disrupted by any
acquisition; and (d) integrating the two companies would be a long
process, which would negatively affect 2010 revenues. On March 26,
2010, ATEC closed the Scient'x acquisition. On Aril 12, 2010, the
Company announced a follow-on public offering, wherein ATEC and
HealthPointCapital would each sell 8 million shares. The offering
closed on April 21, 2010 and, with over-allotments, ATEC and
HealthPointCapital each sold 9.2 million shares, for $46 million
in gross proceeds.

On August 5, 2010, ATEC announced disappointing quarterly results
and an extreme revision of the Aggressive Projection. As a result,
ATEC shares dropped 46%, to close at $2.39 per share, resulting in
a loss of shareholder value of over $200 million in one trading
day.

If you purchased ATEC common stock: (i) during the period from
December 18, 2009 through August 5, 2010, whether or not you still
hold your shares, and/or (ii) prior to December 18, 2009 and still
hold your shares, and you are interested in discussing your rights
free of charge, please contact Roy L. Jacobs. Mr. Jacobs will be
glad to personally speak with you, or you may visit our Web site
at http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com/

You may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the Class.
All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed by
October 12, 2010. You need not sell your shares to serve as Lead
Plaintiff.


AT&T INC: Faces Class Action on International Roaming Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bounds, senior staff writer for the Dallas Business Journal,
reports a class action suit in California claims AT&T charges
"exorbitant" fees for international roaming on calls that
customers did not answer, and "structured their bills so that
customers were not aware of these charges," court documents say.

The Dallas company also hid from customers how they could avoid
those fees, according to the suit, which was filed Aug. 5 in
federal district court in Oakland, Calif.

"We believe the allegations have no merit, and we intend to
vigorously defend the suit," said AT&T spokesman Marty Richter in
a statement e-mailed to the Dallas Business Journal.

While traveling in Belgium in May 2005, the lead plaintiff, Los
Angeles resident Kenneth Thelian, was charged $12.90, partly for
calls that he did not answer, court records say. After Mr. Thelian
complained, AT&T reversed $8 of the charges, but the company
representative "did not adequately explain why these charges were
incurred."

Then, while traveling in Montreal in August 2005, Mr. Thelian was
hit with a $15.81 charge, partly for calls he didn't answer, court
records claim.

And in February and March of 2007, Mr. Thelian was billed $92.72.

"The bill did not indicate which of these charges were for calls
that he did not answer while traveling abroad," the suit alleges.

The litigation alleges violations of federal truth-in-billing
laws, false advertising and deceptive trade practices under New
York law, and breach of contract, among other things.


AVIS BUDGET: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
a California district court's dismissal of a class action
complaint against defendants including Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
in the case, In Re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No.
09-55440.

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their
class action complaint filed against defendants the California
Travel and Tourism Commission, Secretary Dale E. Bonner, in his
capacity as Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing for
the State of California, and numerous passenger rental car
companies operating at one or more California airport locations.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed
plaintiffs' Commerce Clause challenge to the Passenger Car Rental
Industry Tourism Assessment Program, which requires that rental
car companies pay an assessment for each rental car transaction
that commences at an airport or hotel location.  The central
purpose behind the Commerce Clause's prohibitions of
discriminatory measures is to proscribe "state or municipal laws
whose object is local economic protectionism."  The Ninth Circuit
notes that the plaintiffs do not allege that the Program was
specifically designed to benefit in-state economic interests by
burdening out-of-state competitors.  Plaintiffs do not allege that
the Program has the effect of discouraging affected rental car
companies from serving out-of-state customers.  "Indeed, the
purpose of the Program is to raise revenue in order to encourage
tourism excursions to California. Taking plaintiffs' allegations
to be true, plaintiffs have not shown that the Program serves an
economic protectionist end or otherwise affirmatively
discriminates against interstate commerce."  According to the
Ninth Circuit, the district court properly concluded that
plaintiffs' claim under the Commerce Clause fails as a matter of
law.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100806161


BAYER CORP: Lawyers Want to Add Drugs in Contraceptive Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
that lawyers leading national litigation against Bayer over oral
contraceptives Yasmin and Yaz seek to inject two new drugs into
the proceedings.  They have requested millions of pages of records
about Natazia, a new oral contraceptive with different ingredients
from Yasmin and Yaz.

On Aug. 9, Bayer lawyer Terry Lueckenhoff of St. Louis asked U.S.
District Judge David Herndon to protect the company from
production of Natazia documents.

Judge Herndon presides over Yasmin and Yaz cases from federal
courts around the nation by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multi District Litigation.

Plaintiffs claim the drugs caused heart attacks, strokes,
embolisms, clots, and diseases in gall bladders and kidneys.

Mr. Lueckenhoff wrote, "Not one plaintiff in these coordinated
proceedings has alleged any wrongdoing with respect to Natazia or
any injury or loss relating to Natazia.

"Unlike Yaz and Yasmin, Natazia does not contain drosperinone, but
has a different progestin called dienogest.

"Natazia does not contain ethinyl estradiol, the only other active
ingredient in Yaz and Yasmin, but rather has estradiol valerate,"
he wrote.

Plaintiffs seek records about its chemical structure, clinical
development, marketing and promotion, he wrote.

"Responding would require the disclosure of highly sensitive
information, like patents and formulation data, relating to a drug
not at issue in these proceedings," he wrote.

He squeezed in a footnote advising Judge Herndon that plaintiffs
served dozens of discovery requests relating to another drug,
Angeliq.

Bayer has produced 30 million pages of documents on Yaz and
Yasmin, he wrote.

Lawyers argued over Natazia and Angeliq at a status conference on
Aug. 11, but Judge Herndon did not resolve the dispute.

At the conference, Judge Herndon said some plaintiffs still
haven't submitted fact sheets.

He posted an order on July 9, reminding plaintiffs to provide
names, social security numbers, basic facts of their claims, and
authority to release medical records.

His minutes of the hearing state that, "The court has made clear
that provider information must be submitted."

"If these are too untimely, the court may dismiss the cases
without prejudice," Herndon wrote.

"The court reiterates this must be signed and filled in by the
client or attorney and cannot be left blank.

"The court advised that it is in a position right now to have to
dismiss two cases for failure to comply with this requirement."

Roger Denton of St. Louis, Mark Niemeyer of Webster Groves,
Missouri, and Michael London and Seth Katz of New York City
represented plaintiffs at the conference.

Adam Hoeflich of Chicago and John Galvin of St. Louis represented
Bayer.

Judge Herndon set another conference Sept. 16.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark R. Niemeyer, Esq.
     ONDER, SHELTON, O'LEARY & PETERSON, LLC
     110 East Lockwood
     St. Louis, MO 63119
     Telephone: 314-963-9000
     Email: niemeyer@onderlaw.com

          - and -

     Michael A. London, Esq.
     DOUGLAS & LONDON
     111 John Street, 14th Floor
     New York, New York 10038
     Telephone: (212) 566-7500
     Facsimile: (212) 566-7501

          - and -

     Seth Ian Katz, Esq.
     KATZ LAW OFFICES
     32 Broadway, 16th floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: (212) 747-1111
     Facsimile: (718) 876-8105

          - and -

     Roger C. Denton, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
     St. Louis, Missouri 63102
     Telephone: 314-621-6115
     Facsimile: 314-621-7151
     Email: rdenton@uselaws.com

Bayer is represented by:

     Terry Lueckenhoff, Esq.
     FOX GALVIN, LLC
     One South Memorial Drive, 12th Floor
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Telephone: 314-588-7000 Ext. 103
     Facsimile: 314-588-1965
     Email: TLueckenhoff@FoxGalvin.com
            JGalvin@FoxGalvin.com

          - and -

     Adam L. Hoeflich
     BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
     Courthouse Place
     54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Telephone: 312-494-4473
     Facsimile: 312-494-4440
     Email: adam.hoeflich@bartlit-beck.com


BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA: Faces Class Suit by Ex-Oakalla Inmate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Saltman, writing for The Province, reports that a former
Oakalla inmate is filing a class-action lawsuit against the
provincial government and a former corrections officer.

The plaintiff, identified only as E.D.L., was an inmate at the
Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre, known as Oakalla, in
Burnaby from 1980 to 1981 and alleges that Roderick David
MacDougall performed fellatio on him without his consent on
several occasions.

The suit was filed Wednesday in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver by
the law firm of Poyner Baxter LLP under B.C.'s Class Proceedings
Act. Such suits are typically brought in the name of one or more
individuals and, if successful, apply to individuals who were
similarly victimized.

Oakalla was shut down in 1991 and eventually demolished.

"I guess my overriding concern is that the provincial government
knew full well what happened to those people and did nothing to
try and assist them or bring redress to them for the abuse that
they suffered," said lawyer James Poyner.  "We feel that there are
at least 100 people, maybe hundreds, we don't know at this point."

Mr. MacDougall was sentenced to four years in prison after he was
convicted in 2000 of nine indecent and sexual assault charges
involving five males.

At Oakalla, Mr. MacDougall was in charge of providing temporary
passes to prisoners and classification before they were
transferred to minimum-security facilities. He used his power to
get prisoners to allow him to perform oral sex and mutual
masturbation.

Mr. MacDougall has also been ordered to pay hundreds of thousands
of dollars in relation to previous successful civil actions.

A statement of defence has not been filed and allegations in the
suit have not been proven in court.

Plaintiffs' lawyer can be reached at:

     James M. Poyner, Esq.
     POYNER BAXTER LLP
     #408 - 145 Chadwick Court
     North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 3K1
     Telephone: (604) 988-6321
     Facsimile: (604) 988-3632
     Email: jim@poynerbaxter.com


CARDIONET INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
CardioNet, Inc., a wireless medical technology company with a
current focus on the diagnosis and monitoring of cardiac
arrhythmias, disclosed that on August 10, 2010, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action
litigation filed in August 2009 against the Company and certain of
its former officers.

Joe Capper, President and Chief Executive Officer, stated, "We are
pleased with the Court's ruling and believe that the facts in the
case clearly supported the Company's position."

CardioNet -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- is a leading provider of
ambulatory, continuous, real-time outpatient management solutions
for monitoring relevant and timely clinical information regarding
an individual's health. CardioNet's initial efforts are focused on
the diagnosis and monitoring of cardiac arrhythmias, or heart
rhythm disorders, with a solution that it markets as Mobile
Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry(TM) (MCOT(TM)).


CIBC: Professor Says Bank Failed to Disclose Subprime Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce allegedly failed to properly disclose its exposure to
subprime mortgages prior to Dec. 6, 2007, a move that misled the
market and shareholders, Rotman School of Management accounting
professor Gordon Richardson says in a recent filing for a class-
action lawsuit expected to come before the Ontario Superior Court
for certification in March 2011.

CIBC "denies these allegations and plans to vigorous defend this
action," and "is confident that, at all times, its conduct was
appropriate and its disclosure met applicable requirements," a
bank spokesman tells Dow Jones.  CIBC expects to file its response
this month. A similar lawsuit in U.S. covering CIBC disclosures
between May 2007 to May 2008 was dismissed in March.


CONSOL ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Suit in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. defends a consolidated suit in the Delaware
Court of Chancery resulting from its proposed tender offer to
acquire all of the shares of the common stock of CNX Gas,
according to the company's Aug. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the
proposed tender offer by the company to acquire all of the shares
of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy does not already own

Three suits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery are:

     (1) Gummel v. CONSOL Energy (No. 5377-VCL), filed March 29,
         2010;

     (2) Gaines v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 5378), filed
         March 30, 2010; and

     (3) Hurwitz v. CONSOL Energy and others (NO. 5405), filed
         April 13, 2010.

Other than the Gummel case, the suits also name CNX Gas and
certain officers and directors of CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas as
defendants.

The actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy breached and/or
has and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties purportedly owed
to CNX Gas public shareholders.  Among other things, the actions
seek a permanent injunction against or rescission of the proposed
tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Delaware lawsuits have been consolidated and the Delaware
Court of Chancery denied an injunction against the tender offer
and CONSOL Energy acquired all of the outstanding shares of CNX
Gas.

The Delaware Court of Chancery certified to the Delaware Supreme
Court the question of what standard should be applied to the
tender offer, which would determine whether the shareholders can
proceed with a damage claim.  The Delaware Supreme Court declined
to accept the appeal pending a final judgment.

Therefore, the company says that the lawsuit will likely go
through a fact discovery phase and, later, trial.

CONSOL Energy Inc. -- http://www.consolenergy.com/-- a high-Btu
bituminous coal and natural gas company, is a member of the
Standard & Poor's 500 Equity Index and the Fortune 500.  At year-
end 2009, it had 11 bituminous coal mining complexes in six states
and reports proven and probable coal reserves of 4.5
billion tons.  It also is a majority owner of CNX Gas, a leading
Appalachian gas producer, with proved reserves of more than 1.9
trillion cubic feet.


CONSOL ENERGY: Two Pennsylvania Suits Stayed
--------------------------------------------
Two suits in Pennsylvania against CONSOL Energy Inc. has been
stayed, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the
proposed tender offer by the company to acquire all of the shares
of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy does not already own

Two suits were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington
County, Pennsylvania, are:

     (1) Schurr v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 2010-2333),
         filed March 29, 2010; and

     (2) Polen v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 2010-2626),
         filed April 12, 2010;

The suits also name CNX Gas and certain officers and directors of
CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas as defendants.

The actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy breached and/or
has and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties purportedly owed
to CNX Gas public shareholders.  Among other things, the actions
seek a permanent injunction against or rescission of the proposed
tender offer, damages, and attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The Pennsylvania lawsuits have been stayed.

CONSOL Energy Inc. -- http://www.consolenergy.com/-- a high-Btu
bituminous coal and natural gas company, is a member of the
Standard & Poor's 500 Equity Index and the Fortune 500.  At year-
end 2009, it had 11 bituminous coal mining complexes in six states
and reports proven and probable coal reserves of 4.5
billion tons.  It also is a majority owner of CNX Gas, a leading
Appalachian gas producer, with proved reserves of more than 1.9
trillion cubic feet.


DOTS LLC: Accused of Engaging in Unlawful Employment Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dots LLC, a clothing chain,
refused to hire a class of workers at its Merrillville, Ind.
outlet because they are white, the EEOC claims in Hammond Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. Dots LLC, Case No. 10-cv-00319 (N.D. Ind.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/10/EmployDiscrim.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurie A. Young, Esq.
          Michelle Bisele, Esq.
          Nancy Dean Edmonds, Esq.
          EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
          Indianapolis District Office
          101 W. Ohio St., Suite 1900
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317-226-7947
          E-mail: nancy.edmonds@eeoc.gov


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP disclosed that a class action has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Education Management
Corporation common stock during the period October 2, 2009 and
August 3, 2010.

The complaint charges Education Management and certain of its
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations and its business and are charged with issuing
a materially false and misleading registration statement and
proxy-prospectus in connection with the October 2, 2009 Initial
Public Offering, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that despite extensive
positive statements by defendants in press releases and SEC
filings during the Class Period regarding the Company's
operational performance and future growth projections, these
statements were false because: (1) defendants had propped up the
Company's results by fraudulently inducing students to enrol in
Education Management's scholastic and educational programs and
engaged in other manipulative recruiting tactics; (2) defendants
had materially overstated the Company's growth prospects by
failing to properly disclose that defendants had engaged in
illicit and improper recruiting activities, which also had the
effect of artificially inflating the Company's reported results
and future growth prospects; and (3) Education Management did not
maintain adequate systems of internal operational or financial
controls, which would have permitted Education Management's
reported operational statements and foreseeable growth prospects
to be true, accurate or reliable.

It was only on August 3, 2010, when a report by the United States
General Accounting Office was leaked that investors finally began
to learn the truth about Education Management. The August 4, 2010
GAO report concluded that for-profit educational institutions like
Education Management had engaged in an illegal and fraudulent
course of action designed to recruit students and over-charge the
federal government for the cost of such education. Following these
disclosures, Education Management's common stock fell 18% in
several trading days as this news reached the market.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Education Management
during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired
Education Management shares during the Class Period, and either
lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may
wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order
to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the
applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than
October 11, 2010.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer
and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for
its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal's
"Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last seven years.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

Contact the law firm at:

     U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
     Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
     10 East 40th Street
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: (877) 779-1414


ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc., continues to face class action
lawsuits over claims based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and comparable state statutes.

These claims may result in class action lawsuits, which can be
material to the company due to the remedies available under these
statutes, including punitive damages.

A number of cases styled as class actions have been filed against
the company.

A class has been certified in several of these cases.  Several of
these cases present novel issues on which there is no legal
precedent.

No specific details regarding the cases were disclosed by in the
company's Aug. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/-
- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off
consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of bankruptcy
services to the finance industry.  The company
acquires receivable portfolios at deep discounts from their face
values using its valuation process that is based upon an analysis
of the individual consumer attributes of the underlying accounts.
The receivable portfolios it purchases consist primarily of
unsecured, charged-off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan
deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national
financial institutions, retail credit corporations, telecom
companies and resellers of such portfolios.  In September 2007,
the company exited its healthcare purchasing and internal
collection activities, although it receives collections from
certain healthcare portfolios that it purchased.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Counterclaim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Midland Credit
Management, Inc., defends a class action counter-claim pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
according to the company's Aug. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

In an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
et al., filed on May 19, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio [Western Division], the plaintiff has
filed a class action counter-claim against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC.

The complaint alleges that the Midland Defendants' business
practices violated consumers' rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act.

The plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages for the
class of Ohio residents, plus attorney's fees and costs of class
notice and class administration.

On Aug. 11, 2009, the court issued an order partially granting
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entering findings
adverse to the Midland Defendants on certain of plaintiff's
claims.

The Midland Defendants subsequently moved the court to reconsider
the order and were partially successful.  However, because the
court did not completely reverse the August 11 order, certain
portions of the order remain subject to reversal only on appeal.

On Feb. 22, 2010, the District Court denied Plaintiff's attempts
to enlarge the case to include a national class of consumers, and
ordered the parties to brief issues relating to whether a
statewide class should be certified.  No class has been certified
to date.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/-
- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off
consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of bankruptcy
services to the finance industry.  The company acquires receivable
portfolios at deep discounts from their face values using its
valuation process that is based upon an analysis of the individual
consumer attributes of the underlying accounts.  The receivable
portfolios it purchases consist primarily of unsecured, charged-
off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan deficiency and
telecom receivables purchased from national financial
institutions, retail credit corporations, telecom companies and
resellers of such portfolios.  In September 2007, the company
exited its healthcare purchasing and internal collection
activities, although it receives collections from certain
healthcare portfolios that it purchased.


EXPRESS JET: Faces Class Suit in Texas Over Planned SkyWest Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in Texas District Court, Harris
County on behalf of shareholders of ExpressJet Holdings, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that on August 4, 2010, ExpressJet and
SkyWest publicly disclosed that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement under which SkyWest will acquire ExpressJet for
$6.75 cash per share and that the proposed buyout of ExpressJet by
SkyWest is unfair both with respect to price and process and is
designed to benefit ExpressJet's insiders to the detriment of
Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, the
consideration to be paid to plaintiff and the class in the
Proposed Transaction is unfair and grossly inadequate because the
intrinsic value of ExpressJet is materially in excess of the
amount offered in the Proposed Transaction, giving due
consideration to the Company's anticipated operating results, net
asset value, cash flow profitability, and established markets. The
complaint asserts that the Proposed Transaction will deny class
members their right to share proportionately and equitably in the
true value of Company's valuable and profitable business, and
future growth in profits and earnings, at a time when the Company
is poised to increase its profitability.

If you are a current owner of shares of ExpressJet Holdings, Inc.,
you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit by
contacting Brower Piven at http://www.browerpiven.com/by email at
piven@browerpiven.com, by calling 410/415-6701, or at Brower
Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road,
Stevenson, Maryland 21153. Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined
experience litigating securities and class action cases of over 40
years. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower
Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may
retain other counsel of your choice. If you are an ExpressJet
shareholder, you need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class.

CONTACT:

     Charles J. Piven, Esq.
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
     Stevenson, Maryland
     Telephone: 410-415-6701


FEDEX GROUND: Sued for Illegally Terminating Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that faced with losing
litigation in several states after misclassifying its drivers as
independent contractors, FedEx is retaliating illegally by
"terminating all of its single-route drivers" in Massachusetts,
putting "FedEx delivery drivers throughout Massachusetts out of
work," drivers say in a class action.  "This change would not have
occurred but for FedEx having been challenged legally for
misclassifying its delivery drivers as independent contractors,"
the class claims in Suffolk County Court.

FedEx Ground Package System's recently announced "ISP Transition,"
to take effect by October, requires drivers who want to keep their
jobs to form a corporation and purchase at least three "work
areas" in one geographical location, according to the complaint.

Named plaintiffs Steven Hayes and Chris Johnson say that FedEx
announced the change on the very day that it paid $3 million to
settle the Massachusetts Attorney General's complaint of
violations of the state's Independent Contractor Law.

"This change would not have occurred but for FedEx having been
challenged legally for misclassifying its delivery drivers as
independent contractors," the complaint states.  "This change
therefore constitutes unlawful retaliation."

More than 30 lawsuits have been filed against FedEx since 2005,
claiming it misclassified drivers as independent contractors.  A
federal judge in May ruled in favor of Illinois drivers with
claims similar to those pending in Massachusetts, according to the
complaint.

"Drivers attempting to pursue an ISP agreement will essentially be
former FedEx drivers who are required to make large expenditures
in an attempt to keep their job but with no guarantee that they
will even be able to work with or for FedEx in the future," the
complaint states.

"Given that there are only so many FedEx routes in Massachusetts
which may be used to form ISPs and that starting an ISP will cost
a FedEx driver a considerable amount of money (for which drivers
do not even know how much they would be paid as an ISP), FedEx's
'transition' to an ISP model will result in the loss of employment
for many, if not most, Massachusetts delivery drivers," according
to the complaint.

The drivers want the "transition" enjoined, and unspecified
damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Hayes, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc., et al., Case No. 103088 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/10/FedEx.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Ian Russell, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge St., 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: 617-994-5800


FORD MOTOR: N.Y. Suit Complains About Defective Minivans
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the 2004-05 models of the
Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey minivans lose power without
warning, and the replacement parts have the same defects, a class
action claims in Brooklyn Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Azose v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
10-cv-03634 (E.D.N.Y.) (Spatt, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/10/Ford.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
          Ilze Thielmann, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-447-7070
          E-mail: dweintraub@wdklaw.com
                  ithielmann@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          Joel Rubenstein, Esq.
          Steven J. German, Esq.
          GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP
          19th West 44th St., Suite 1500
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-704-2020
          E-mail: jrubenstein@germanrubenstein.com
                  sgerman@germanrubenstein.com

               - and -

          Steve Berk, Esq.
          BERK LAW, LLC
          1225 15th St., NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          E-mail: steven@berkalwdc.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
          9446 Black Mountain, Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: 619-308-5034
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          2001 Park Place, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-328-9576
          E-mail: rrouco@wdklaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Disputes Allegations Over Technicians' Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
William McQuillen, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. was sued by five computer-network
technicians who claim the bank denied them overtime pay for their
work as contractors.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status and unspecified damages,
Goldman Sachs said Tuesday in a filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.  The plaintiffs contend they deserve
overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week.

Goldman Sachs's conduct was "willful and in bad faith," according
to the technicians, who say the bank never paid them overtime for
work weeks that topped 70 hours. More than 100 employees in New
York and New Jersey were underpaid as a result, according to the
lawsuit filed in May.

Goldman Sachs, based in New York, disputed the allegations in a
July 16 filing, saying the technicians weren't "employees" as
defined by the states' labor laws. About 25 percent of Goldman
Sachs's staff works on technology, Chief Financial Officer David
Viniar said earlier this year.

"Technology is fundamental to everything we do, from revenue-
producing activities to enabling much of the control
infrastructure of the firm," Mr. Viniar said in a presentation to
investors on Feb. 10.

In July 2009, Goldman Sachs started including consultants and
temporary staff in quarterly employee numbers. The change prompted
the firm to revise its employee total to 29,800 at the end of
March 2009, up from 27,898 when the figure included only full-time
staff.

The case is Bardouille v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Case No.
10-cv-4285 (S.D.N.Y).


HAWAII: Micronesians to Fight New Health Plan in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aenet Rowa at Yokwe Online reports that Marshallese and
Micronesian groups in Honolulu are joining forces in a fundraising
effort to secure legal representation to fight the State's new
Basic Health Hawaii plan.  According to the newly formed
Micronesian Health Advisory Coalition, the BHH "targets
Micronesian citizens in violation of the equal protection clause
of the 14th amendment to the US constitution, among others."

MHAC says that the State's administrative act, effective July 1,
2010, severely limits health care benefits to just the bare
minimum thus seriously risking the many health of Compact of Free
Association citizens whose very lives depend heavily on State
assisted medical services.

"COFA citizens find this administrative directive by the State
unjust and discriminatory in view of the countless sacrifices and
contributions of COFA citizens to Hawaii State and the United
States."

By special political agreement with the U.S., the Compacts of Free
Association with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesian, and Palau, allow for COFA
citizens to enter the US freely to work, study and/or reside
without any specific date of expected departure.

The MHAC argues that COFA citizens as part of the work force are
productive Hawaii State tax payers and serve proudly in the U.S.
Armed Forces defending the U.S. and the cause of peace, security,
and freedom.

"They (the Marshallese) readily surrendered their homelands as
ground zero test site of the US Nuclear Weapon Testing Program
which effectively ended the US-USSR Cold War and for the 'good of
all mankind. It's not inconceivable to conclude then that the
cancers which are being denied access to treatments today by BHH
were in fact related to the US atomic nuclear testing program."

The MHAC Chair, Wilfred Alik, in a letter to the Micronesian
community last week, said that COFA citizens and supporters
resolve to end this unjust act by BHH by filing a class action
lawsuit in court.

The Lawyers for Equal Justice has been contracted to represent the
Micronesian coalition.  The LEJ represented them last year and
were able to obtain temporary restraining order from the Courts
against the State's initial July 2009 implementation of the Basic
Health Hawaii Plan.

"In order to proceed forward with the litigation against the
State, we certainly need your support," said Mr. Alik.


INTERACTIVE COMMS: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, on August 9,
2010, affirmed a trial court's order denying a motion to certify a
class of California residents who purchased a reloadable prepaid
Visa card sold by Interactive Communications International, Inc.
(InComm).

The Appeals Court concluded that the trial court properly ruled
the action was not suitable for class treatment.  A copy of the
California Appeals Court's decision in the case Davenport v.
Interactive Communications International, Inc., Case No. D054992,
is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100809027


INTRAWEST ULC: Accused of Taking $10MM From Resort Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that two Canadian
real estate promoters took investors for nearly $10 million in a
failed luxury tourist resort in the Bahamas, 11 named plaintiffs
claim in a federal class action.

The 11 named plaintiffs claim that Intrawest ULC and Playground
Real Estate persuaded each of them to invest $60,000 to $600,000
in condominiums on the Turks & Caicos Islands, in 2004.

"Defendants assured plaintiffs that this deposit would be placed
into a safe, interest-bearing trust account, and even claimed that
it would be 'protected' from all 'unforeseen circumstances,'" the
class action suit alleges.

The investors say they were assured that the "Veranda" resort --
which was to include 100 luxury condos, a restaurant bar and pool
-- was "on track."  But then the construction company behind the
project filed for bankruptcy in the United Kingdom, the complaint
states.

The investors say they "recovered nothing from the bankruptcy" and
want to recoup the $10 million in lost deposits.

Intrawest, based in Vancouver, B.C., "owns and operates numerous
alpine skiing resorts located in North America, most of which are
located in the United States," according to the complaint.

Playground Real Estate is based in Whistler, B.C.

According to the complaint, "Intrawest was compensated for each
sale it made, receiving millions of dollars in commissions based
on the successful marketing efforts it directed at the class
members."

The plaintiffs say Intrawest was "unjustly enriched at the expense
of the class members because it received a benefit -- millions in
commissions -- that came from money deposited by class members on
condominiums that they never received."

Plaintiffs seek damages for consumer law violations, negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Donachy, et al. v. Intrawest ULC, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 9134 in Case No. 33-
av-00001 on Aug. 6, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/10/Condos.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Gregory K. Evans, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston TX 77010
          Telephone: 713-751-0400
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com


JANUS INVESTMENT: Tillery Mutual Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison County Record, reports that
Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla has rejected a class
action that Stephen Tillery of St. Louis filed against mutual fund
Janus Investment in 2003.

Judge Hylla ruled on July 22 that Tillery client Robert Potter
could pursue an individual claim against Janus but not a class
action.

Judge Hylla gave Mr. Potter 21 days to amend his complaint.

Mr. Potter sued Janus Investment in 2003, claiming the timing of
its trades benefited some investors at the expense of others.

Tillery filed four other market timing suits against mutual funds
in Madison County.

Three cases wound up before Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder, who
certified questions to the Fifth District appeals court in Mount
Vernon.

Judge Hylla delayed decision on Mr. Potter's case while the Fifth
District reached a decision.

This January, in Kircher v. Putnam Funds, Fifth District judges
ruled that federal securities law precluded a state court class
action.

Judge Crowder dismissed Kircher, but Tillery moved to file new
complaints in all cases.

Judge Crowder has not ruled on new complaints, but Judge Hylla
has.  He granted a motion from Janus to dismiss Mr. Potter's
claim, finding that an amended complaint didn't cure the defects
in the Kircher case.

"This court has reviewed the holding of the Fifth District in
Kircher and rules that Kircher requires dismissal of all pending
class actions asserted by the plaintiffs in this case," he wrote.

Three cases against Putnam mutual funds remain pending in Judge
Crowder's court.

On Aug. 3, Putnam International Equity Fund and Putnam Investment
Management notified Judge Crowder that Judge Hylla dismissed the
Janus case.

One of Tillery's Madison County cases wound up in multi district
proceedings at federal court in Maryland.


LOWE'S COS: Plaintiffs Object to Defective Drywall Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Lloyd at Dow Jones Newswires reports that lawyers in
Louisiana are trying to block a settlement that Lowe's Cos.
reached earlier this month in Georgia regarding allegedly faulty
drywall, saying the deal would be an "end-run" around a federal
court's jurisdiction in thousands of other drywall lawsuits.

A plaintiff's committee connected to cases being handled in U.S.
District Court in New Orleans asked the court in a filing last
week to enjoin the Lowe's class action settlement, which has
received preliminary approval in Superior Court in Muscogee
County, Ga.

The attorneys say its members overlap with those covered by the
settlement, but they haven't been given proper notice about it.
The deal also conflicts with the federal court's management of
lawsuits over Chinese-manufactured drywall, attorneys claim.

The Lowe's settlement would cover anyone who bought or installed
allegedly defective drywall from Lowe's before July 27, regardless
of where it was made. Lowe's has said its vendors didn't import
drywall from China.

On Wednesday, Lowe's said it would not comment on other attorneys'
claims.

Under its nationwide settlement, Lowe's would distribute $6.5
million in gift cards and pay up to $2.2 million in plaintiffs'
attorney fees while admitting no wrongdoing.  Under the agreement,
which Lowe's said has received preliminary court approval, the
retailer admits no wrongdoing in the case.

Plaintiffs claimed Lowe's sold drywall containing high levels of
sulfur or other organic compounds, leading to rotten-egg-like
smells and other problems, according to a copy of the agreement
filed July 30 in Superior Court of Muscogee County, Ga.

Any customer who purchased allegedly defective drywall from Lowe's
before July 27 is included in the proposed settlement class.

"Lowe's entered into this agreement as part of our commitment to
serving our customers, not because such a step is or has been
required by law, or because drywall purchased from Lowe's has been
proven deficient in any way," company representative Karen Cobb
said in an email statement.

Ms. Cobb said the claims process is expected to begin in about 30
days. The agreement is a nationwide settlement that Lowe's
believes will also cover suits pending in Florida, Louisiana and
Arizona regarding a variety of drywall products, she said.

An attorney for plaintiffs couldn't be reached immediately for
comment.

The agreement calls for Lowe's to make the settlement payments to
the claims administrator within 180 days of the order's final
effective date.

Lawyers in the New Orleans cases said the Georgia class-action
case "encompasses potentially tens of millions of class members,
and yet the proposed settlement provides very few benefits."

Gregory Weiss, a Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., attorney who represents
a man who says he bought faulty drywall at a Lowe's in the state,
said the Georgia settlement shouldn't apply to his client, either.

In that case, which is pending in U.S. District Court in Florida,
Chris Brucker claims he built his 2,000-square-foot house with
defective drywall from Lowe's that has caused corrosion of
equipment and health problems. With repair and replacement costs
of about $86 a square foot, Mr. Brucker wouldn't recover anywhere
near what it costs to fix the home through the Georgia settlement,
Weiss said. He hopes to intervene in a fairness hearing on the
deal later this year.

"Hopefully this will put the brakes on the settlement, because my
client will not be made whole," he said.

The case is Vereen v. Lowe's Home Centers, No. SU10-CV022678.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Settles Overtime Suit for $7.25 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Pear, writing for The New York Times, reports that under a
proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit in California,
Kaiser Permanente would pay $7.25 million to hundreds of
registered nurse coordinators, case managers and other medical
workers.  The employees said they had been denied overtime pay
because they were improperly classified as exempt.  Kaiser denied
wrongdoing but has agreed to the settlement.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on March 1, 2010,
Courthouse News Service reported that Kaiser Permanente stiffs
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Alameda County
Court, Oakland.

A copy of the Complaint in Washington v. Kaiser Permanente, et
al., Case No. RG10500062 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is
available at:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/25/Kaiser.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Daniel H. Qualls, Esq.
         Robin G. Workman, Esq.
         Aviva N. Roller, Esq.
         QUALLS & WORKMAN, LLP
         244 California St., Suite 410
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: 415-782-3660


MERCK & CO: Vioxx Victims Has Until Aug. 25 to Join Aussie Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Australians who
suffered a heart attack after taking the arthritis drug Vioxx have
just weeks to join a class action against the drug's maker.

Vioxx was withdrawn from sale globally in 2004 following concerns
over its side effects, and Australia's Federal Court ruled earlier
this year it could double a person's risk of heart attack.

Law firm Slater & Gordon says Australians negatively affected by
the recalled drug have until August 25 to add their names to a
group legal bid for compensation.

Former Vioxx users who have had a heart attack should make contact
as a "matter of urgency", lawyer James Higgins said in a statement
on Tuesday.

"This is a very important step," Mr. Higgins said.  "People who
have taken the drug and have not already come forward must do so
before the cut-off date, or they may lose their right to take part
in these proceedings."

The law firm placed public notices in the nation's major
newspapers this week advising former Vioxx users of the looming
deadline.

In March this year, Slater & Gordon succeeded in a compensation
claim against the drug maker's Australian subsidiary Merck, Sharp
& Dohme.

Melbourne man Graeme Peterson was awarded $287,000 in compensation
and it was his case that paved the way for group legal action.

People wanting to take part in the legal action, or seeking more
information, should call 1800 555 777 or email
vioxx@slatergordon.com.au

Jared Reed at 6minutes.com reports that people who believe they
are eligible to take action or intend to make an individual claim
against Merck have until August 25 to register.

Merck is appealing the ruling, which paves the way for a class
action for patients who obtained and completed a Vioxx
prescription after June 30, 1999, who suffered and were diagnosed
with myocardial infarction, and experienced this after completing
their first prescription but before 30 weeks after ceasing to take
the drug.


MERRILL LYNCH: Court Denies Class Action Status to Black Brokers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Bank of
America Corp's Merrill Lynch & Co unit won a court victory when a
judge ruled that 17 black financial advisers who accused the
brokerage of racial discrimination cannot have their cases tried
together.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman in Chicago
denied class-action status for about 700 financial advisers
nationwide and requires individual plaintiffs to pursue their
cases before a jury. A class-action case can result in higher
recoveries and lower litigation costs.

Bank of America spokesman Bill Halldin said the company is pleased
with the ruling.

Linda Friedman, Esq., a partner at Stowell & Friedman Ltd. in
Chicago representing the plaintiffs, did not immediately return a
call for comment.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2005 on behalf of George
McReynolds, a 22-year Merrill veteran in Nashville, Tennessee who
accused his employer of systematically discriminating against
black brokers in hiring, promotion and compensation.

Merrill was accused of steering blacks into clerical positions,
diverting lucrative accounts to white brokers and creating a
hostile work environment, court papers show. Bank of America
bought Merrill on Jan. 1, 2009.

In his 18-page ruling, Judge Gettleman said it was not enough to
allege generally that Merrill has a "corporate culture of racial
discrimination" that infected the activities of more than 15,000
brokers and supervisors across the country.

He said the plaintiffs in this case were supervised by hundreds of
different people and subjected to "countless" decisions that left
them with "totally different" experiences.

"Plaintiffs' position essentially is that all of these decisions
were made by racist employees of a racist company," Judge
Gettleman wrote. "Because plaintiffs' statistical evidence alone
is insufficient to establish company-wide discrimination in a
manner that affects each class member in the same way, each
individual putative class member's claim for liability and damages
will have to be tried to a jury."

Noting the case's long and contentious history, the judge also
faulted both sides for submitting "overly lengthy briefs with
countless unnecessary citations and footnotes," creating a burden
on the court.

The case is McReynolds et al. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No.
05-06583.

Plaintiffs' lawyer can be reached at:

     Linda Friedman, Esq.
     STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
     321 S. Plymouth Court, Suite 1400
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Telephone: 312-431-0888
     Facsimile: 312-431-0228


METLIFE INC: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of ADA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed
the ruling dismissing the putative class action lawsuit entitled
The American Dental Association, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al.,
according to the company's Aug. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

The suit was filed May 19, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The American Dental Association and three individual providers had
sued the company, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and other non-
affiliated insurance companies in a putative class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide class of in-
network providers who alleged that their claims were being
wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use
and programming of software.

The complaint alleged federal racketeering and various state law
theories of liability.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the district court granted the company's motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint, dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims except for breach of contract claims.

Plaintiffs were provided with an opportunity to re-plead the
dismissed claims by Feb. 26, 2009.

Since plaintiffs never amended these claims, they were dismissed
with prejudice on March 2, 2009.

By order dated March 20, 2009, the district court declined to
retain jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract claims
and dismissed the lawsuit.

On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this
order.

On May 14, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision affirming
the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions.  The company is organized into five
operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home,
International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Putative nationwide class actions against Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Ins. Co. remain pending.

Two putative nationwide class actions, styled Shipley v. St. Paul
Fire and Marine Ins. Co. and Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Ins. Co. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison County, filed Feb. 26 and July 2,
2003), have been filed against Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Ins. Co. in Illinois.

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged
underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.  The second suit
currently alleges breach of contract arising from the alleged use
of preferred provider organizations to reduce medical provider
fees covered by the medical claims portion of the insurance
policy.

Motions for class certification have been filed and briefed in
both cases.

Simon v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (W.D. Okla.,
filed Sept. 23, 2008), a third putative nationwide class action
lawsuit relating to payment of medical providers, is pending in
federal court in Oklahoma.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 2, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions.  The company is organized into five
operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home,
International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Second Circuit Dismisses Lone Appeal to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed the
only notice of appeal filed with respect to the settlement of the
consolidated federal court class action styled In re MetLife
Demutualization Litig., according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 2, 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 a lawsuit challenging the fairness of
the Plan and the adequacy and accuracy of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's disclosure to policyholders regarding MLIC's
plan of reorganization, as amended.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated federal court class action, In
re MetLife Demutualization Litig. (E.D.N.Y., filed April 18,
2000), sought rescission and compensatory damages against MLIC and
the Holding Company.  Plaintiffs asserted violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Plan, claiming that the Policyholder
Information Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts and
contained certain material misstatements.  The court certified a
litigation class of present and former policyholders.

The parties to the lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement in
November 2009.

The federal court approved the settlement in orders issued on Feb.
12, 2010.  On March 2, 2010, the federal court entered final
judgment confirming the approval of the settlement and dismissing
the action.

On March 15, 2010, an objector filed a notice of appeal of the
federal court's order approving the settlement.

On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
dismissed the only notice of appeal filed with respect to the
settlement.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions.  The company is organized into five
operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home,
International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend claims in pending sales
practices litigation matters.

Over the past several years, the company has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.

Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including
punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees.

At Dec. 31, 2009, there were approximately 130 sales practices
litigation matters pending against the company.

No further information was disclosed in the company's Aug. 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions.  The company is organized into five
operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home,
International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the order dismissing the class
action lawsuit captioned Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., et al., remains pending.

A putative class action complaint was filed against MLIC and
MetLife Securities, Inc.

Plaintiffs assert legal theories of violations of the federal
securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the
sale of certain proprietary products by the company's agency
distribution group.

Plaintiffs seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

In January and May 2008, the court issued orders granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims except for claims under the Investment Advisers
Act.

Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the Investment Advisers
Act was denied.

In March 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

In August 2009, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

On Sept. 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
court's order dismissing the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 2, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions.  The company is organized into five
operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home,
International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Defends "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend the matter Roberts, et al. v.
Tishman Speyer Properties, et al., according to the company's Aug.
2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court, New York County, on Jan.
22, 2007

The lawsuit was filed by a putative class of "market rate" tenants
at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against parties
including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company and
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company.  This group of tenants
claim that the Company, and since the sale of the
properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner, improperly charged
market rents when only lower regulated rents were permitted.

The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax
abatements.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent
overcharges.

In August 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

In March 2009, New York's intermediate appellate court reversed
the trial court's decision and reinstated the lawsuit.  The
defendants appealed this ruling to the New York State Court of
Appeals, which in October 2009 issued an opinion affirming the
ruling of the intermediate appellate court.

The action has been remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.  Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and the
company has filed a motion to dismiss.  In August 2010, Manhattan
state Supreme Court Justice Richard Lowe III ruled against a
motion to dismiss the case against MetLife.

The current owner is pursuing potential settlement of the claims
against it.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions.  The company is organized into five
operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home,
International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the class action entitled In Re Ins.
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation to state court in Florida is
pending.

The suit was filed Feb. 24, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for
the District Court of New Jersey.

In this multi-district class action proceeding (MDL No. 1663;
Master Docket Nos. 04-5184 and 05-1079), plaintiffs' complaint
alleged that MetLife, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
several non-affiliated insurance companies and several insurance
brokers violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, and antitrust laws and committed other misconduct in the
context of providing insurance to employee benefit plans and to
persons who participate in such employee benefit plans.

In August and September 2007 and January 2008, the court issued
orders granting defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice the
federal antitrust, the RICO, and the ERISA claims.

In February 2008, the court dismissed the remaining state law
claims on jurisdictional grounds.

Plaintiffs' appeal from the orders dismissing their RICO and
federal antitrust claims is pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

A putative class action alleging that the company and other non-
affiliated defendants violated state laws was transferred to the
District of New Jersey but was not consolidated with other related
actions.  Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state court
in Florida is pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 2, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions.  The company is organized into five
operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home,
International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Class Certification Motion in "Clark" Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's motion for class certification in the putative
class action lawsuit Clark, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, remains pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada on March 28, 2008.

This lawsuit alleges breach of contract and breach of a common law
fiduciary and/or quasi-fiduciary duty arising from use of the
Total Control Account to pay life insurance policy death benefits.
As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between
the interest paid to the account holders and the investment
earnings on the assets backing the accounts.

In March 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part MLIC's
motion to dismiss, dismissing the fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims but allowing a breach of contract claim and a
special or confidential relationship claim to go forward.  In
December 2009, MLIC filed a motion for summary judgment and
plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions.  The company is organized into five
operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home,
International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Faber" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the putative
class action lawsuit Faber, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Dec. 4, 2008.

The suit alleges that MLIC's use of the Total Control Account as
the settlement option under group life insurance policies violates
MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA.  As damages, plaintiffs seek
disgorgement of the difference between the interest paid to the
account holders and the investment earnings on the assets backing
the accounts.

On Oct. 23, 2009, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  On Nov. 24, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance
and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations
and other institutions.  The company is organized into five
operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home,
International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


MORGAN STANLEY: Irish Investors, Nuns File Class Action Over Bonds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Vaughan, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports a group
of Irish investors, including hundreds of nuns, filed a class-
action suit with the U.K.'s High Court on Tuesday alleging U.S.
investment bank Morgan Stanley failed to satisfy its contractual
obligations related to EUR6 million ($7.9 million) of bonds they
purchased, resulting in the near total wipeout of their
investment.

In the claim titled "The Sisters of Jesus and Mary v. Morgan
Stanley," 88 investors including the Sisters of Charity of Jesus
and Mary, the Holy Faith Sisters and the Irish Veterinary
Benevolent Fund, allege the improper actions of Morgan Stanley led
them to lose at least EUR5 million, or 80% of their total
investment, while the investment bank made a profit. The claimants
are represented by the firm Stewarts Law LLP.

Morgan Stanley declined to comment on the case.

The suit against Morgan Stanley relates to EUR5.9 million of
complex securities, whose value is derived from underlying bonds,
purchased by the claimants from January 2005 to December 2006. The
securities offered returns of 6.25% for at least four years,
according to the claim. In the event the underlying bonds were
downgraded to "junk" status, Morgan Stanley was required to
auction the bonds, with proceeds going to the claimants, less
redemption fees, the filing states.

The value of the underlying bonds plummeted in the second half of
2008, when the financial crisis hit, and were downgraded by
Standard & Poor's to junk grade BB+ on Jan. 28, 2009, according to
the claim.  At this point, Morgan Stanley was obliged to redeem
the bonds, but the bank waited almost five months before selling
them, the claim alleges.

By the time Morgan Stanley sold the bonds, on June 9, 2009, they
had rallied, bolstering the fee payable to the bank. In addition,
another unit of Morgan Stanley was the counterparty buying the
bonds, so the bank has since benefited as the bonds have increased
in value, the claim alleges.

At the time of the sale, the bonds were worth 42.75 cents on the
U.S. dollar, the claim states. They have since nearly doubled in
value.

The claimants argue that because Morgan Stanley failed to redeem
the bonds in January 2009, instead selling them at a time that was
advantageous to Morgan Stanley, the claimants are owed at least
EUR5 million, based on the current value of the underlying bonds
plus lost of interest.

Morgan Stanley has 14 days to respond to the claim after it is
served, and 28 days to file a preliminary defense.


MOTT'S LLP: Class Cert. Denied in 'All Natural' Snapple Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for The American Lawyer, reports for
years it has been said that the next gold mine for plaintiffs
lawyers would be consumer cases against food and beverage
companies alleging that they deceived the public about the health
consequences of their products.  But so far, plaintiff wins in
such suits have been about as rare as a Big Mac at a vegetarian
retreat.

The latest plaintiffs' defeat is the denial of class certification
in a purported Manhattan federal district court class action
against Snapple.  In a 37-page decision issued last week, Judge
Denise Cote refused to certify a class of New York Snapple
purchasers who asserted that Snapple's claims of "All Natural"
ingredients in its teas and juices violated New York consumer
protection laws because the beverages contained high-fructose corn
syrup.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/SnappleClassCertDecision.pdf

After the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a similar
case based on New Jersey consumer protection laws last year,
Snapple's lawyers at Baker Botts answered the New York complaint
in anticipation of a fight at the class certification stage. It
was a wise choice. Judge Cote found that the plaintiffs failed to
show how they'd prove that all class members paid a premium for
Snapple because of its "All Natural" label.

"Plaintiffs have not proposed a suitable methodology for
establishing the critical elements of causation and injury on a
class-wide basis," she wrote. "Without a reliable methodology,
plaintiffs have not shown that they could prove at trial using
common evidence that putative class members in fact paid a premium
for Snapple beverages as a result of the 'All Natural' labeling.
And since the issue of damages is bound up with the issue of
injury in this case, plaintiffs have likewise failed to show how
damages could be proven class-wide."

Snapple counsel Van Beckwith of Baker Botts told the Litigation
Daily that Judge Cote's decision should have "persuasive effect
around the country" in similar suits.

Plaintiffs lawyer Daniel Lapinski of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
said he's reviewing the decision and considering his options. But
he added that Judge Cote's opinion won't have a direct impact on
the New Jersey case against Snapple, in which he's also class
counsel. Mr. Lapinski said the New Jersey case has been stayed for
six months, following a request by another New Jersey federal
district court judge who's overseeing a similar class action
involving consumer claims against Arizona Ice Tea, for a Food and
Drug Administration determination of whether high-fructose syrup
is a natural ingredient.

Snapple is represented by:

     Van H. Beckwith, Esq.
     BAKER BOTTS LLP
     2001 Ross Avenue
     Dallas, Texas 75201-2980
     Telephone: 214.953.6505
     Facsimile: 214.661.4505
     Email: van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com

Plaintiffs' lawyer can be reached at:

     Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq.
     WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
     90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Box 10
     Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
     Telephone: 732-855-6066
     Facsimile: 732-726-4735
     Email: dlapinski@wilentz.com


OHIO: Girard Traffic Camera Victims to Get Checks Soon
------------------------------------------------------
WKBN.com reports that if you paid a speeding ticket issued by
Girard's traffic camera and took part in the class action lawsuit,
you may soon be getting a check.

Atty. Jim Denney of Girard, Ohio, who filed the class action
lawsuit, said those who paid tickets will receive a check for 15
percent of what they paid, which in most cases is about $12.

Girard Mayor Jim Melfi said he received his check a few days ago.
The mayor's daughter was issued a ticket in 2005, he said.

Girard quit using the camera in 2006 after a Trumbull County
Common Pleas judge ruled its use was unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs' counsel can be reached at:

     James A. Denney, Esq.
     1631 South State Street
     Girard, OH 44420
     Telephone: (330)545-4250


QANTAS: To Face Cargo Cartel Class Action in Australia
------------------------------------------------------
Air Cargo Asia Pacific reports that an Australian appeals court
has ruled Australia's Qantas and six other carriers -- Deutsche
Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific Airways, Air New
Zealand, Japan Airlines and British Airways -- must face a class
action alleging they participated in a global conspiracy to fix
rates for international air cargo shipments.

The Federal Court of Australia overturned an earlier lower court
decision dismissing a group lawsuit.

The airlines conspired to fix cargo rates from January 2000 to
January 2007, Auskay International Manufacturing & Trade Ltd, a
manufacturer of central vacuum systems, claimed in the original
2007 lawsuit.

"After several years, we can move forward," Brooke Dellavedova, a
Maurice Blackburn lawyer representing Auskay said. "We're very
happy with the decision."

Auskay represents all Australians who paid more than A$20,000 to
have goods shipped from the country by air between 2000 and 2007
in the class action.

Qantas said the company is reviewing the decision and may comment
later.

Auskay is represented by:

     Brooke Dellavedova, Esq.
     MAURICE BLACKBURN
     Level 10, 456 Lonsdale Street
     Melbourne VIC 3000
     Telephone: (03) 9605 2892
     Facsimile: (03) 9258 9610


P. GRAHAM: Recalls 500 Wooden Toy Rattles
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
P. Graham Dunn, of Dalton, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 500 Wooden Toy Rattles.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The wooden dowels can be installed at an angle, allowing the metal
rattle inside to become exposed.  This poses a serious choking
hazard to young children.

The firm is aware of four incidents of the metal rattle becoming
exposed.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves a wooden toy rattle with light brown stain,
eight wooden dowels and a gold-colored metal rattle inside.  The
toy rattle is circular in shape, measuring 2 3/4 inches by 2
inches.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10317.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
gift stores and book retailers nationwide from June 2010 through
July 2010 for about $6.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact P. Graham Dunn to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact P. Graham Dunn at (800) 828-5260 between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.pgrahamdunn.com/


SKECHERS USA: Defends Shape-Up Shoes in Two Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Skechers USA Inc. on Tuesday
dismissed two recently filed civil class action lawsuits against
the company's Shape-ups toning shoe line as "completely baseless."

Shape-ups are shoes with a curved "rocker" bottom that retail for
$100 and up.  Skechers says research has shown that wearers lose
more weight and body fat when compared with wearers of flat-
bottomed shoes, because the off-balance design of the shoes makes
wearers' muscles work harder.

The complaints, which were filed in June and July in California
courts, claim the company's advertising for its Shape-ups line
violates California law governing truthful marketing.  The
plaintiffs, Tamara Grabowski and Sonia Stalker, could not
immediately be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.

According to documents filed on June 18 with the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of California, Ms. Grabowski is
seeking over $5 million in damages alleging false advertising.
Based on documents filed July 23 with the district court in
California's Central District, Ms. Stalker also has assessed the
claims of the class members at over $5 million.

Skechers said the complaints are frivolous and a thinly veiled
attempt to extort money from the company. It noted that the
complaints each have only a single plaintiff.

Skechers says it has "voluminous scientific studies and customer
testimonials" that support Shape-ups' claims and it will
vigorously defend itself against the suits. The company also
contradicts a recent critical report by exercise company American
Council on Exercise that claims Shape-ups don't provide their
advertised health benefits.


STATE FARM: Accused in Missouri Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that State Farm stiffs its call-
center workers for overtime, a class action claims in Jefferson
City, Mo., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Nobles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, Case No. 10-cv-04175 (W.D. Mo.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/10/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-714-7100
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          LEAR WERTS LLP
          2003 W. Broadway, Suite 107
          Columbia, MO 65203
          Telephone: 573-875-1991
          E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                  werts@learwerts.com


SUPER VALU: Judge Gives Final Approval to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
that a class action filed last year against the owner of the Shop
'n Save grocery chain is over.

Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian gave the suit's
settlement the final approval Friday morning last week.

The class, those who were allegedly charged too much to cash
checks at Super Valu Inc.'s stores between 2004 and 2009, received
about $20 a member, up to $75,000.  Lead plaintiff Mary Voyles
walks away with $500.  The attorneys in the case, Peter and Thomas
Maag, Brian Wendler and Jeffrey Millar, take home $18,000.

The settlement was given the initial go ahead in May.  The class
action was less than a year old.  The case is Madison case number
09-L-542.


T-MOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Unlimited Data in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless and Mobile News reports that a class action lawsuit filed
in Yolo, California, claims that T-Mobile deceptively marketed its
mobile phone data plans as unlimited, while capping data at 10 or
5 gigabytes before cutting off access to the 3G network and
drastically reducing speeds. The suit claims that the plan was
falsely represented as unlimited.

Plaintiff Trent Alvarez bought three T-Mobile smart phones last
year that required him to agree to a two-year contract.

"Nowhere on this contract does T-Mobile disclose its invisible
data cap," Mr. Alvares claims in Yolo County Superior Court, and
the company presented the plan as "unlimited," and the sales rep
didn't let him know about the data limit.

The customer did not know about the cap, until T-Mobile sent him a
text message stating, "Your data usage in this billing cycle has
exceeded 10GB; Data throughput for the remainder of the cycle may
be reduced to 50kbps or less."

The slowing of data meant he couldn't perform functions promised
in T-Mobile's ads, such as sending emails, downloading music and
videos, and uploading photos and applications, all at blazing fast
speeds.

The plaintiff claims he is locked into a two-year contract unable
to experience the unlimited data services T-Mobile promised.

The suit requests an injunction preventing T-Mobile to deceptively
advertise its data plans. It also asks for restitution for false
advertising and disgorgement of all profits T-Mobile made from
selling the "unlimited" plans.

The suit was brought by Jenelle Welling with Green Welling.


UNITED AIRLINES: Sued in Washington Over Checking Luggage Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that enough's
enough, passengers say in a class action against major airlines.
After imposing new fees of $25 to $35 a bag for checking luggage,
United, Northwest and Delta have the brass to keep the money even
when they "damage, delay or lose baggage," the class claims in
Seattle Federal Court.

"Although loss or delay of some baggage may be unavoidable,
defendants are not entitled to retain the baggage fee collected
from passengers whose baggage they have lost, damaged, or
delayed," named plaintiff Tony Schultz says for the class.

American Airlines was the first to charge for checking bags, in
2008, according to the 11-page complaint.  United began charging
to check bags in June 2008.  Then after Delta and Northwest
merged, to become the world's largest airline in October 2008,
they began charging $25 for the first bag checked, and $35 for the
next one, according to the complaint.

Mr. Schultz claims he paid Delta/Northwest $15 to check a bag on a
flight in June 2009 and the bag arrived more than a day after he
did -- and the airlines kept his handling fee.  He claims United
did the same thing in October 2009, and kept his $25.

That was enough for Mr. Schultz.  He seeks class damages for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation, and wants the airlines enjoined from keeping
passengers' money when they screw up their baggage.

A copy of the Complaint in Schultz v. United Airlines, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01263 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/10/Baggage.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Ongaro, Esq.
          ONGARO BURTT &LOUDERBACK LLP
          595 Market St., Suite 610
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-433-3901


UTSTARCOM INC: Court Approves Notice of Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on August 9, 2010, approved the Notice of Pendency of
Class Action and the Summary Notice in the case In re: UTStarcom,
Inc., Securities Litigation No. C-04-4908-JW(PVT) (N.D. Calif.)

On May 12, 2010 the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California certified a Class of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired UTStarcom, Inc.,
securities between February 21, 2003 and July 23, 2007, inclusive,
and who did not sell such acquired securities before October 23,
2003 and who were damaged, as defined in the Notice of Pendency of
Class Action.

The Court appointed the firm of Gilardi & Co. LLC to supervise and
administer the notice procedure:

     (a) Not later than August 16, 2010, lead counsel shall cause
         a copy of the Notice to be mailed by first class mail to
         all Class members who can be identified with reasonable
         effort;

     (b) Not later than August 23, 2010, lead counsel shall cause
         the Summary Notice to be published once in Investor's
         Business Daily.

A copy of the Order is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100809768

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs may be reached at:

     Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
     Shirley H. Huang, Esq.
     Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
     Phillip G. Freemon, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone (415) 288-4545
     Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
            shirleyh@rgrdlaw.com
            dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
            gfreemon@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     John J. Rice, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619-231-1058
                800-449-4900
     Email: jrice@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants' counsel can be reached at:

     Robert A. Sacks, Esq.
     SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
     1888 Century Park East
     Los Angeles, California 90067-1725
     Telephone: 310-712-6640
     Facsimile: 310-712-8800
     Email: sacksr@sullcrom.com

          - and -

     Jason De Bretteville, Esq.
     SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
     1870 Embarcadero Road
     Palo Alto, California 94303-3308
     Telephone: 650-461-5600
     Facsimile: 650-461-5700
     Email: debrettevillej@sullcrom.com


WAL-MART: 9th Circuit Dismisses Objection to $85MM Wage Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Over three million Wal-Mart hourly employees who worked in 30
states have received good news," states Lead Counsel Robert J.
Bonsignore of Bonsignore and Brewer.  The Lead Counsel in the
consolidated action referred to as "MDL 1735" went on to explain
that, "The appeal of the Final Approval of an $85 million
settlement has been dismissed and absent further appeals employees
can expect to be paid before the end of the year."  Employees are
projected to receive between $25.00 and $300.00, depending on
their length of service and number of incidents claimed. Depending
on the number of claims made the amount of the payment may vary
and could go up to $1,000.

"The summary affirmation of the approval cuts about two years off
the appeal process and was based on the hard work of the legal
team Lead Counsel Robert Bonsignore assembled and directed," said
R. Deryl Edwards, class counsel for several states including
Arkansas.  "The summary affirmation of the settlement recognizes
the real value of the settlement and the fact that it was reached
only after years of hard fought litigation during which Plaintiffs
counsels not only worked tirelessly without pay but advanced
millions of dollars without any certainty of being paid," Attorney
Bonsignore said. Bonsignore went on to add that, "The Ninth
Circuit Appeals Court's ruling puts an end to an attempt by 4 of
3.4 million employees, who are represented by lawyers who make a
living objecting to class action settlements to block the rest of
the class from receiving benefit of the settlement," Attorney
Robert Bonsignore went on to say. It is important to add that Wal-
Mart stood by their employees.

The settlement class is the largest wage and hour case in United
States history. Robert Bonsignore, the employees' national Lead
Counsel said during oral argument, "Today is a good day for all
concerned. The focus however is singular this case is all about
the employees. In addition to the economic value, a real ongoing
value is afforded the employees through the injunctive relief
component of the settlement." In addition to making $85 Million
dollars available, Wal-Mart also agreed to injunctive relief
designed to institutionalize measures that eliminate, minimize
and/or red flag for corrective action occurrences that were the
subject of the employee's action.

Lead Counsel can be reached at:

     Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
     BONSIGNORE & BREWER
     23 Forest Street,
     Medford, Massachusetts 02155
     Telephone: 781 350 0000
     Facsimile: 781 391 9496
     Cellphone: 781 856 7650
     E-mail: rbonsignore@aol.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Securities Act Violations in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
First Star Bank, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. The Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities 2006-ARI5
Trust, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03508 (N.D. Calif. August 10,
2010)), asserts claims for violations of the Securities Act of
1933, arising from the sale of roughly $400 million in mortgaged
pass-through certificates pursuant or traceable to Wells Fargo
Asset Securities Corporation's September 20, 2006 Registration
Statement, and the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus
Supplement.

Mortgaged pass-through certificates are securities entitling the
holder to income payments from pools of mortgage loans or
mortgaged backed securities.  Thus, their value depends on the
ability of borrowers to repay the principal and interest on the
underlying loans and the adequacy of the collateral in the event
of default.

First Star Bank says the defendants made false and misleading
statements in the Offering Documents.  Specifically, First Star
states that the Offering Documents contained material
misstatements and omissions regarding, among others, (i) Wells
Fargo Bank's underwriting process and standards by which the loans
held by the respective Issuing Trust were originated; (ii) the
underwriting process and standards of certain third-party
originators; (iii) representations concerning the value of the
underlying real estate securing the loans pooled in the respective
Issuing Trust, in terms of loan-to-value averages and the
appraisal standards by which real estate values were measured; and
(iv) the credit ratings of the Certificates.  As a result of these
untrue statements and omissions in the Offering Documents,
Plaintiff and the Class who purchased the Certificates were
exposed to increased risk with respect to absolute cash flow and
the timing of payments.  First Star adds that nearly all of the
Certificates have been downgraded by the credit ratings agencies
to below investment-grade, and consequently are no longer
marketable near the prices paid by it.

First Star states in the complaint that with the advent of
securitization, banks and other institutions originating mortgages
were no longer required to hold them to maturity, as credit risk
is transferred to investors through mortgage-backed securities.
To increase profit, originators merely had to issue more loans to
generate transaction fees.  As volume of transactions increased,
loan originators sacrificed underwriting and appraisal standards
and other methods of risk assessment.  When U.S. Housing prices
subsequently declined, the delinquency rate rate for mortgages
soared.

Plaintiff First Star is a community bank headquartered in
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.  Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities
2006-AR15 Trust is a New York common law trust.  Defendant Wells
Fargo Securities Corporation, a direct and wholly owned subsidiary
of Wells Fargo Bank, acted as the "depositor" in the
securitization of the Issuing Trust, and was the "Issuer" of the
Certificates within the meaning of Section 2(a)(4) of the
Securities Act.  Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is the "sponsor"
for the offerings.  As the sponsor, Wells Fargo Bank originated or
purchased the mortgage loans underlying the offerings.  Defendant
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., an investment banking firm, was
the underwriter of the Certificates, and participated in the
drafting and dissemination of the Prospectus Supplement pursuant
to which the Certificates were sold to Plaintiff and the other
Class members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
                  peter@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Sean R. Matt, Esq.
          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eight Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  sean@hbsslaw.com
                  karlb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Nanci Nishimura, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000

               - and -

          Andrew Levetown, Esq.
          John D. Jenkins, Esq.
          LEVETOWN & JENKINS, LLP
          700 12th Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 2005
          Telephone: (202) 379-4899

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


WELLS FARGO: Ordered to Pay $203MM in Overdraft Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit by California consumers charging that
Wells Fargo Bank manipulated its processing of customer debit card
purchases to maximize overdraft fees, Judge William Alsup, in the
U.S. District Court of Northern California, held in a 90-page
opinion that Wells Fargo violated California law.  Instead of
posting each transaction chronologically, the evidence presented
at trial showed that Wells Fargo deducted the largest charges
first, drawing down available balances more rapidly and triggering
a higher volume of overdraft fees.

Marshall Eckblad, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports the
judge on Tuesday ordered Wells Fargo to pay more than $200 million
to compensate customers who the judge said were improperly charged
millions in overdraft fees.

Dow Jones relates Judge Alsup said the San Francisco bank
improperly generated excessive overdraft fees for customers by
posting transactions in an order that would generate more fees --
a practice many big banks have used for years.  Overdraft fees are
fees charged to customers who run a negative account balance in
their bank accounts and the Federal Reserve recently issued new
rules that will curb banks' ability to charge the fees.

According to Dow Jones, banks' practices in charging overdraft
fees, which generate about $40 billion a year for the banking
industry, have been at the heart of customers' complaints against
banks since the onset of the financial crisis three years ago. To
charge higher fees, banks used various methods in handling
customers' accounts. In many cases, banks re-ordered customers'
transactions at the end of the day, first subtracting the largest
purchases from the account's balance.

Commenting on the Court's decision, lead trial attorney Richard M.
Heimann stated:  "A federal court enjoined Wells Fargo from
continuing its practice of manipulating their customers' accounts
for the sole purpose of generating massive bank fees.  These
unfair practices cost California consumers huge amounts of money,
and we are pleased that the Court has ordered Wells Fargo to
return $203 million of its ill-gotten gains to its customers.  We
are grateful for the opportunity to try this case in order to
successfully reveal that the bank's true motives behind its
overdraft bookkeeping were profiteering and the gouging of its
customers.  Wells Fargo's after the fact excuses were soundly
rejected by the Court, and rightfully so, as it not only never
made an honest effort to disclose its true practices to its
supposedly valued customers, but worse yet, misled them.  This is
not only an actual victory for Wells Fargo customers, but a
symbolic victory for consumers throughout the country who are
subjected to these kinds of oppressive business practices."

In a separate report, Kate Moser, writing for The Recorder,
relates that Wells Fargo's lawyer, Covington & Burling partner
Sonya Winner, referred a request for comment to the bank. A Wells
Fargo spokeswoman says the bank plans to appeal.

"We believe Wells Fargo's method of processing transactions has
been appropriate and consistent with customers' interests and the
laws and rules of governing regulatory authorities," a Wells Fargo
spokeswoman said in an e-mail. "While different customers may have
a variety of different preferences, many banks process customer's
transactions in high-to-low order because it gives priority to
larger transactions -- such as mortgage payments, rent or car
payments -- which are typically customers' high-priority
payments."

Lead trial attorney for the plaintiffs, Richard Heimann of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, said in a statement that Alsup's
decision was "not only an actual victory for Wells Fargo
customers, but a symbolic victory for consumers throughout the
country who are subjected to these kinds of oppressive business
practices."

A copy of the court's order is available at:

     http://www.bank-overdraft.com/pdf/20100810-wells-fargo-finding.pdf

Plaintiffs' lawyer can be reached at:

     Richard Heimann, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
     Embarcadero Center West
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
     Telephone: (415) 956-1000
     Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
     Email: rheimann@lchb.com

Wells Fargo's lawyer can be reached at:

     Sonya D. Winner, Esq.
     COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
     One Front Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
     Telephone: 415.591.7072
     Email: swinner@cov.com


WOODBURY COUNTY: Class in Strip-Search Suit Denied Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a woman
who claimed she was illegally strip-searched during the booking
process in Woodbury County, Iowa, failed to convince the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit that she would
"vigorously pursue" the interests of other arrested women in a
class action.

Judge Steven Colloton noted that more than 14 months had passed
between when Maureen Rattray filed her initial complaint and when
she sought class certification.

"Rattray's failure to move to certify with alacrity undermines
confidence in the zeal with which she would represent the
interests of an absent class," Judge Colloton wrote.

"A failure of a putative class representative to assure the court
that it will vigorously pursue the interests of class members is a
sufficient basis to deny certification."

Ms. Rattray had claimed that she was forced to strip off her
clothes and endure cavity searches after she was arrested on a
first-time DUI charge.  She said female jailers at the Woodbury
County Jail made her remove her clothes, and then searched her
vaginal and genital area before placing her in a holding cell,
where they performed a second cavity search.  She said the
searches were conducted without a "reasonable suspicion" that she
possessed a weapon or contraband.

The St. Louis-based appellate panel agreed with a federal judge's
conclusion that Ms. Rattray and her lawyers waited too long in
seeking to represent other arrestees.

"We conclude that there were sufficient grounds for the district
court to decide that Rattray failed to meet her burden to prove
that she 'will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class,'" Judge Colloton wrote.

A copy of the decision in Rattray, et al. v. Woodbury County,
Iowa, et al., No. 09-2314 (8th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/08/092314P.pdf


XCELERA INC: Court Dismisses Feiner Family Trust Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on August 9, 2010, dismissed a two-count complaint consisting
of a derivate shareholders claim and a putative class action claim
filed by Feiner Family Trust and Ron Krissel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against Xcelera Inc.,
Alexander M. Vik, Gustav M. Vik, and Michael J. Kugler.

District Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr. also denied the plaintiffs'
motion for remand to state court and granted the defendants'
motion for judgment.

Judge Patterson ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act preempts Plaintiffs' claim of fraud, and the
Plaintiffs' claim of breach of fiduciary duty is barred from
relitigation by the doctrine of claim preclusion.

A copy of the District Court's opinion and order in In re: Feiner
Family Trust v. Xcelera Inc., No. 10-cv-3431 (RPP), (S.D.N.Y)
is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100809786


XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities
law action captioned In re Xerox Corporation Securities
Litigation.

A consolidated securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Defendants are the company, Barry Romeril, Paul Allaire and G.
Richard Thoman.

The consolidated action is a class action on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased Xerox Corporation common stock during
the period Oct. 22, 1998, through Oct. 7, 1999, inclusive and who
suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations or omissions by
Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs.

The Class alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule
10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the company's operations and revenues.

The complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

     (i) deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the company's common stock;

    (ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

   (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         company at inflated prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class
against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages
sustained as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including
interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of
the complaint.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling.

In February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of
Local Union No. 164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius and Georgia
Stanley to appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs.

In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court
holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the
Court will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion.  After
that conference and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff and
proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a
second renewed motion for class certification.  In April 2008,
defendants filed their response and motion to disqualify Milberg
LLP as a lead counsel.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court entered an order certifying the class
and denying the appointment of Milberg LLP as class counsel.
Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied defendants'
motion to disqualify Milberg LLP.

The parties have filed motions to exclude certain expert
testimony.

On Nov. 6, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.  Briefing with respect to each of these motions is
complete.

On April 22, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions to exclude
the testimony of two of defendants' experts.  The Court has not
yet rendered decisions regarding the other pending motions.

In the course of litigation, the company periodically engages in
discussions with plaintiffs' counsel for possible resolution of
this matter.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 2, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Xerox Corporation -- http://www.xerox.com/-- is engaged in
developing, manufacturing, marketing, servicing and financing a
range of document equipments, software, solutions and services.
Digital systems include printing and publishing systems; digital
presses, advanced and basic multifunctional devices (MFD's), which
can print, copy, scan and fax; digital copiers; laser and solid
ink printers, and fax machines.  The company provides software and
workflow solutions with which businesses can print books, create
personalized documents for their customers, and scan and route
digital information. Xerox also offers software, support and
supplies, such as toner, paper and ink.


XEROX CORP: Settles Merger-Related Suits for $69 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation, and other defendants, has agreed to settle the
suits in connection with its planned merger with Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc., for $69 million, according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

In late September and early October 2009, nine purported class
action complaints were filed by Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.
shareholders challenging ACS's proposed merger with Xerox.

Two actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery which
subsequently were consolidated into one action.

Seven actions were filed in state courts in Texas, which
subsequently were consolidated into one action in the Dallas
County Court at Law No. 3.

The operative complaints in the Delaware and Texas actions name as
defendants ACS and/or the members of ACS's board of directors and
Xerox Corporation and/or Boulder Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Xerox.

On Oct. 22, 2009, a class of ACS shareholders was certified in the
Delaware action.  Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by all
parties in the Delaware and Texas actions on Nov. 20, 2009, the
Texas plaintiffs agreed to stay prosecution of the Texas action
until agreed otherwise by the defendants and ordered by the Texas
court, and all plaintiffs agreed that any further prosecution of
the Delaware and Texas actions, or any claims that could have been
brought in those actions, would proceed in the Delaware action.

On Dec. 11, 2009, plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an
amended complaint alleging, among other things, that:

     (i) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
         duties to ACS and its shareholders by authorizing the
         sale of ACS to Xerox for what plaintiffs deem
         inadequate consideration and pursuant to inadequate
         process, and the Xerox Defendants aided and abetted
         these alleged breaches;

    (ii) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
         duties to ACS and its shareholders by agreeing to the
         provisions of the merger agreement relating to the
         consideration to be paid to the holders of Class B
         shares which the Delaware plaintiffs allege violates
         the ACS certificate of incorporation and is, therefore,
         void, and the Xerox Defendants aided and abetted these
         alleged breaches; and

   (iii) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
         duties by failing to disclose material facts in the
         Oct. 23, 2009, Form S-4 filed with the SEC in
         connection with the merger.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms,
and unspecified compensatory damages, together with the costs and
disbursements of the action.

On Dec. 16, 2009, the Delaware court so ordered a stipulation
between Xerox, ACS and certain Individual Defendants and the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action providing, among other things,
that in exchange for modifying certain provisions of the merger
agreement and other consideration, the plaintiffs would not seek
to enjoin any shareholder vote on the closing of the merger, nor
take any action for the purpose of preventing or delaying the
closing of the merger.

On Jan. 20, 2010, the Delaware court so ordered a stipulation by
all parties in the Delaware action providing, among other things,
for a trial to take place May 10-14, 2010 on the claims for
damages asserted in the action.

On Jan. 29, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint and on Feb. 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial
summary judgment.  That motion was fully briefed and argued before
the Delaware court on April 5, 2010, and the Delaware court
reserved judgment on the motion.

All defendants have answered the amended complaint, mooting their
previously filed motions to dismiss.

On April 28, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
amend and to supplement the amended complaint.

The merger between ACS and Xerox closed on Feb. 5, 2010.

On May 19, 2010, Xerox, ACS, Boulder, and the other defendants and
plaintiffs in the Delaware and Texas Actions entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement resolving
all claims by ACS shareholders arising out of Xerox's acquisition
of ACS, including all claims in the Delaware and Texas Actions.

The defendants in the Delaware and Texas Actions did not admit to
any wrongdoing as part of the Settlement, which provides for an
aggregate payment of $69 million on behalf of all defendants,
including a payment of approximately $36 million by Xerox, net of
expected insurance proceeds.

The Settlement is subject to approval by the Delaware court and
other conditions.  The Delaware court scheduled a Settlement
approval hearing for Aug. 24, 2010.

In light of the Settlement, the Texas court signed an order
continuing to stay the Texas action until such time as the case is
placed on the Texas court's dismissal docket.

Xerox Corporation -- http://www.xerox.com/-- is engaged in
developing, manufacturing, marketing, servicing and financing a
range of document equipments, software, solutions and services.
Digital systems include printing and publishing systems; digital
presses, advanced and basic multifunctional devices (MFD's), which
can print, copy, scan and fax; digital copiers; laser and solid
ink printers, and fax machines.  The company provides software and
workflow solutions with which businesses can print books, create
personalized documents for their customers, and scan and route
digital information. Xerox also offers software, support and
supplies, such as toner, paper and ink.


YOUTUBE INC: Bob Tur Withdraws Participation in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter reports that if there was
one big mystery surrounding the $1 billion Viacom/YouTube
copyright infringement battle, it was the identity of the
individual who leaked sensitive details about Google to a CNET
reporter.

At a court hearing last March, attorney Andrew Schapiro of the
Mayer Brown firm cited circumstantial evidence that pointed to Bob
Tur, the Los Angeles video journalist who taped some of the Rodney
King riots and became the first person to sue YouTube.  Mr. Tur, a
noted rabble-rouser, was alleged to have turned over key documents
including a deposition by Google CEO Eric Schmidt that revealed
embarrassing details about Google overpaying to acquire YouTube.

A new court document in the case confirms that the leaker was
indeed Mr. Tur. The parties involved have now come to an
interesting settlement:

    * Mr. Tur has withdrawn his participation in the class action
      against YouTube and will pay YouTube $20,000.

    * YouTube won't pursue any further action against Mr. Tur for
      his unauthorized leak.

    * YouTube will also withdraw, with prejudice, a motion to
      pursue sanctions against Proskauer Rose, the law firm that
      represented the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit.

The settlement also lets CNET's Greg Sandoval off the hook. When
the brouhaha first emerged, Mr. Schapiro indicated that he would
subpoena the reporter to force him to testify about his source of
the documents.

                           *********

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, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *