CAR_Public/100819.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 19, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 163

                             Headlines

835 6TH AVE: Sued for Diverting Trust Funds Under NY Lien Law
ARAMARK EDUCATIONAL: Sued in Ala. Over Dining Dollars Program
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Law
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Reports $19.1 Million Gain From Settlements
ASTRAZENECA PLC: To Pay $198 Million to Settle Seroquel Suits

ATLAS AIR: Consolidated Suit Now in Pre-Trial Discovery
ATLAS AIR: Remains a Defendant in Civil Class Suits in Canada
BIDZ.COM INC: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit on Oct. 4
CERBERUS ABP: Sued for Making Too Low an Offer to Acquire BlueLinx
CLEARSPRING TECHNOLOGY: Faces Lawsuit Over Web Privacy Violations

CREDIT CONTROL: $2-Mil. Settlement Reached in Collections Suit
CORNELL COS: Awaiting Approval of Settlement of "Shelby" Suit
CORNELL COS: Expects Completion of VCDC Pact by 2nd Half of 2010
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: 6th Cir. Junks Ohio Residents' Suit
DCH TEMECULA: Calif. App. Ct. Says Class Suit Waiver Unenforceable

DENDREON CORP: Discovery in Washington Securities Suit Completed
DIVX INC: Faces Two Pending Lawsuits in Calif. Over Sonic Merger
DIVX INC: Faces Two Lawsuits in Delaware Over Sonic Merger
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Plaintiffs Withdraw Temporary Injunction Request
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Motion to Dismiss Oklahoma Suit Remains Pending

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Preliminary Injunction Hearing on August 25
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Colorado Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissed
DYNEGY INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Accused in Pa. of Securities Violations
ENBRIDGE INC: Kalamazoo River Oil Spill Spurs Four Class Suits

FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Junk OPERS Securities Suit Still Pending
FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Dismiss Amended "Kuriakose" Suit Pending
FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Now Dormant
FEDERAL HOME: Court Dismisses Amended "Kreysar" Complaint
FLORIDA: Judge Says Red Light Camera Fines Are Unconstitutional

FORCE PROTECTION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in S.C.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Motion to Certify Class in Florida Suit Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Class Denial Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Suit in Tenn.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Plaintiffs Appealing Summary Judgment Ruling

GRUMA CORP: 9th Cir. Upholds District Ct. Ruling in Rosenfeld
HEALTH GRADES: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Vestar Capital Merger
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces "Fosbre" & "Combs" Lawsuits in Nevada
LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Law
LOOMIS ARMORED: Accused in Calif. of Unlawful Wage Practices

MASTERCARD INC: Briefing on Remaining Appeals Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending
MASTERCARD INC: New Mexico Lawsuit Dismissed
MASTERCARD INC: Final Approval of "Attridge" Settlement Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Amended IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending

MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Junk Interchange Fees Suit Still Pending
METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Former CEO Morrice to Pay $791,345 in SEC Accord
NISOURCE INC: Tawney Fund Contributions Total $318MM at June 30
NISOURCE INC: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in "Thacker"

NISOURCE INC: Appeal on "Poplar Creek" Dismissal Still Ongoing
PASSAIC COUNTY, N.J.: Dozen Suits Over Jail Conditions Pending
PENWEST PHARMA: Accused in Wash. of Breaching Fiduciary Duty
PMA CAPITAL: Faces "Kahn" Lawsuit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
RCN CORP: Awaiting Approval of Settlement of Delaware Action

RCN CORP: Continues to Defend Against Virginia Class Action
RIGEL PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Still Pending
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Continues to Face 3 Lawsuits Over Arena Merger
SCI WESTERN: Ct. Dismisses Plaintiffs That Didn't Comply Discovery
STEC INC: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending

TREX COMPANY: Records Additional $9 Million in Warranty Reserve
TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. Suit Complains About "Smart Keys"
WASHINGTON D.C.: Part of DCPS Special Educ. Suit May Be Dropped
WEBMD HEALTH: Has Until Aug. 23 to File Joint Discovery Plan
WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Sued in Colo. Over Alleged "Systematic Fraud"

                            *********

835 6TH AVE: Sued for Diverting Trust Funds Under NY Lien Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nets That Work Co., individually and as representative of others
similarly situated under Article 3A of the New York Lien Law v.
835 6th Ave Master LP, Century-Maxim Construction Corp., et al.,
Case No. 651264/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. August 13,
2010), asserts claims against defendant Century-Maxim for non-
payment of the sum of $557,197 for work done by plaintiff on the
Base Contract for a Project known as 839 Avenues of the Americas,
New York (for which Century-Maxim was the general contractor); and
diverting moneys (which constitutes Trust Funds pursuant to
Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law) to which Century-Maxim
became entitled pursuant to its contract with defendant 835 6th
Ave, in violation of public policy as well as a violation of the
Lien Law.

Subcontractors and material suppliers constitute beneficiaries of
the Trust Fund created with respect to the Project, pursuant to
Article 30A of the New York State Lien Law.

Lien Law Section 79-a provides that any trustee of a trust arising
under Lien Law Article 3-A, and any officer, director or agent of
such trustee who applies or consents to the application of Trust
Funds received by the trustee for any purpose other than the trust
purposes of that trust as defined by Lien Law Section 71 is guilty
of larceny and punishable as provided in the Penal Law.

Individual defendants Charles Alvarez and Brian Alvarez, who are
both corporate officers of Century-Maxim, are therefore named as
co-defendants with Century-Maxim for having made unauthorized,
unjustified and improper payments and diversions of Trust Funds by
operation of law.

Plaintiff Nets That Work Co. is a partnership doing business in
the City and State of New York, with an office located at 322
Eight Avenue, New York.  Defendant 835 6th Ave Master LP is a
foreign or domestic limited partnership doing business in the City
and State of New York, with an office at c/o J.D. Carlisle
Development Corp., 352 Park Avenue South, 15th Floor, New York.
Defendant Century-Maxim is a domestic or foreign corporation doing
business in the City and State of New York, with an office located
at 76 Inwood Avenue, Port Chester, in Westchester County, New
York.

On May 20, 2010, Nets filed in the office of the New York County
Clerk a Notice of Private Improvement Mechanic's Lien, as a result
of which it acquired a good, valid and subsisting lien against the
839 Avenues of the Americas property.  Said notice was duly and
timely served upon Century-Maxim and upon 835 6th Ave.  Defendants
Rebar Lathing Corporation,  The State of New York, The
Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, The New York State
Department of Taxation, the City of New York, the New York City
Department of Finance, and the New York City Environmental Control
Board are all named as statutory necessary parties in the
mechanic's lien foreclosure cause of action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Wirth, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO, LLP
          135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
          Woodbury, NY 11979
          Telephone: (516) 681-1100
          E-mail: gwirth@kdvglaw.com


ARAMARK EDUCATIONAL: Sued in Ala. Over Dining Dollars Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that
students say in a class action that the University of Alabama at
Tuscaloosa has given Aramark Educational Services "unfettered
dominion and control over on-campus dining" by awarding it a
monopoly on dining services, which "robs the students of the
benefits of free choice in the marketplace."  Students filed
similar class actions against UA Birmingham and Sodexo, and Auburn
University and Compass Group USA dba Chartwells.

All three class actions were filed in Jefferson County Court,
Birmingham.

In the complaint against Aramark and UA Tuscaloosa, students say
that in the mid-1990s the university hired consultants to help
expand its dining services.  The report found that area
restaurants were competing for students' food dollars, so the
consultants recommended the university implement a "mandatory food
services fee" for all fulltime students.

So the school granted Aramark "exclusive control over the food and
dining services" at the university, creating an "illegal restraint
of trade," and "illegal price fixing arrangement," leaving
students with "restricted food options on campus," according to
the complaint.

Lead plaintiffs David Vandenberg and Elizabeth Beene, formerly
students at UA Tuscaloosa, say that as a condition of enrollment,
they had to pay "mandatory sums for Dining Dollars," in addition
to tuition.  They say they were given debit cards that could be
used only at campus dining facilities and vending machines, all of
which were controlled by Aramark.

The class claims the Crimson Tide's debit cards are "free of
regulation, disclosure requirements and other restrictions
generally imposed on banks."  If a student does not redeem all of
his or her dollars by the end of the year, the money is "rolled
over" to "Bama Cash" that can be redeemed only at certain
locations, according to the complaint.

Mr. Vandenberg and Ms. Beene say they "did not want or request
Dining Dollars" and that because of the "anti-competitive conduct
. . . the prices were generally higher than off-campus food
vendors and the selection and quality were poorer."

In 2009, based on student enrollment and the $300 per semester
mandatory charge, the Dining Dollars program made $14 million, in
a scheme "structured to produce income for the university and
guaranteed sales for Aramark unfettered by competition."
The University of Alabama is a state agency, and its actions
violate the state constitution and state laws because the state is
prohibited "from being interested in any private or corporate
enterprise," the classes claim.

A copy of the Complaint in Vandenberg, et al. v. Aramark
Educational Services, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-2010-902889 (Ala.
Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/13/Aramark.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          G. Daniel Evans, Esq.
          Alexandria Parish, Esq.
          THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1736 Oxmoor Rd., Suite 101
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: 205-870-1970
          E-mail: gdevans@evanslawpc.com
                  ap@evanslawpc.com

               - and -

          John F. Whitaker, Esq.
          WHITAKER, MUDD, SIMMS, LUKE & WELLS, LLC
          400 Park Place Tower
          2001 Park Place North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-639-5300
          E-mail: iwhitaker@wmslawfirm.com


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that American
Public Education fraudulently billed the federal government for
students it recruited illegally, and inflated its share price as
it did so, shareholders say in a federal class action.  Citing a
U.S. General Accounting Office report, the class claims that the
company and its top officers cooked the books, and that "shares of
the company collapsed" dropping by more than $12 -- nearly 30% --
in a single day after the GAO issued its report.

Charleston-based American Public Education is an online college
that claims to have 63,700 students, according to the complaint.
It "provides online post-secondary education to military and
public service communities, operating through two universities,
American Military University and American Public University, and
offering 76 degree programs and 51 certificate programs in various
disciplines, such as national security, military studies,
intelligence, homeland security, criminal justice, technology,
business administration, education, and liberal arts," according
to the complaint.

The class claims that in its Feb. 22 financial report and forecast
to shareholders, American Public Education Inc. claimed its
enrollment was up by 41% from the previous year and that its
"fourth quarter 2009 revenues increased 39% to $43.7 million,
compared to $31.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2008."

The report claimed that APEI expected to see "revenues to increase
between 36% and 39% year-over-year" for the 2010 fiscal year.

But shareholders say the numbers were bogus, and that co-
defendants CEO Wally Boston Jr., CFO Harry Wilkins, and provost
Frank McCluskey knew it.

"Defendants had propped up the company's results by fraudulently
inducing students to enroll in APEI's scholastic and education
programs and engaged in other manipulative recruiting tactics
which defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, could not be
maintained," the class claims.

The class claims that the three executives dumped 88,000 of their
own shares at inflated prices, for more than $3.9 million, "while
in possession of material adverse, non-public information about
the company."

Boston sold more than 45,000 shares for gross proceeds of more
than $2 million; Wilkins sold more than 13,000 shares for more
than $580,000; and McCluskey sold more than 29,794 shares for more
than $1.3 million, according to the complaint.

APEI issued another misleading report in early May, claiming
similar revenue expectations, while it "continued to trade above
$40 in the late spring," the complaint states.

Shareholders say APEI and its directors remained quiet as the
media began reporting in early August on the government
investigations of for-profit colleges.

Reuters reported on Aug. 3 that U.S. GAO investigators had "posed
as students and applied for admission at 15 for-profit colleges
across the United States."  The GAO investigators for that the
for-profit colleges "encouraged fraudulent practices and made
deceptive statements to prospective students," including that for-
profit colleges charged 6 to 13 times more for a degree than a
community college did.

Two days after that Reuters report, according to the shareholders
class action, APEI said that it "would no longer be able to
sustain its forecast growth."

The company's share price then "collapsed," dropping by 28% in a
single trading day, the class claims.

The class seeks damages for securities violations, and costs.

A copy of the Complaint in Gaer v. American Public Education,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00081 (N.D. Va.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/16/AmerPubEd.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl N. Frankovitch, Esq.
          FRANKOVITCH, ANETAKIS, COLANTONIO & SIMON
          337 Penco Rd.
          Weirton, WV 26062
          Telephone: 304-723-4400
          E-mail: carl@facslaw.com

               - and -

          Kim Miller, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          500 Fifth Ave., Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: 212-696-3730
          E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington St.
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: 504-455-1400
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Reports $19.1 Million Gain From Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation discloses that for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, it has recognized a gain of $19.1 million in
connection to being a member of the direct purchasers' class in
various class action lawsuits.

During the last several years, numerous class action lawsuits have
been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers
alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with
others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs
from entering the market.  The company has not been a named
plaintiff in any of these class actions, but has been a member of
the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase
directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers).

None of the class actions has gone to trial, but some have settled
in the past with the company receiving proceeds from the
settlement funds.

In the quarter and nine months ended June 30, 2010, the company
recognized a gain of $19.1 million and $20.7 million,
respectively, relating to the above-mentioned class action
lawsuits.  The gains, which were net of attorney fees and
estimated payments due to other parties, were recorded as a
reduction to cost of goods sold in the company's consolidated
statements of operations, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

AmerisourceBergen Corp. -- http://www.amerisourcebergen.com/-- is
one of the world's largest pharmaceutical services companies
serving the United States, Canada and selected global markets.
Servicing both healthcare providers and pharmaceutical
manufacturers in the pharmaceutical supply channel, the company
provides drug distribution and related services designed to reduce
costs and improve patient outcomes.  AmerisourceBergen's service
solutions range from pharmacy automation and pharmaceutical
packaging to reimbursement and pharmaceutical consulting services.
With more than $75 billion in annualized revenue,
AmerisourceBergen is headquartered in Valley Forge, PA, and
employs approximately 10,000 people.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: To Pay $198 Million to Settle Seroquel Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports AstraZeneca PLC said that it has
reached agreements to pay a modest $198 million to settle a little
over half of the U.S. lawsuits that allege its antipsychotic drug
Seroquel caused diabetes and other harm.

AstraZeneca said the agreements cover roughly 17,500 claimants,
out of the remaining 26,100 plaintiffs who have brought product
liability lawsuits. That works out to an average of just $11,314
per plaintiff. The company has already disposed of 4,725 Seroquel
cases.

The London-based company, the world's sixth-largest drugmaker by
revenue, said the eventual payouts won't affect its 2010 profit
forecast, which calls for earnings per share of $6.35 to $6.65.

"While the terms remain confidential and are subject to non-
monetary agreements, we believe it was in the best interest of the
company to explore resolving these cases through the mediation
process," company spokesman Tony Jewell told The Associated Press.
"We remain committed to a strong defense effort, but will also
continue to participate in good faith in court-ordered mediation."

Despite all the lawsuits, Seroquel is still AstraZeneca's second-
biggest seller after its Nexium ulcer drug. Seroquel generated
sales of $4.9 billion last year, or 15 percent of the company's
revenue.

It and about a half-dozen other powerful, heavily promoted
psychiatric drugs that are officially approved for treating
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are widely prescribed for
unapproved uses, including depression and insomnia. They also have
been inappropriately given to some children and elderly patients.

All that so-called "off-label" use has made these newer
antipsychotic treatments the industry's seventh-best-selling class
of drugs, with global sales last year of more than $23 billion.
That's up 50 percent in just four years.

AstraZeneca's new settlements follow a July order from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration that the company stop using a
promotional letter for Seroquel XR -- an extended release version
of the medicine -- that doesn't carry a diabetes warning.

Lawyers for many patients who took Seroquel have alleged that
AstraZeneca officials kept its dangers secret for years.

The company has denied that repeatedly, and has fought hard to
keep internal company documents about the drug's risks from
becoming public. It also has gone to great pains to reassure
investors that the litigation won't be a big hit to the company --
unlike the $4.85 billion that American rival Merck & Co. paid out
to settle product liability suits over its former pain reliever
Vioxx.

As of the end of June, 2,900 cases have been dismissed by court
order or agreement between AstraZeneca and the plaintiffs. Another
1,825 cases were dismissed with prejudice, which means they can be
refiled later.


ATLAS AIR: Consolidated Suit Now in Pre-Trial Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery in a consolidated suit against Atlas Air
Worldwide Holdings, Inc., has now begun, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Feb. 14, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice initiated a criminal investigation into the pricing
practices of a number of cargo carriers, including Polar Air
Cargo, Inc. (nka Polar Air Cargo LLC).

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in a number of class actions in the United States
arising from allegations about the pricing practices of a number
of air cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants, including the company and Old Polar, manipulated the
market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad
through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States,
state, and European Union antitrust laws.  The suit seeks treble
damages and injunctive relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on
Sept. 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge who heard the motion to
dismiss issued a decision recommending that the Federal District
Court Judge grant the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
Magistrate Judge recommended that plaintiffs' claims based on the
United States antitrust laws be dismissed without prejudice so
that plaintiffs have an opportunity to cure the defects in their
complaint by pleading more specific facts, if they have any,
relevant to their federal claims.  The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the plaintiffs' claims based on state and
European Union laws be dismissed with prejudice.

Both plaintiffs and defendants objected to portions of the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

On Aug. 21, 2009, the Federal District Court Judge issued an
opinion and order, accepting the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, except for the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.  The Federal
District Court Judge determined instead that the consolidated
complaint was sufficiently detailed to withstand a motion to
dismiss.  Old Polar and the other defendants moved for
reconsideration of that portion of the Federal District Court
Judge's decision which motion was denied on March 22, 2010.
Pre-trial discovery has now begun.

On May 30, 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
the class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the company and Old Polar that arose
prior to July 27, 2004, the date on which the company and Old
Polar emerged from bankruptcy.  On Aug. 6, 2007, the plaintiffs
consented to the injunctive relief requested, and on Sept. 17,
2007, the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining plaintiffs
from prosecuting company claims arising prior to July 27, 2004.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.atlasair.com/--
is the parent company of Atlas Air, Inc. and Titan Aviation
Leasing, and is the majority shareholder of Polar Air Cargo
Worldwide, Inc.  Through Atlas and Polar, AAWW operates the
world's largest fleet of Boeing 747 freighter aircraft.  Atlas,
Titan and Polar offer a range of air cargo and aircraft operating
solutions that include ACMI aircraft leasing -- in which customers
receive a dedicated aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance on a
long-term lease basis; CMI service, for customers that provide
their own aircraft; express network and scheduled air cargo
service; military charters; commercial cargo charters; and dry
leasing of aircraft and engines.


ATLAS AIR: Remains a Defendant in Civil Class Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., and Polar Air Cargo, Inc. (nka
Polar Air Cargo LLC), as well as a number of other cargo carriers
have been named as defendants in civil class action suits in the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are substantially
similar to the class action suits in the United States.

No additional details were reported in the company's  Aug. 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.atlasair.com/--
is the parent company of Atlas Air, Inc. and Titan Aviation
Leasing, and is the majority shareholder of Polar Air Cargo
Worldwide, Inc.  Through Atlas and Polar, AAWW operates the
world's largest fleet of Boeing 747 freighter aircraft.  Atlas,
Titan and Polar offer a range of air cargo and aircraft operating
solutions that include ACMI aircraft leasing -- in which customers
receive a dedicated aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance on a
long-term lease basis; CMI service, for customers that provide
their own aircraft; express network and scheduled air cargo
service; military charters; commercial cargo charters; and dry
leasing of aircraft and engines.


BIDZ.COM INC: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit on Oct. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bidz.com, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action complaint will be heard by a federal court in California on
October 4, 2010, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In May and June 2009, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in three parallel class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-3216
(CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009); James Mitchell v.
Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on
May 22, 2009); Mark Walczyk v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397
(CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on June 3, 2009)).

On July 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the cases.  The
consolidated complaint charges violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges
that the Company failed to disclose unethical and fraudulent
business practices, that it did not have controls in place to
prevent "shill bidding," that it uses unreliable or false
appraisal prices on its merchandise, and that it failed to
correctly account for and disclose in detail its co-op marketing
contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.

On May 25, 2010, in a 30-page opinion, the Honorable Consuelo B.
Marshall of the United States District Court granted the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the securities fraud complaint with leave to
amend.  On June 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed its amended
complaint.

On July 30, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint and the Court will hear the motion
on October 4, 2010.

The company believes that the lawsuit is meritless and intends to
defend the cases vigorously.

Bidz.com (Nasdaq:BIDZ) -- http://www.bidz.com/-- founded in 1998,
is a leading online retailer of jewelry. Bidz offers its products
through a live auction format as well as a fixed price online
retail store, Buyz.com.  Bidz.com's auctions are also available in
Arabic, German and Spanish.  Bidz also operates Modnique --
http://www.modnique.com/-- a division of Bidz.com, an exclusive
private sale shopping site for members-only, offering authentic
premium brand name merchandise. Modnique offers its members
exclusive access to 24-72 hour sales events on designer apparel,
accessories, shoes, and houseware and much more at price points up
to 85% below traditional retail prices.


CERBERUS ABP: Sued for Making Too Low an Offer to Acquire BlueLinx
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriella Centonze, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Cerberus ABP Investor LLC, Case No. 651270/2010 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty. August 13, 2010), accuses the controlling
shareholder of BlueLinx of breaching its fiduciary duties to
BlueLinx's public shareholders, in connection with its tender
offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of BlueLinx, for
wholly inadequate and unfair consideration.

On July 22, 2010, Cerberus, which owns roughly 55.39% of BluLinx
outstanding stock, announced that it intends to make a tender
offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of BlueLinx not
already owned by it for $3.40 per share.  On August 2, 2010,
Cerberus filed the Offer to Purchase commencing the Tender Offer,
which is scheduled to expire on August 27, 2010.

BlueLinx is a leading distributor of building products in the
United States.

Ms. Centonze says that the $3.40 per share offer is inadequate,
given the Company's recent performance and future prospects, and
represents a "paltry premium of just 16.8%" based on the volume-
weighted average closing price for the last 30 trading days prior
to Cerberus' July 22, 2010 announcement (when compared to the
average premium in like transactions during 2009).  In addition,
Ms. Centonze says that the proposed offer fails to provide the
Company's shareholders with material information or provides them
with misleading information to enable them to cast an informed
decision whether to tender their shares or not.  As a result of
Cerberus' breaches of its fiduciary duties, Ms. Centonze says she
and the Class will suffer irreparable injury.

A copy of the Complaint in Centonze v. Cerberus ABP Investor LLC,
Index No. 651270/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/16/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad St., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-363-7500


CLEARSPRING TECHNOLOGY: Faces Lawsuit Over Web Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Sandoval at CNET News reports that a lawsuit filed in federal
court last week alleges that a group of well-known Web sites,
including those owned by Disney, Warner Bros. Records, and Demand
Media, broke the law by secretly tracking the Web movements of
their users, including children.

Attorneys representing a group of minors and their parents filed
the suit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, records show. The suit alleges that
Clearspring Technologies, a software company that creates widgets
and also offers a way to serve ads via widgets, is at the center
of the wrongdoing.

Web site operators such as Disney, Playlist.com, and SodaHead are
"Clearspring Flash Cookie Affiliates," the plaintiffs allege in
their suit. Clearspring set "Flash cookies on (affiliate site)
users' computers . . . online tracking device(s) which would allow
access to and disclosure of Internet users' online activities."
The Web sites working with Clearspring knew users weren't just
tracked at sites owned by affiliates, but were followed without
their knowledge wherever they went online, the plaintiffs wrote in
their suit.

Clearspring and Disney representatives were not immediately
available for comment Saturday. A representative for Warner Music
Group, parent company of Warner Bros. Records, declined to
comment.

A similar lawsuit was filed last month against Clearspring rival
Quantcast, as well as a host of that company's clients, including
ABC and NBC. The same law firms that filed that suit -- Parisi &
Havens, and the Law Office of Joseph Malley -- were responsible
for filing the recent complaint.

All the news lately about Web privacy -- or the lack thereof -- is
enough to make anyone paranoid about logging on. The Wall Street
Journal recently published an expose on Web privacy and concluded
that "one of the fastest-growing businesses on the Internet . . .
is the business of spying on Internet users." And we've seen
controversies over privacy at Google and at Facebook. While
Congress is looking into improving privacy protections for Web
users, it would seem some people are going to take up the issue in
court.

The suit against Clearspring was filed one year after researchers
from UC Berkeley issued a report on how more than half of the
Internet's best known Web sites use Adobe's Flash technology to
surreptitiously gather information about their users, according to
a story in Wired.com.

"Flash Cookies" are not affected when users try to remove
traditional cookies with their browser's privacy controls.
"What's even sneakier," Wired.com reporter Ryan Singel wrote then,
is "several services even use the surreptitious data storage to
reinstate traditional cookies that a user deleted, which is called
're-spawning,'" This means that a user may kill a cookie, but some
technologies will bring it back to life by assigning that cookie's
unique ID to a new cookie.

The report from the Berkeley researchers named two companies that
reinstate cookies: QuantCast and Clearspring.

Clearspring makes the ubiquitous AddThis tool, which enables users
to share links via e-mail or social-networking sites. According to
the report from Berkeley, Clearspring has resurrected cookies for
AOL.com, Answers.com, and Mapquest.com.

The kind of information Clearspring and its affiliates gathered
was personal and far reaching, the plaintiffs wrote in their
complaint. They allege the data was obtained by tracking users as
they moved "across numerous Web sites, even spotting and tracking
users when they accessed the Web from different computers, at home
and at work.

"The sensitive information may include such things as users'
video-viewing choices and personal characteristics," the
plaintiffs continued, "such as gender, age, race, number of
children, education level, geographic location, and household
income."

In addition, the information Clearspring and its affiliates
obtained may have included the materials a user viewed, purchased,
or read, according to the filing. The data could reveal details
about a person's financial situation, sexual preference, name,
home, and e-mail addresses and telephone numbers. Perhaps one of
the most disturbing charges that plaintiffs make is that health
information could also be acquired by these companies.
Below, plaintiff's lawyers describe how information was allegedly
taken from a person suffering from depression.

Among the laws that were allegedly violated by Clearspring and the
other defendants are the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
California's Computer Crime law, and that state's Invasion of
Privacy Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status and have asked for
unspecified damages.


CREDIT CONTROL: $2-Mil. Settlement Reached in Collections Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Ide Law Office and
Lewis Law Firm.

If while residing in Washington State you received "COLLECTION"
notices from Credit Control Services in an attempt to recover
payment of a claim by an insurance company arising from an
automobile accident your rights may be affected by a proposed
class action settlement.

A proposed class action settlement has been reached in Stephens v.
Omni Ins. Co. and Credit Control Serv., Inc., No. 04-2-15763-3
SEA, and Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash. and Credit Control
Serv., Inc., No. 04-2-11732-1 SEA (King County Superior Court,
Washington).  The lawsuit alleges that CCS (Credit Control
Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit Collection Services) used deceptive
practices to recover payments from Plaintiffs in this case.

Who is a Class Member?  The class consists of all individuals who,
while residing in the State of Washington, received collection
notices from CCS from May 19, 2000 to July 31, 2004 that sought
payment of a claim by an insurance company stemming from an auto
accident.

What is this case about? The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit say that
the "Collection" Notices were deceptive and violated Washington
law, because the amounts CCS tried to recover were only allegedly
owed. They asserted claims for, among other things, violations of
the Washington Consumer Protection Act.  The Defendants deny that
they did anything wrong, and also deny that they could be held
liable for any damage.  The Defendants say that they have valid
defenses to the claims of Plaintiffs and members of the Class.

What are the benefits?  If the Court approves the proposed
Settlement, a Settlement fund of $2,050,000 will be established to
pay valid and accepted submitted claims.  This amount will also be
used to pay the costs to provide Notice to the Class, the costs to
administer the Settlement, and incentive awards to the Class
Plaintiffs and attorneys' fees to their counsel that are awarded
by the Court.  The Settlement also provides other relief,
including an order for an injunction concerning future conduct by
CCS.

If you are, or think you might be, a member of the Class described
above, you should act now to address your legal rights. If you are
a Class Member, your options include the following:

    * You can participate in the Settlement and receive a cash
payment. There are two types of claim options, and you are
eligible to file a claim for a cash payment whether or not you
paid money to CCS. To participate, you must file a Claim Form no
later than November 11, 2010. You can either download a Claim Form
or submit a claim online at the Settlement website.

    * You may comment on or object to all or any part of the
Settlement, and may ask to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing
scheduled for October 22, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.. You must provide
written notification to the Court and counsel for the parties by
October 4, 2010. You will need to carefully follow all the
directions that can be found in the long-form Notice or on the
Settlement website.

    * You can exclude yourself from the Settlement. To do so, send
a letter to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than
October 4, 2010. You will need to carefully follow all the
directions that can be found in the long-form Notice or on the
Settlement website. You will not receive any payment from this
case, and will not be entitled to comment on the proposed
Settlement. You will retain any rights you may have to pursue,
individually and at your own expense, any claims you may have.

If you are a Class Member but do nothing, then you will NOT
receive any payment, but you WILL be bound by the Settlement and
deemed to have released the claims brought in these lawsuits.

Who represents you? As a member of the Class, you will be
represented by Matthew J. Ide of Ide Law Office, 801 Second
Avenue, Suite 1502, Seattle, Washington 98104, and Murray T.S.
Lewis of Lewis Law Firm, 2960 Alki Ave. SW, Seattle, Washington
98116.  You will not be charged a fee for their services in this
case.  However, if you want to be represented by your own lawyer,
you may hire one at your own expense.

For more information, call 1 (888) 449-4464, or visit the
Settlement Web site: http://www.NoticeSettlementWA.com/


CORNELL COS: Awaiting Approval of Settlement of "Shelby" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement in principle in the case Shelby v. Cornell Companies,
Inc., et al., pending before the District Court for Harris County,
Texas, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
June 30, 2010.

On April 27, 2010, a putative stockholder class action was filed
in the District Court for Harris County, Texas by Todd Shelby
against Cornell, members of the Cornell board of directors,
individually, and GEO.  The complaint alleged, among other things,
that the Cornell directors breached their duties by entering into
the Agreement without first taking steps to obtain adequate, fair
and maximum consideration for Cornell's stockholders by shopping
the company or initiating an auction process, by structuring the
transaction to take advantage of Cornell's low current stock
valuation, and by structuring the transaction to benefit GEO
while making an alternative transaction either prohibitively
expensive or otherwise impossible, and that Cornell and GEO have
aided and abetted these breaches by Cornell's directors.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 28, 2010.  The
amended complaint added additional allegations contending that the
disclosures about the merger in the Joint Proxy Statement were
misleading and/or inadequate.  Among other things, the original
complaint and the amended complaint seek to enjoin Cornell, its
directors and GEO from completing the merger and seek a
constructive trust over any benefits improperly received by the
defendants as a result of their alleged wrongful conduct.

The parties have reached a settlement of the litigation in
principle (at an amount immaterial to the consolidated financial
position of the Company), pursuant to which certain additional
disclosures were included in the final form of the Joint Proxy
Statement.  The settlement did not alter the terms of the
transaction or the consideration to be received by shareholders.
The settlement remains subject to confirmatory discovery,
preparation and execution of a formal stipulation of settlement,
final court approval of the settlement and dismissal of the action
with prejudice.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles.  The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.


CORNELL COS: Expects Completion of VCDC Pact by 2nd Half of 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc., is anticipating the completion of its
settlement of a lawsuit filed by detainees at Valencia County
Detention Center by the second half of this year, according to the
company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter June 30, 2010.

In April 2007, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
Federal District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, by Joe Torres
and Eufrasio Armijo, who each alleged that he was strip searched
at the Valencia County Detention Center in New Mexico in violation
of his federal rights under the Fourth, Fourteenth and Eighth
amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The claimants also alleged violation of their rights under state
law and sought to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
themselves and all detainees at VCDC during the applicable
statutes of limitation.  The plaintiffs sought damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Valencia County is also a named defendant in the case and operated
the VCDC for a significantly greater portion of the period covered
by the lawsuit.

In December 2008, the parties agreed to a proposed stipulation of
settlement and, in July 2009, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement.  The settlement amount under the terms of the
agreement is $3.3 million.  Cornell's portion of the stipulated
settlement, based on the number of inmates housed at VCDC during
the time Cornell operated the facility in comparison to the number
of inmates housed at the facility during the time Valencia County
operated the facility, is $1.2 million and was funded principally
through the company's general liability and professional liability
coverage.  The claims administration process is under way and is
expected to be completed in the second half of 2010.

In the year ended December 31, 2007, Cornell previously provided
insurance reserves for this matter -- as part of the company's
regular review of reported and unreported claims -- totaling
approximately $0.5 million.  During the fourth quarter of 2008,
the company recorded an additional settlement charge of
approximately $0.7 million and the related reimbursement from the
company's general liability and professional liability insurance.
The charge and reimbursement were recognized in general and
administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2008.  The
reimbursement was funded by the insurance carrier in the first
quarter of 2009 into a settlement account, where it will remain
until payments are made to the settlement class members.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles.  The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: 6th Cir. Junks Ohio Residents' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In Frederic M. Gawry; Loraine A. Gawry; Ingrid N. Carr,
plaintiffs-appellants, v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.;
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, defendants-appellees, case
no. 09-3974 (6th Cir. August 13, 2010), the Plaintiffs appeal a
district court order (1) granting defendants Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP's motion for
summary judgment as to Ms. Carr; (2) granting Countrywide's motion
to strike Class I(b) allegations; and (3) denying plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Because plaintiffs' claims became
moot before they moved for class certification, the Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's
judgment dismissing the action.

On February 6, 2007, Plaintiffs filed the class action complaint.
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, bring several claims alleging that Countrywide violated
Ohio Revised Code Sec. 1343 prohibiting residential mortgage
prepayment or refinancing penalties in excess of 1% of the
original principal loan amount.

The Gawrys sue on behalf of Ohio residents who paid a prepayment
or refinancing penalty in excess of the limits imposed by R.C.
Sec. 1343.011(C) during the six years prior to this action --
Class I.  Class I asserts four causes of action including: usury;
unfair and deceptive trade practices that violate Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act; unjust enrichment; and violation of Ohio
public policy.  For relief, the Gawrys request: damages in the
amount the penalties exceed 1% of the original principal loan
amount; a declaration that Countrywide violated R.C. Sec.
1343.011(C) and that the prepayment provisions are therefore void
and unenforceable; and appropriate injunctive and equitable relief
including an award of litigation costs and attorney fees.

Ms. Carr seeks to represent those Ohio residents whose note
contains a similar prepayment rider, but have not yet paid a
prepayment penalty -- Class II.  Class II joins Class I in all
claims except unjust enrichment.  Class II requests: entry of a
Court order that they may rescind or reform their loan documents
to eliminate the allegedly usurious prepayment penalty provisions;
a declaration that the respective notes violate R.C. Sec.
1343.011(C); damages sustained because of the increased cost of
credit created by the inclusion of the prepayment penalty
provision in their notes; and appropriate injunctive and equitable
relief including an award of attorney fees and litigation
expenses.

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100813097


DCH TEMECULA: Calif. App. Ct. Says Class Suit Waiver Unenforceable
------------------------------------------------------------------
In Amberlee Fisher, plaintiff and respondent, v. DCH Temecula
Imports LLC, defendant and appellant, case no. E047802 (Calif.
App. Ct. August 13, 2010), DCH Temecula Imports appeals the denial
of its petition to compel arbitration.  A trial court found that
an arbitration clause in a retail installment sales contract for
the sale of a car to Ms. Fisher, which included a waiver of the
right to bring a class action lawsuit or request classwide
arbitration, was unenforceable.  Ms. Fisher presented several
theories to the trial court in opposition to the enforcement of
the arbitration clause, including that the arbitration clause
required her to waive an unwaivable statutory right to bring a
class action lawsuit under the California Legal Remedies Act and
that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and
substantively unconscionable.  The Court of Appeals upheld the
trial court's denial of the petition to compel arbitration.

A copy of the order is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100813032

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hallen D. Rosner, Esq.
          Christopher P. Barry, Esq.
          ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP
          10085 Carroll Canyon Rd. #100
          San Diego CA 92131
          Telephone: (800) 466-5366

DCH Temecula Imports is represented by:

          Christian J. Scali, Esq.
          Wade R. Kackstetter, Esq.
          MANNING, LEAVER, BRUDER & BERBERICH
          5750 Wilshire Blvd. #655
          Los Angeles,California 90036
          Telephone: (323) 937-4730
          E-mail: cscali@manningleaver.com
                  wkackstetter@manningleaver.co


DENDREON CORP: Discovery in Washington Securities Suit Completed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a securities class action suit against Dendreon Corp.
has been completed, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Beginning on May 24, 2007, four proposed securities class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, on behalf of the company's common stock,
purporting to state claims for securities law violations stemming
from the company's disclosures related to Provenge and the FDA's
actions regarding our BLA for Provenge.

The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
expenses.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the
caption McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., and designated a
lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff designated the complaint filed June 6, 2007 in
McGuire, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., as the operative
complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and individual defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss the complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead a
claim against the company or the individual defendants, and
allowing plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008, naming
Dendreon, its chief executive officer, and a senior vice
president as defendants.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 2, 2008.

By order dated Dec. 5, 2008, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss the allegations against the company's chief executive
officer based on allegedly false or misleading statements and his
sale of Dendreon stock, and denied the remainder of the motion.

The Court gave plaintiffs permission to file an amended complaint
to reassert their allegations against the company's chief
executive officer, and plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
on Jan. 5, 2009.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on Jan. 29, 2009.

On May 21, 2009, the Court issued an order granting in part, and
denying in part, defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, and allowing leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on June 8, 2009.

On June 29, 2009, defendants filed an answer to the third amended
complaint.

Discovery was completed on June 22, 2010, and defendants' motion
for partial summary judgment is currently pending.

Trial in this action has been set for October 18, 2010.

Dendreon Corporation -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a
biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of therapeutics that improve cancer treatment
options for patients.  Dendreon's most advanced product candidate
is Provenge (sipuleucel-T), an active cellular immunotherapy that
has completed two Phase III trials for the treatment of
asymptomatic, metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer.


DIVX INC: Faces Two Pending Lawsuits in Calif. Over Sonic Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
DivX, Inc., is facing two pending lawsuits in California
challenging its proposed merger with Sonic Solutions, according to
the company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On June 1, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, or Merger Agreement, with Sonic Solutions, a Novato,
California-based company that develops products and services that
enable the creation, management, and enjoyment of digital media
across a wide variety of technology platforms. Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, the Company will merge with Siracusa Merger
Corporation, a newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary of Sonic, and
DivX, Inc., will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Sonic.
Immediately thereafter, DivX, Inc., will merge with Siracusa
Merger LLC, another newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary of
Sonic, with Siracusa Merger LLC surviving the merger and
immediately changing its name to DivX LLC. After the Second
Merger, the separate corporate existence of DivX, Inc., will
cease.

On June 3, 2010, plaintiff Barry Fagan, filed, on behalf of
himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of Company
stockholders, a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego against DivX, Inc.
and its directors, Siracusa Merger Corporation, and Siracusa
Merger LLC, challenging the proposed merger between DivX and Sonic
and alleging that its directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the Proposed Merger.  The Fagan Suit also alleged that
Siracusa Merger Corporation and Siracusa Merger LLC aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Fagan Suit
sought to enjoin the Proposed Merger, or if it is consummated,
rescission or damages.  The Fagan Suit was dismissed without
prejudice on July 14, 2010.

On June 21, 2010, plaintiff Rainer Gahlen filed a stockholder
class action against DivX, Inc., and its directors in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, challenging
the Proposed Merger between the company and Sonic and alleging
that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the Proposed Merger.  The Gahlen Suit seeks to enjoin
the Proposed Merger and requests damages.

On July 16, 2010, plaintiff Warren Pared filed a stockholder class
action against DivX, Inc., and its directors, Sonic, Siracusa
Merger Corporation and Siracusa Merger LLC in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Diego, challenging the
Proposed Merger between the company and Sonic and alleging that
our directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the
Proposed Merger.  The Pared Suit also alleges that Sonic, Siracusa
Merger Corporation and Siracusa Merger LLC aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Pared Suit seeks to
enjoin the Proposed Merger, or if it is consummated, seeks
rescission or damages.  On July 19, 2010, counsel for Gahlen and
Pared filed a stipulation to consolidate the Gahlen Suit and the
Pared Suit and to appoint co-lead counsel.

Based in San Diego, Calif., DivX, Inc., is a digital media company
that enables consumers to enjoy a high-quality video experience
across any kind of device.  The Company creates, distributes and
licenses digital video technologies that span the "three screens"
comprising today's consumer media environment -- the PC, the
television and mobile devices.


DIVX INC: Faces Two Lawsuits in Delaware Over Sonic Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
DivX, Inc., is facing two pending lawsuits in Delaware challenging
its proposed merger with Sonic Solutions, according to the
company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 1, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, or Merger Agreement, with Sonic Solutions, a Novato,
California-based company that develops products and services that
enable the creation, management, and enjoyment of digital media
across a wide variety of technology platforms. Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, the Company will merge with Siracusa Merger
Corporation, a newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary of Sonic, and
DivX, Inc., will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Sonic.
Immediately thereafter, DivX, Inc., will merge with Siracusa
Merger LLC, another newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary of
Sonic, with Siracusa Merger LLC surviving the merger and
immediately changing its name to DivX LLC. After the Second
Merger, the separate corporate existence of DivX, Inc., will
cease.

On July 16, 2010, plaintiff Mark Chropufka filed a shareholder
class action against DivX, Inc., and its directors, Sonic,
Siracusa Merger Corporation and Siracusa Merger LLC in the
Delaware Chancery Court, alleging that DivX's directors breached
their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Proposed Merger with
Sonic and that Sonic, Siracusa Merger Corporation and Siracusa
Merger LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The Chropufka Suit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger and
requests damages.

On July 20, 2010, plaintiff Diana E. Willis filed a shareholder
class action against DivX, Inc., and its directors, Sonic,
Siracusa Merger Corporation and Siracusa Merger LLC in the
Delaware Chancery Court, alleging that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Proposed Merger
with Sonic and that Sonic, Siracusa Merger Corporation and
Siracusa Merger LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The Willis Suit seeks to enjoin the Proposed
Merger and requests damages.

Based in San Diego, Calif., DivX, Inc. is a digital media company
that enables consumers to enjoy a high-quality video experience
across any kind of device.  The Company creates, distributes and
licenses digital video technologies that span the "three screens"
comprising today's consumer media environment -- the PC, the
television and mobile devices.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Plaintiffs Withdraw Temporary Injunction Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter Henzel v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., et al., Consolidated Case No. CJ-2010-02761, have
withdrawn their request for temporary injunctive relief, according
to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Various class action complaints relating to the proposed
transaction with Hertz have been filed against the company, its
directors, and Hertz by various plaintiffs, for themselves and on
behalf of the company's stockholders, excluding defendants and
their affiliates.

These complaints allege that the consideration the company's
stockholders will receive in connection with the proposed
transaction is inadequate and that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and
approving the Merger Agreement.  These complaints also allege that
the proxy materials that will be sent to the company's
stockholders to approve the Merger Agreement are materially false
and misleading.  The complaints seek various forms of relief,
including injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the
proposed transaction from being consummated in accordance with the
agreed-upon terms.

In the matter Henzel v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., et
al., filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma,
plaintiffs have withdrawn their request for temporary injective
relief.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of daily
rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through
company-owned stores.  The company leases vehicles to franchisees
for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle rental
franchises worldwide and provides sales and marketing,
reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other
services to franchisees.  It owns DTG Operations, Inc., Dollar
Rent A Car, Inc. and Thrifty, Inc.  The company has two additional
subsidiaries, Rental Car Finance Corp. and Dollar Thrifty Funding
Corp., which are special purpose financing entities.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Dollar and Thrifty had 741 locations in
the United States and Canada of which 400 were company-owned
stores and 341 were locations operated by franchisees.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Motion to Dismiss Oklahoma Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oklahoma remains pending, according to the company's
Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Various class action complaints relating to the proposed
transaction with Hertz have been filed against the company, its
directors, and Hertz by various plaintiffs, for themselves and on
behalf of the company's stockholders, excluding defendants and
their affiliates.

These complaints allege that the consideration the company's
stockholders will receive in connection with the proposed
transaction is inadequate and that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and
approving the Merger Agreement.  These complaints also allege that
the proxy materials that will be sent to the company's
stockholders to approve the Merger Agreement are materially false
and misleading.  The complaints seek various forms of relief,
including injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the
proposed transaction from being consummated in accordance with the
agreed-upon terms.

In the matter Rice v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., et
al., Consolidated Case No. 10-CV-0294-CVE-FHM, the case is stayed
pending a ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of daily
rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through
company-owned stores.  The company leases vehicles to franchisees
for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle rental
franchises worldwide and provides sales and marketing,
reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other
services to franchisees.  It owns DTG Operations, Inc., Dollar
Rent A Car, Inc. and Thrifty, Inc.  The company has two additional
subsidiaries, Rental Car Finance Corp. and Dollar Thrifty Funding
Corp., which are special purpose financing entities.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Dollar and Thrifty had 741 locations in
the United States and Canada of which 400 were company-owned
stores and 341 were locations operated by franchisees.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Preliminary Injunction Hearing on August 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary injunction hearing in the matter In Re: Dollar
Thrifty Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 5458-VCS, is
set for Aug. 25, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Various class action complaints relating to the proposed
transaction with Hertz have been filed  against the company, its
directors, and Hertz by various plaintiffs, for themselves and on
behalf of the company's stockholders, excluding defendants and
their affiliates.

These complaints allege that the consideration the company's
stockholders will receive in connection with the proposed
transaction is inadequate and that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and
approving the Merger Agreement.  These complaints also allege that
the proxy materials that will be sent to the company's
stockholders to approve the Merger Agreement are materially false
and misleading.  The complaints seek various forms of relief,
including injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the
proposed transaction from being consummated in accordance with the
agreed-upon terms.

The mater In Re: Dollar Thrifty Shareholder Litigation was filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of daily
rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through
company-owned stores.  The company leases vehicles to franchisees
for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle rental
franchises worldwide and provides sales and marketing,
reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other
services to franchisees.  It owns DTG Operations, Inc., Dollar
Rent A Car, Inc. and Thrifty, Inc.  The company has two additional
subsidiaries, Rental Car Finance Corp. and Dollar Thrifty Funding
Corp., which are special purpose financing entities.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Dollar and Thrifty had 741 locations in
the United States and Canada of which 400 were company-owned
stores and 341 were locations operated by franchisees.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Colorado Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., filed in Colorado has been dismissed, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in several class action lawsuits in
California and one in Colorado.  The lawsuits allege that the pass
through of the California trade and tourism commission and airport
concession fees violate antitrust laws and various other rights
and laws by compelling out-of-state visitors to subsidize the
passenger car rental tourism assessment program, violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, breach of contract, and
violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The class action lawsuit in Colorado was dismissed in July 2010.

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of daily
rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through
company-owned stores.  The company leases vehicles to franchisees
for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle rental
franchises worldwide and provides sales and marketing,
reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other
services to franchisees.  It owns DTG Operations, Inc., Dollar
Rent A Car, Inc. and Thrifty, Inc.  The company has two additional
subsidiaries, Rental Car Finance Corp. and Dollar Thrifty Funding
Corp., which are special purpose financing entities.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Dollar and Thrifty had 741 locations in
the United States and Canada of which 400 were company-owned
stores and 341 were locations operated by franchisees.


DYNEGY INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dynegy is selling itself too
cheaply through an unfair process to the Blackstone Group, for
$543 million or $4.50 a share, shareholders say in a class action
in Harris County Court, Houston.

A copy of the Complaint in Bauer v. Dynegy, Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-50590 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/16/Dynegy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
          Saint Ann Court
          2501 N. Harwood St., Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-583-2333
          E-mail: tbranham@goldfarbbranham.com
                  hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Accused in Pa. of Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a third class action
against for-profit colleges, shareholders claim the Education
Management Corp. and its directors and underwriters defrauded
investors with false and misleading statements in the prospectus
for its October 2009 Initial Public Offering.  Education
Management offers online and campus-based college degrees through
its Art Institutes, Argosy University, the Brown Mackie Colleges
and South University, according to the federal complaint.

"At the time of the October 2009 IPO, Education Management
operated 93 schools in 28 states of the U.S. and Canada," named
plaintiff Douglas Gaer says.

He also sued eight directors, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Securities,
Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital, Credit Suisse Securities, and
Morgan Stanley, which underwrote the IPO.

Mr. Gaer adds that "throughout the class period, defendants had
propped up the company's results by fraudulently inducing students
to enroll in Education Management's scholastic and educational
programs and engaged in other manipulative recruiting tactics
which defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, could not be
maintained.

"At all times during the class period, unbeknownst to investors,
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.

"At all times during the class period, unbeknownst to investors,
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.

"During that time, it was also not true that Education Management
contained adequate systems of internal operational or financial
controls, such that Education Management's reported operational
statements and foreseeable growth prospects were true, accurate or
reliable.

"As a result of the aforementioned adverse conditions which
defendants failed to disclose, throughout the class period,
defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Education
Management was operating according to plan, or that Education
Management could achieve guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by
defendants."

As in the other recent class actions, the class claims they
learned about the book-juggling on Aug. 3, "after the United
States General Accounting Office ('GAO') issued a report that
concluded that for-profit educational institutions like Education
Management had engaged in an illegal and fraudulent course of
action designed to recruit students and overcharge the federal
government for the cost of such education.  Following these
disclosures, shares of the company collapsed -- falling almost 18%
in several trading days as this news reached the market."

The class seeks damages for securities violations.

A copy of the Complaint Gaer v. Education Management Corp., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01061 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/16/EducManage.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., PC
          519 Allegheny Bldg.
          429 Forbes Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-391-5164
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Kim Miller, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          500 Fifth Ave., Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: 212-696-3730
          E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington St.
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: 504-455-1400
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


ENBRIDGE INC: Kalamazoo River Oil Spill Spurs Four Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that
the oil spill in a pipeline belonging to Calgary, Alberta-based
Enbridge Inc. is not yet four weeks old, but has already sparked
prospective class action lawsuits -- including one in Detroit --
that seek $20 million and involve three metro Detroit law firms.

Battle Creek resident Rodney Bell and sons Kendall and Rodney III
have retained St. Louis-based Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze
LLC, which has offices in Detroit and Chicago, in a new lawsuit
[two weeks ago] before U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III in
Detroit against Enbridge, Houston subsidiary Enbridge Energy
Partners LP and Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

The lawsuit is over the pipeline rupture reported July 26 after it
had spilled oil into the Kalamazoo River.

Attorneys at The Miller Law Firm PC in Rochester brought a similar
case at U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids Aug. 2, on behalf of
five area residents with land on or near the Tallmadge Creek where
the spill originated, against Enbridge and several subsidiaries.
Both lawsuits allege damages over $5 million and seek to certify a
class of property owners affected by the contamination.

Attorneys Patricia Stamler and Elizabeth Thomson at Hertz Schram
PC in Bloomfield Hills are co-counsel with partners Steven Liddle
and David Dubin at Macuga Liddle & Dubin PC in Detroit in a third
lawsuit filed July 30 in Grand Rapids against Enbridge and
Enbridge Energy Partners, on behalf of a Battle Creek couple.

That lawsuit may be consolidated with the Miller law firm case.

A fourth lawsuit was brought July 26, the day the spill was
reported, on behalf of Saugatuck Township-based Walkers Landing
Partners LLC, which owns a 15-acre vacant parcel on the Kalamazoo
River. Attorneys for the company have yet to enter a court
appearance in any of the lawsuits. President Barry Conybeare of
St. Joseph-based Conybeare Law Office P.C. represents Walkers
Landing in that case.

The nonprofit Great Lakes Environmental Law Center in Detroit also
submitted a 60-day notice of intent earlier this month to sue
Enbridge under the federal Clean Water Act, alleging Enbridge
could be liable for civil financial penalties in excess of $26
million.

Nick Schroeck, adjunct professor at Wayne State University Law
School and executive director of the center, could not be
immediately reached for comment Friday on whether Enbridge has
responded.  Enbridge's Pipeline 6B carried about 8 million gallons
of oil daily between Griffith, Ind., and Sarnia, Ontario. More
than 820,000 gallons are believed to have spilled from the leak
into the tributary Talmadge Creek near Marshall, and on to the
river.

Enbridge earlier this month offered to buy up to 200 homes within
the spill zone at their list price or appraised value prior to the
leak.

"If an individual is made whole by Enbridge, they would not remain
in the class," said David Fink, partner at the Miller Law Firm.
"But Enbridge has rather publicly promised to do the right thing.
We have filed the lawsuit to ensure that they do."

The Enquirer reports that Detroit-area attorneys representing
class-action lawsuits against Enbridge were to hold a town hall
meeting on Wednesday in Springfield.  The law firms of Macuga,
Liddle & Dubin and Hertz Schram were to hold a public meeting from
6 to 8 p.m. Wednesday at the Springfield Farmer's Market, 503
Military St., according to a news release from the firms.  These
attorneys filed class-action lawsuits on behalf of area residents
against Enbridge after one of the company's oil pipelines ruptured
July 26 and spilled 819,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo
River.

At Wednesday's meeting, the attorneys were to discuss legal
options and would present preliminary results from independent
soil, water and air testing.

The plaintiffs' lawyers can be reached at:

     Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq.
     Patricia A. Stamler, Esq.
     HERTZ SCHRAM P.C.
     1760 South Telegraph Road, Suite 300
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183
     Telephone: 248-335-5000
     Facsimile: 248-335-3346
     E-mail: lthomson@hertzschram.com
             pstamler@hertzschram.com

          - and -

     Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
     David R. Dubin, Esq.
     MACUGA, LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
     975 East Jefferson Avenue
     Detroit, Michigan 48207-3101
     Telephone: 313-392-0015
     Facsimile: 313-392-0025

          - and -

     Barry Conybeare, Esq.
     CONYBEARE LAW OFFICE PC
     519 Main St.
     Saint Joseph, MI 49085
     Telephone: 269-983-0561


FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Junk OPERS Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in the matter
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron,
et al., remains pending, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation or Freddie Mac's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

The putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on Jan. 18, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
"false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry."

On April 10, 2008, the court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff
and approved its choice of counsel.

On Sept. 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint, which purportedly asserted claims
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock between
Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2007.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which removed certain allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony
Piszel, and Eugene McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading
allegations against only Patricia Cook.  The second amended
complaint also extends the damages period, but not the class
period.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene in
its capacity as Conservator.

On April 6, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which motion remains pending.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Dismiss Amended "Kuriakose" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac's motion to
dismiss an amended consolidated complaint in a putative class
action lawsuit styled Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and
Cook, remains pending, according to the company's August 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and
certain former officers on Aug. 15, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 21, 2007,
through Aug. 5, 2008.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially
inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and seeks
unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 20, 2009, Federal Housing Finance Agency, the company's
Conservator, filed a motion to intervene and stay the proceedings.
On Feb. 6, 2009, the court granted FHFA's motion to intervene.

On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 30, 2007, through Sept. 7, 2008.

Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Feb. 24,
2010, which motion remains pending.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Now Dormant
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit styled Jacoby v. Syron, Cook,
Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
and FTN Financial Markets, remains pending.

On Dec. 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former officers of Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac and others.

The complaint, as amended on Dec. 17, 2008, contends that the
defendants made material false and misleading statements in
connection with Freddie Mac's Sept. 29, 2007 offering of non-
cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred
stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated Freddie Mac's
capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie Mac's exposure to
mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting standards and risk
management procedures."

The complaint further alleges that Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel,
and Patricia Cook made additional false statements following the
offering.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit, but the
underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their
intention to seek full indemnity and contribution under the
Underwriting Agreement in this case, including reimbursement of
fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.

The case is currently dormant and Freddie Mac believes the
plaintiff may have abandoned it, the company disclosed in its
August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Court Dismisses Amended "Kreysar" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed an amended consolidated putative class action
lawsuit filed against certain former Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation or Freddie Mac officers and others, according to
Freddie Mac's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

By letter dated Oct. 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the company's Nov. 29, 2007 public offering of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.

On Jan. 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled Kreysar v. Syron, et al.

On April 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the Mark case with the
Kreysar case.  The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint on July 2, 2009.  The consolidated complaint alleges
that former Freddie Mac officers Syron, Piszel, and Cook, certain
underwriters and Freddie Mac's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, violated federal securities laws by making material false and
misleading statements in connection with an offering by Freddie
Mac of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative
Perpetual Preferred Stock Series Z that commenced on November 29,
2007.  The complaint further alleges that certain defendants and
others made additional false statements following the offering.

The complaint names as defendants Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel,
Patricia Cook, Goldman, Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Banc of
America Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on Sept. 30, 2009.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated action with leave to file an amended
complaint on or before March 15, 2010.

On March 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated
complaint against these same defendants with more detailed
allegations of federal securities law violations.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
on April 28, 2010.

On July 29, 2010, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, without prejudice, and allowed the plaintiffs leave to
replead.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated
lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie
Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution
under the Underwriting Agreement in this case, including
reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FLORIDA: Judge Says Red Light Camera Fines Are Unconstitutional
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Pransky, writing for WTSP.com, reports that a landmark court
case in Orlando, Florida, could mean millions of dollars in
damages to communities that installed red light cameras prior to
July 1, 2010, when a new state law began regulating the
technology.

A judge ruled against Orlando earlier last week in a class action
suit that alleged fines levied from the cameras were
unconstitutional.  It could cost the city more than $4 million
from 50,000 tickets in question.

The cities of Bradenton, Brooksville and Lakeland face similar
lawsuits from the same West Palm Beach law firm.

In Lakeland, more than 30,000 tickets are in question and the city
has received more than $2 million in fines.

"It's money they never should have been awarded in the first
place, so I have no sympathy," said Jamie Rosenberg, the plaintiff
in the suit against Bradenton.

Most cities -- as well as the National Campaign to Stop Red Light
Running -- report a decline in accidents at intersections after
the technology is installed.  However, much of the fine gets paid
to the company contracted to install the cameras.

"The cities were privatizing law enforcement and creating a
revenue monster," Mr. Rosenberg said.  "That's always been my
issue with the red light cameras."

Last year in Florida, there were more than 1,400 accidents
attributed to drivers running red lights. More than 5,000 people
were hurt in those crashes and 56 fatalities were reported.

This year, the Florida Legislature passed the "Mark Wandall
Traffic Safety Act", designed to legalize red light cameras and
fines across the state.  However, the class action suits argue
local governments had no right to install the cameras prior to the
law.

The Lakeland, Bradenton and Brooksville lawsuits are currently
pending and the law firm says more suits could follow in other
municipalities.


FORCE PROTECTION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Force Protection, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated suit
captioned In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division.

On March 10, 2008, the first of ten related class action lawsuits
was filed against the company and certain of its former and
current directors or officers, on behalf of a proposed class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock
during the period between Aug. 14, 2006, and Feb. 29, 2008.

The complaints seek class certification, and the allegations
include, but are not limited to, allegations that the defendants
violated the Exchange Act and made false or misleading public
statements and/or omissions concerning our business, internal
controls, and financial results.

The individual class action lawsuits were consolidated on June 10,
2008.

On Sept. 29, 2009, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, and the parties
are engaging in discovery.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Force Protection, Inc. -- http://www.forceprotection.net/-- is a
leading designer, developer and manufacturer of survivability
solutions, including blast- and ballistic-protected wheeled
vehicles currently deployed by the U.S. military and its allies to
support armed forces and security personnel in conflict zones.
The company's specialty vehicles, including the Buffalo, Cougar
and related variants, are designed specifically for reconnaissance
and urban operations and to protect their occupants from
landmines, hostile fire, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs,
commonly referred to as roadside bombs).  The company also
develops, manufactures, tests, delivers and supports products and
services aimed at further enhancing the survivability of users
against additional threats.  In addition, the company provides
long-term life cycle support services of its vehicles that involve
development of technical data packages, supply of spares, field
and depot maintenance activities, assignment of highly-skilled
field service representatives, and advanced on and off-road driver
and maintenance training programs.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Motion to Certify Class in Florida Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs to certify a class in a suit against
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., in Florida remains pending.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003.

The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000.

The company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claim
of the amended complaint on Oct. 12, 2006.

On Aug. 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
action.

The company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on Jan. 22, 2009,
to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/--
is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted through
subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation
and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with
prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons,
tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines,
cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa,
and the Philippines.  It also source products from North America,
Africa and Europe.  The company distributes its products in North
America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South
America.  Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the
DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Class Denial Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the denial of class certification
by the state court of California on a consolidated complaint
against Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., is pending.

Between March 17, 2004 and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003.

On Nov. 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.

On Sept. 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
action.  The company and its subsidiaries filed an opposition on
Feb. 13, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009.

At the hearing held on May 20, 2009, the court issued a tentative
opinion granting certification based on a California Supreme Court
decision issued on May 19, 2009, but requested further briefing.

The company and plaintiffs have served supplemental briefs in
response.

On Aug. 20, 2009, the court reversed its tentative opinion of May
20, 2009 and denied class certification.

At the rescheduled case management conference held on Sept. 23,
2009, the court denied plaintiffs' request seeking withdrawal of
the court's class certification denial.

On Oct. 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order denying class certification.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/--
is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted through
subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation
and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with
prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons,
tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines,
cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa,
and the Philippines.  It also source products from North America,
Africa and Europe.  The company distributes its products in North
America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South
America.  Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the
DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Suit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend a
putative class action complaint alleging violations of the
Tennessee Trade Practices Act.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased
(other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6, 2003.

The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices
Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

On Feb. 18, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.

On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing
plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/--
is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted through
subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation
and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with
prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons,
tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines,
cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa,
and the Philippines.  It also source products from North America,
Africa and Europe.  The company distributes its products in North
America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South
America.  Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the
DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Plaintiffs Appealing Summary Judgment Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the summary judgment ruling in
favor of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.'s subsidiaries is ongoing,
according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

On Aug. 2, 2004, a consolidated complaint was filed against two of
the company's subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  This consolidated action was
brought as a putative class action on behalf of all direct and
indirect purchasers of Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
from March 1, 1996 through the present and merges four actions
brought by fruit wholesalers and two actions brought by individual
consumers.

The consolidated complaint alleges claims for:

     (i) monopolization and attempted monopolization;
    (ii) restraint of trade;
   (iii) unfair and deceptive trade practices; and
    (iv) unjust enrichment.

On May 27, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers' claims for unjust
enrichment.  On June 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed a joint motion for
class certification.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the indirect purchasers and only granted class
certification of the direct purchasers' claims for monopolization
and attempted monopolization, which was uncontested by our
subsidiaries.  Also on Feb. 20, 2008, the court granted the motion
of the company's subsidiaries to dismiss the direct purchasers'
claims for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the motion to
dismiss the indirect purchasers' state law claims on the basis of
the court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class certification
of the indirect purchasers.

On Aug. 13, 2008, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion for
summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims.  Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motion on Oct. 6, 2008, which the
company's subsidiaries replied to on Dec. 8, 2008.

On Sept. 30, 2009, the court granted the motion for summary
judgment in favor of the company's subsidiaries.

On Oct. 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs' appellate brief was filed on March 9, 2010, and the
subsidiaries' appellate brief was filed on July 9, 2010.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/--
is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted through
subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation
and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with
prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons,
tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines,
cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa,
and the Philippines.  It also source products from North America,
Africa and Europe.  The company distributes its products in North
America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South
America.  Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the
DEL MONTE brand.


GRUMA CORP: 9th Cir. Upholds District Ct. Ruling in Rosenfeld
-------------------------------------------------------------
In Dennis Johnson, plaintiff, and Arnold Rosenfeld, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, plaintiff-appellant,
v. Gruma Corporation, a Nevada corporation, DBA Mission Foods
Corporation, defendant-appellee, and Gruma S. A. DE C. V., a
Mexican corporation, defendant, case no. No. 08-56911 (9th Cir.,
August 13, 2010), Mr. Rosenfeld appeals the district court's
confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Gruma.  Mr.
Rosenfeld was one of two class representatives in an action
against Gruma.  The matter was submitted to binding arbitration,
and the arbitrator found for Gruma.  The district court confirmed
the arbitrator's award over Mr. Rosenfeld's objection.  Mr.
Rosenfeld argues, first, that California law provides the standard
for vacatur of the award; second, that vacatur is required under
California law because the arbitrator failed to disclose a ground
for his disqualification; and, third, that vacatur is required
because the arbitrator exceeded his powers.  The Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit agrees with the first argument, but disagree
with the second and third.  The Ninth Circuit affirms the district
court.

"We hold that the parties agreed to arbitration under the rules
provided by the [California Arbitration Act].  We hold, further,
that Rosenfeld has shown no basis for vacatur of the arbitrator's
award under the CAA," Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher wrote, on
behalf of a three-man panel.  Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and
District Judge John R. Tunheim also presided over the case.

The plaintiff class members are drivers who deliver products to
Gruma's customers.  Each distributor signed a "Store Door
Distributor Agreement" with Gruma.  The agreement states that the
distributors are independent contractors.

A full-text copy of the court order is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100813109

Mr. Rosenfeld is represented by:

          Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN WEISS

Gruma is represented by:

          Rex Heinke, Esq.
          R.D. Kirwan, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010
          Telephone: 310-229-1030
          Facsimile: 310-229-1001
          E-mail: rheinke@akingump.com
                  rkirwan@akingump.com

               - and -

          Paul Grossman, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-683-6203
          Facsimile: 213-627-0705
          E-mail: paulgrossman@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Gregory S.C. Huffman, Esq.
          Nicole L. Williams
          THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
          One Arts Plaza
          1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-969-1144
          Facsimile: 214-880-3286
          E-mail: Gregory.Huffman@tklaw.com


HEALTH GRADES: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Vestar Capital Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Health Grades, Inc., is facing a lawsuit filed by shareholders for
management's alleged failure to maximize stockholder value in
negotiating and approving a merger agreement.

On July 27, 2010, Health Grades and affiliates of Vestar Capital
Partners V, L.P., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject
to the conditions thereof, Purchaser has agreed to commence a cash
tender offer to acquire all of the shares of the company's common
stock for a purchase price of $8.20 per share in cash. Purchaser
has agreed to commence the Offer within 10 business days after
July 27, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, a putative shareholder class action suit styled
as Reginald W. Harris v. Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-3627 and on August 4, 2010 a putative shareholder
class action suit styled Medford Bragg v. Kerry R. Hicks, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-3705 were filed in the District Court of Colorado
in Jefferson County against individual defendants Health Grades
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board and the other
members of the Health Grades' Board  of Directors, as well as
Health Grades, Inc., and Vestar.

The complaints generally allege that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder
value in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement.  In that
regard, the complaints include, among other things, allegations
that the consideration to be received by Health Grades'
shareholders is unfair and inadequate; that the proposed
transaction employs a process which is unfair and inadequate and
which has not been designed to maximize stockholder value; that
the Merger Agreement includes inappropriate "no shop,"
"standstill," and termination fee provisions; that the defendants
are attempting to circumvent the requirement of a shareholder vote
through a "Top Up Option", that Health Grades' Board may consider
alternatives to the transaction but only under a limited set of
circumstances, and that the combined effect of these provisions is
to foreclose potential alternative bidders.

The complaints also allege that Vestar aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaints seek class certification, certain forms of
injunctive relief, including enjoining the Merger, rescinding the
Merger, unspecified damages, and payment of plaintiff's attorney's
costs and fees.

Health Grades and the other defendants have not yet responded to
the complaints, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Health Grades, Inc. -- http://www.healthgrades.com/-- is the
leading independent healthcare ratings organization, providing
quality ratings, profiles and cost information on the nation's
hospitals, physicians, nursing homes and prescription drugs.
Millions of patients and many of the nation's largest employers,
health plans and hospitals rely on HealthGrades' quality ratings,
advisory services and decision-support resources.  The
HealthGrades Network of Web sites, including HealthGrades.com and
WrongDiagnosis.com, is a top-five health property according to
ComScore and is the Internet's leading destination for patients
choosing providers.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces "Fosbre" & "Combs" Lawsuits in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. is facing two separate complaints in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada for
alleged dissemination of false information, according to the
company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

                           "Fosbre" Suit

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, against Las Vegas Sands Corp, Sheldon G.
Adelson, and William P. Weidner.  The complaint alleges that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  On June 15,
2010, a stipulated order was entered extending the time for the
defendants to respond to the complaint until after a lead
plaintiff is appointed by the court and an amended complaint is
thereafter filed.

This action is in a preliminary stage and management has
determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter.
The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

                           "Combs" Suit

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, against LVSC, Messrs. Adelson, and Weidner.
The complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual
defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information,
or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases,
investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007
through November 11, 2008.

The complaint, which is substantially similar to Mr. Fosbre's
complaint, seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  This action
is in a preliminary stage and management has determined that based
on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the
probability of the outcome of this matter.  The Company intends to
defend this matter vigorously.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS) is the leading global developer
of destination properties (integrated resorts) that feature
premium accommodations, world-class gaming and entertainment,
convention and exhibition facilities, celebrity chef restaurants,
and many other amenities.


LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a securities class action
claims Lincoln Educational Services inflated its share price
through false and misleading statements and SEC filings, and that
"Lincoln insiders" sold $76.5 million of their own shares "while
in possession of material, adverse, nonpublic information about
the company," in Newark Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Moreaux, et al. v. Lincoln Educational
Services Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc.
9199 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Aug. 13, 2010 (D. N.J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/16/ForProfitSchool.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel L. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS, SAPERSTEIN & SALOMON, P.C.
          375 Cedar Lane
          Teaneck, NJ 07666
          Telephone: 201-907-5000
          E-mail: sam@dsslaw.com

               - and -

          Kim Miller, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          500 Fifth Ave., Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: 212-696-3730
          E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington St.
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: 504-455-1400
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


LOOMIS ARMORED: Accused in Calif. of Unlawful Wage Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Loomis Armored US stiffs
workers for wages, overtime and expenses, a class action claims in
San Diego Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Larue v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, Case
No. 10-cv-01699 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/13/EmployCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92307
          Telephone: 858-551-1223


MASTERCARD INC: Briefing on Remaining Appeals Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the remaining appeals on the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York's final approval of the
settlement agreements in the lawsuit captioned In re Currency
Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, is ongoing, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA),
MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are defendants in a number of
federal putative class actions that allege, among other things,
violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one%
currency conversion "fee."

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("MDL Complaint") adding MBNA Corporation and
MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants.

This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

   (i) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
       MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
       with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
       conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no
       less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently
       more"; and

  (ii) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
       each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have
       conspired with its members to fix currency conversion
       "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than
       1% of the transaction amount" and "to facilitate and
       encourage institution-and collection-of second tier
       currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and
related matters, as well as the Schwartz matter.  Pursuant to the
settlement agreements, MasterCard paid $72,480,000 to be
used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL action and
$13,440,000 to settle the Schwartz matter.  On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge
Pauley granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreements.
The settlement agreements are subject to final approval by Judge
Pauley, and resolution of all appeals.  The hearing on final
approval of the settlement agreements was held on March 31, 2008,
and Judge Pauley reserved decision on final approval.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state court
cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
June 6, 2007, the appellate court granted MasterCard's motion to
defer briefing until a final settlement is approved in the MDL
action.  With regard to other state court currency
conversion actions, MasterCard has reached agreements in principle
with the plaintiffs for a total of $3,557,000, which
has been accrued.  Settlement agreements have been executed with
plaintiffs in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Arizona, New York, Minnesota and Illinois actions, but
such an agreement has not been executed with plaintiffs in the
Missouri action.

On Nov. 3, 2009, Judge Pauley signed a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal granting final approval to the settlement agreements.
On Nov. 20, 2009, the same plaintiff in the New York state cases
filed notice of appeal of final settlement approval in the MDL
action.  Within the time period for appeal in the MDL action,
twelve other such notices of appeal were filed.

Subsequently, several plaintiffs have requested to withdraw their
appeals. Briefing on the remaining appeals is ongoing.

With regard to other state court currency conversion actions,
MasterCard has reached agreements in principle with the plaintiffs
for a total of approximately $4 million, which has been accrued.
Settlement agreements have been executed with plaintiffs in the
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Arizona,
New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Missouri actions.

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," (S.D.N.Y.) (Pauley, J.).

The plaintiffs are represented by::

         David J. Bershad, Esq.
         Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
         MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300 and (212) 946-9387
         Facsimile: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com

               - and -

         Christopher Burke, Esq.
         Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
         LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA & ROBBINS, LLP
         Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 231-1058
         Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF SHELDON V. BURMAN, PC
         110 East 59th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 935-1600


MASTERCARD INC: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International Incorporated continues to await final
approval of the settlement of putative class-action complaints
alleging state unfair competition, consumer protection and common
law claims filed in the California state court, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Individual or multiple complaints have been brought in 19
different states and the District of Columbia alleging state
unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims
against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of
putative classes of consumers.

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced with
excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these overcharges to
consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold.

MasterCard has been successful in dismissing cases in 17 of the
jurisdictions as courts have granted MasterCard's motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their complaints.  However, there are
outstanding cases in New Mexico and California.

On June 9, 2010, the court issued an order granting MasterCard's
motion to dismiss the complaint in the New Mexico action.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of that decision.

With respect to the California state actions, on Sept. 14, 2009,
the parties to the California state court actions executed a
settlement agreement which required a payment by MasterCard of $6
million, subject to approval by the California state court.

On Jan. 5, 2010, the court executed an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement was set for
Aug. 6, 2010.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over
24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its
customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as franchisor,
processor and advisor, the company develops and markets payment
solutions, process payment transactions, and provides support
services to its customers and, depending upon the service, to
merchants and other clients.  It manages a family of payment card
brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and
Cirrus, which it licenses to its customers.  The company conducts
its business principally through MasterCard Incorporated's
principal operating subsidiary, MasterCard International
Incorporated.


MASTERCARD INC: New Mexico Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
A complaint filed against MasterCard, Inc., in New Mexico has been
dismissed, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Individual or multiple complaints have been brought in 19
different states and the District of Columbia alleging state
unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims
against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of
putative classes of consumers.

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced with
excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these overcharges to
consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold.

MasterCard has been successful in dismissing cases in 17 of the
jurisdictions as courts have granted MasterCard's motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their complaints.  However, there are
outstanding cases in New Mexico and California.

On June 9, 2010, the court issued an order granting MasterCard's
motion to dismiss the complaint in the New Mexico action.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of that decision.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over
24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its
customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as franchisor,
processor and advisor, the company develops and markets payment
solutions, process payment transactions, and provides support
services to its customers and, depending upon the service, to
merchants and other clients.  It manages a family of payment card
brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and
Cirrus, which it licenses to its customers.  The company conducts
its business principally through MasterCard Incorporated's
principal operating subsidiary, MasterCard International
Incorporated.


MASTERCARD INC: Final Approval of "Attridge" Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard, Inc., continues to await approval from the California
state of the settlement agreement which includes a release that
encompasses the claims asserted in the Attridge action, according
to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On April 29, 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court
on behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair
competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (Attridge
action).

The claims in this action seek to piggyback on the portion of the
DOJ antitrust litigation with regard to the district court's
findings concerning MasterCard's CPP and Visa's related bylaw.
MasterCard and Visa moved to dismiss the complaint and the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
Cartwright Act claims but denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair competition claims.

MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint on June 19, 2006, and
the parties have proceeded with discovery.

On Sept. 14, 2009, MasterCard executed a settlement agreement that
is subject to court approval in the California consumer
litigations.

The agreement includes a release that the parties believe
encompasses the claims asserted in the Attridge action.

On Jan. 5, 2010, the court in the California consumer actions
executed an order preliminarily approving the settlement,
overruling objections by the plaintiff in the Attridge case.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement was set for
Aug. 6, 2010.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over
24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its
customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as franchisor,
processor and advisor, the company develops and markets payment
solutions, process payment transactions, and provides support
services to its customers and, depending upon the service, to
merchants and other clients.  It manages a family of payment card
brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and
Cirrus, which it licenses to its customers.  The company conducts
its business principally through MasterCard Incorporated's
principal operating subsidiary, MasterCard International
Incorporated.


MASTERCARD INC: Amended IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint alleging violations related to MasterCard
Inc.'s initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May
2006, remains pending.

On July 5, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's IPO and
certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and
its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1)
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect
allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2)
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly
constitute an unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3)
constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are
allegedly attempting to release without adequate consideration
from the member banks MasterCard's right to assess the member
banks for MasterCard's litigation liabilities in these
interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust litigations
pending against it.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing and
unwinding the IPO.

On Sept. 15, 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims
contained in the supplemental complaint.

On Nov. 25, 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety
with leave to file an amended complaint.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs repleaded their complaint
directed at MasterCard's IPO by filing a First Amended
Supplemental Class Action Complaint.  The causes of action in the
complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original IPO-
related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to expand
their factual allegations based upon discovery that has been
garnered in the case.  The class plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an
order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

On March 31, 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its entirety.  The
parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and the court
heard oral argument on the motion on Nov. 18, 2009.   The parties
are awaiting a decision on the motion.

On July 2, 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs
served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs'
theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of billions
of dollars.  The defendants served their expert reports on
Dec. 14, 2009 countering the plaintiffs' assertions of liability
and damages.  Briefing on dispositive motions, including summary
judgment motions, is scheduled to be completed on Oct. 25, 2010.
No trial date has been scheduled.

The parties have also entered into court-recommended mediation.

No further developments were reported in the company's Aug. 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over
24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its
customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as franchisor,
processor and advisor, the company develops and markets payment
solutions, process payment transactions, and provides support
services to its customers and, depending upon the service, to
merchants and other clients.  It manages a family of payment card
brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and
Cirrus, which it licenses to its customers.  The company conducts
its business principally through MasterCard Incorporated's
principal operating subsidiary, MasterCard International
Incorporated.


MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Junk Interchange Fees Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second consolidated class-action complaint
over MasterCard International Incorporated's interchange fees
remains pending.

On June 22, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and
conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade.  In addition, the
complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's purported tying and
bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The suit seeks treble damages in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately
50 similar complaints (the majority styled as class actions
although a few complaints are on behalf of individual plaintiffs)
filed on behalf of merchants against MasterCard and Visa (and in
some cases, certain member banks) in federal courts in California,
New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and
Connecticut.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720.

On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of the
individual merchants are generally brought under both Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which
prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to
monopolize a particular industry.

Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these claims:
(i) that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange fees (for
both credit and offline debit transactions) violates Section 1 of
the Sherman Act; (ii) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and
enforced various rules, including the no surcharge rule and
purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section 1 or 2 of
the Sherman Act; (iii) that MasterCard's and Visa's purported
bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to standard
credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and (iv)
that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and bundled
transaction fees.  In addition to the claims brought under federal
antitrust law, some of these complaints contain certain unfair
competition law claims under state law based upon the same
conduct.

These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages in
an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints allege
that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the tens of
billions of dollars), as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

On June 9, 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to
dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage
claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were
brought in the individual merchant complaints.  On Jan. 8, 2008,
the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-2004 damage
claims.  On May 14, 2008, the court denied MasterCard's motion to
dismiss the Section 2 monopolization claims.  Fact discovery has
been proceeding and was generally completed by Nov. 21, 2008.
Briefs have been submitted on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs'
class certification motion on Nov. 19, 2009.  The parties are
awaiting a decision on the motion.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.  The allegations and claims in this
complaint generally mirror those in the first amended class action
complaint described above although plaintiffs have added
additional claims brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act against MasterCard, Visa and a number of banks alleging, among
other things, that the networks and banks have continued to fix
interchange fees following each network's initial public offering.
On March 31, 2009, MasterCard and the other defendants in the
action filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in its entirety, or alternatively, to narrow the
claims in the complaint.  The parties have fully briefed the
motion and the court heard oral argument on the motion on Nov. 18,
2009.

The parties are awaiting decisions on the motions.

No further developments were reported in the company's Aug. 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of over
24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are its
customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as franchisor,
processor and advisor, the company develops and markets payment
solutions, process payment transactions, and provides support
services to its customers and, depending upon the service, to
merchants and other clients.  It manages a family of payment card
brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and
Cirrus, which it licenses to its customers.  The company conducts
its business principally through MasterCard Incorporated's
principal operating subsidiary, MasterCard International
Incorporated.


METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetroPCS Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a securities class action lawsuit filed in Texas, according to the
company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

MetroPCS, certain current officers and a director have been named
as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed on
December 15, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-2392.

The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and misleading statements about MetroPCS' business,
prospects and operations.  The claims are based upon various
alleged public statements made during the period from February 26,
2009 through November 4, 2009.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination that the
alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, other expenses, and costs.

On February 16, 2010, Kevin Hopson, an alleged MetroPCS
shareholder, filed a motion in the District Court seeking to be
designated as the lead plaintiff in the Action.  On May 11, 2010,
the Court appointed Kevin Hopson as lead plaintiff and Plaintiff
on June 25, 2010, filed an amended complaint.

Pursuant to the parties' agreed schedule, defendants' motion to
dismiss or answer was due August 9, 2010.

Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved
in the Action, the outcome is not presently determinable, the
company relates. MetroPCS says that if this matter were to proceed
beyond the pleading stage, it could be required to incur
substantial costs and expenses to defend this matter or be
required to pay substantial damages or settlement costs, which
could materially adversely affect its business, financial
condition and results of operations.

MetroPCS Communications, Inc., is a wireless communications
provider that offers wireless broadband mobile services under the
MetroPCS brand in selected metropolitan areas in the United
States over its own licensed networks or networks of entities, in
which the Company holds a substantial non-controlling ownership
interest.  The Company provides an array of wireless
communications services to its subscribers on a no long-term
contract, paid-in-advance, flat rate, unlimited usage basis.  As
of Dec. 31, 2008, it had approximately 5.4 million subscribers in
eight states.


NEW CENTURY: Former CEO Morrice to Pay $791,345 in SEC Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
In Securities And Exchange Commission, plaintiff, v. Brad A.
Morrice, Patti M. Dodge, and David N. Kenneally, defendants, case
no. 09-cv-01426 (C.D. Calif. August 13, 2010), Dean D. Pregerson
held that Mr. Morrice is liable for disgorgement in the amount of
$464,354 together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount
of $76,991, for a total of $541,345, and a civil penalty in the
amount of $250,000 pursuant to Section 20(d)(1) of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77t(d)(1), and Section 21(d)(3) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u(d)(3).

Judge Preferson said Mr. Morrice will satisfy the payment
obligation by making payment according to the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement in the class action In re New Century,
Case No. 07-931-DDP (C.D. Cal.).  In particular, Mr. Morrice will
pay or cause to be paid $791,345 in cash or value pursuant to the
Stipulation of Settlement.  In the event the settlement in In re
New Century, Case No. 07-931-DDP does not become effective, then
Mr. Morrice will have the right to withdraw from this and any
other pending settlement with the SEC and the parties will return
to their original litigation.

A full-text copy of the court order is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100813976

On July 29, 2010, the SEC accepted settlement offers from three
former officers of New Century Financial Corporation.  Mr.
Morrice, the former CEO and co-founder; Patti M. Dodge, the former
CFO; and David N. Kenneally, the former controller, consented to
certain relief without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Commission's Complaint.  The SEC's complaint alleges, among other
things, that New Century's second and third quarter 2006 Forms
10-Q and two late 2006 private stock offerings contained false and
misleading statements regarding its subprime mortgage business.
The complaint further alleges that Mr. Morrice and Ms. Dodge knew
about certain negative trends in New Century's loan portfolio from
reports they received and that they participated in the disclosure
process, but they did not take adequate steps to ensure that the
negative trends were properly disclosed.  The Commission's
complaint also alleges that in the second and third quarters of
2006, Mr. Kenneally, contrary to Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, implemented changes to New Century's method for
estimating its loan repurchase obligation and failed to ensure
that New Century's backlog of pending loan repurchase requests
were properly accounted for, resulting in an understatement of New
Century's repurchase reserve and a material overstatement of New
Century's financial results.  The complaint further alleges that
Ms. Dodge was told of the methodology changes and the backlog of
repurchase requests but did not ensure that they were properly
accounted for and disclosed.


NISOURCE INC: Tawney Fund Contributions Total $318MM at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc., discloses that as of June 30, 2010, it had
contributed a total of $318.2 million into the qualified
settlement fund as part of the settlement agreement in the matter
Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., Roane County,
WV Circuit Court.

As of June 30, 2010, NiSource had contributed a total of $318.2
million into the qualified settlement fund, $277.3 million

The Plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, filed a lawsuit
in early 2003 in the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County,
West Virginia against Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., alleging
that CNR underpaid royalties on gas produced on their land by
improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair
value for the gas.  Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendants
fraudulently concealed the deduction of post-production charges.

In December 2004, the Trial Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to
add NiSource and Columbia Energy Group (Columbia) as Defendants.
The Trial Court later certified the case as a class action that
includes any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due
royalties from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands
lying within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remained obligated to
manage this litigation and was responsible for the majority of any
damages awarded to Plaintiffs.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict
against all Defendants in the amount of $404.3 million inclusive
of both compensatory and punitive damages.  Defendants
subsequently filed their Petition for Appeal, which was later
amended, with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which
refused the petition on May 22, 2008.

On Aug. 22, 2008, Defendants filed Petitions to the U.S. Supreme
Court for writ of certiorari.  Given the Appeals Court's earlier
refusal of the appeal, NiSource adjusted its reserve in the second
quarter of 2008 to reflect the portion of the Trial Court judgment
for which NiSource would be responsible, inclusive of interest.
This amount was included in "Legal and environmental reserves," on
the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of Dec. 31, 2008.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the Trial Court preliminarily approved a
Settlement Agreement with a total settlement amount of $380
million.  The settlement received final approval by the Trial
Court on Nov. 22, 2008.

NiSource's share of the settlement liability is up to $338.8
million.  NiSource complied with its obligations under the
Settlement Agreement to fund $85.5 million in the qualified
settlement fund by Jan. 13, 2009.

Additionally, NiSource provided a letter of credit on Jan. 13,
2009, in the amount of $254 million and thereby complied with its
obligation to secure the unpaid portion of the settlement which
has since been drawn down as settlement payments have been made.

The Trial Court entered its Order discharging the judgment on
Jan. 20, 2009 and is supervising the administration of the
settlement proceeds.

As of June 30, 2010, NiSource had contributed a total of $318.2
million into the qualified settlement fund, $277.3 million of
which was contributed prior to Dec. 31, 2009.

As of June 30, 2010, $20.6 million of the maximum settlement
liability had not been paid.  The remaining balance of the letter
of credit is sufficient to cover any remaining payments under the
Settlement Agreement.

NiSource will be required to make additional payments not expected
to exceed the amount accrued, pursuant to the settlement, upon
notice from the Class Administrator, according to the company's
Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

NiSource Inc. -- http://www.nisource.com/-- based in
Merrillville, Ind., is a Fortune 500 company engaged in natural
gas transmission, storage and distribution, as well as electric
generation, transmission and distribution.  NiSource operating
companies deliver energy to 3.8 million customers located within
the high-demand energy corridor stretching from the Gulf Coast
through the Midwest to New England.


NISOURCE INC: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in "Thacker"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky gave
its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving the
matter John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.,
according to NiSource Inc.'s Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On Feb. 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Thacker case, a purported
class action alleging that Chesapeake has failed to pay royalty
owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of their oil
and gas leases covering real property located within the state of
Kentucky.  Columbia Energy Group (Columbia) has assumed the
defense of Chesapeake in this matter pursuant to the provisions of
the Stock Purchase Agreement dated July 3, 2003, among Columbia,
NiSource, and Triana Energy Holding, Inc., Chesapeake's
predecessor in interest.

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March 19, 2007, which,
among other things, added NiSource and Columbia as Defendants.  On
March 31, 2008, the Court denied a Motion by Defendants to Dismiss
and on June 3, 2008, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class
consisting of all persons entitled to payment of royalty by
Chesapeake under leases operated by Chesapeake at any point after
Feb. 5, 1992, on real property in Kentucky.

In June 2009, the parties to the Thacker litigation presented a
Settlement Agreement to the Court for preliminary approval.
The court granted the Motion for Preliminary approval and held a
fairness hearing on Nov. 10, 2009.  On March 3, 2010 the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.

On March 31, 2010, the plaintiffs in the matter Poplar Creek
Development Company v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., filed a
notice of appeal of that approval with the U.S. Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

NiSource Inc. -- http://www.nisource.com/-- based in
Merrillville, Ind., is a Fortune 500 company engaged in natural
gas transmission, storage and distribution, as well as electric
generation, transmission and distribution.  NiSource operating
companies deliver energy to 3.8 million customers located within
the high-demand energy corridor stretching from the Gulf Coast
through the Midwest to New England.


NISOURCE INC: Appeal on "Poplar Creek" Dismissal Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the matter Poplar
Creek Development Company v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.,
remains pending in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
according to NiSource Inc.'s Aug. 3, 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 Eastern
District of Kentucky.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Chesapeake tendered the Poplar Creek case to
Columbia and Columbia conditionally assumed the defense of this
matter pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement.
Poplar Creek also purports to be a class action covering royalty
owners in the state of Kentucky and alleges that Chesapeake has
improperly deducted costs from the royalty payments; thus there is
some overlap of parties and issues between the Poplar Creek and
Thacker cases.

Chesapeake filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in
December 2008, which was granted on July 2, 2009.  Plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

NiSource Inc. -- http://www.nisource.com/-- based in
Merrillville, Ind., is a Fortune 500 company engaged in natural
gas transmission, storage and distribution, as well as electric
generation, transmission and distribution.  NiSource operating
companies deliver energy to 3.8 million customers located within
the high-demand energy corridor stretching from the Gulf Coast
through the Midwest to New England.


PASSAIC COUNTY, N.J.: Dozen Suits Over Jail Conditions Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cowen, writing for The Record, reports that when Jerry
Speziale became Passaic County's sheriff, he vowed to clean up the
jail and clean house by ending the political cronyism that had
marred the Sheriff's Department for decades.  But Mr. Speziale's
abrupt jump to a Port Authority job last week left behind a mass
of continuing legal actions against the department that allege
neglect of the jail and the same old favoritism.

More than 1,000 people attended Mr. Speziale's first swearing-in,
at the Passaic County Technical Institute in Wayne in January
2002.  They cheered as the first Democrat to be elected county
sheriff in 50 years promised to get rid of "no-show employees" and
"the criminals wearing badges."

Above all, he promised to restore professionalism and fairness.
"All promotions and assignments will be based on merit and
performance," Mr. Speziale said.

The charismatic sheriff, the 24-hour-a-day cop who loved the media
limelight, resigned to take a much lower-profile, albeit better-
paying, job with the Port Authority Police Department. He cited
family reasons. County Democrats are scrambling to find a
candidate for sheriff on the November ballot.

Mr. Speziale did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment
for this article.

As to what became of Mr. Speziale's promises:

When he exited, the department's workforce stood at 702, down from
861 in 2006, largely because the county's budget crisis in 2007
forced him to lay people off. At the same time, Mr. Speziale
shrunk the budget from a high of $75 million in 2007 to its
current $64 million. Those reductions took place after the county
stopped cramming the jail with state and federal prisoners taken
in for additional per-diem revenue, and closed down its juvenile
holding facility.

And the way the department handled the layoffs prompted familiar
cries of cronyism and politicking from the rank-and-file. The
forced reductions consequently triggered a series of lawsuits over
wrongful termination.

Among at least a dozen major lawsuits are several pending over
conditions in the jail, as well as a wrongful death suit filed by
the widow of an inmate, Ramon Aponte of Paterson, who was
allegedly killed by another prisoner.

Especially notable are a pair of lawsuits filed last year by two
employees of the Sheriff's Department, Darren Woolridge and Lori
Mambelli. Each suit paints a picture alleging widespread
corruption, one centering on drug dealing, the other about the
issuing of false police credentials to politically connected
individuals.

Here's a closer a look at a few of the major lawsuits pending:

          Darren Woolridge v. Passaic County Sheriff's Department:
In 2008, more than 100 pounds of cocaine and heroin were
discovered missing from the department's evidence locker in Wayne.
The staffer in charge of the locker, Sgt. Alan Souto of Haledon,
and a professional boxing manager, Henry Cortes, both pleaded
guilty to stealing the dope and funneling it to dealers in
Paterson. Both are now in prison.

Woolridge, a sheriff's officer laid off in 2008, alleges that
several department officers associated with known drug dealers and
shared information about police investigations with them. One
officer, Rae Galan, was charged with official misconduct in May
2009 and suspended without pay. The charge was later dropped by
the county Prosecutor's Office, and Galan was reinstated in July.
But Woolridge alleges there was a coverup and that he was fired
because he blew the whistle. The department has denied the
allegation and the case remains unresolved in U.S. District Court.

          Lori Mambelli v. Passaic County Sheriff's Department:
Mambelli, a captain and the highest-ranking female in the
department, claims she was pressured by superiors, including Mr.
Speziale on numerous occasions, to issue police credentials to
politically connected friends of the sheriff. Mambelli, once head
of the ID bureau, claims friends of the sheriff requested
identification cards indicating that they were a "sworn law
enforcement officer" and allowed to carry a gun. Some of the
civilians allegedly had criminal backgrounds or had no proof they
were American citizens. When she refused to issue them, Mambelli
claims she was pressured by brass, denied promotions and
ultimately transferred from the ID bureau. The department has
denied the claim and the suit is pending in U.S. District Court.

          Tamir Kozrosh v. Passaic County Sheriff's Department:
Kozrosh, a Muslim, was a corrections officer in the jail and
claims colleagues harassed him. He claims they posted a doctored
photo around the jail with his face superimposed over Osama bin
Laden's. In another instance, a jail captain allegedly placed pork
rinds on his car's windshield. Kozrosh claims he was fired after
complaining about anti-Muslim discrimination; the department
claims he was a provisional worker let go because of staff cuts.
The case is the subject of settlement talks in U.S. District
Court.

          Seton Hall Law School and the American Civil Liberties
Union v. Passaic County Sheriff's Department: The law school and
the ACLU filed a class-action suit in 2008 on behalf of prisoners
who they claim suffered from horrible jail conditions. The
complaint alleged there were rodent droppings in the food, sewage
backing up through floor drains and corrections officers beating
inmates out of view of security cameras. The county has entered
into a consent order to improve conditions, but repairs remain
incomplete. In recent weeks, a part of the jail had to be closed
and the inmates moved because of extreme heat and inadequate
ventilation.

"I can't talk about litigation, but my sense is that progress is
being made," said Freeholder Director Bruce James.

          Sonia Aponte v. Passaic County Sheriff's Department:
Aponte's husband, Ramon, was killed by another prisoner while in
the jail on July 6, 2007. Ramon Aponte, 50, was being held in a
cell with another inmate, Samuel Ramos, 19. Both were awaiting
psychiatric evaluations when Ramos allegedly beat and strangled
Aponte. The dead man's widow alleges that inmates who had shown
signs of mental instability should never have been held in the
same cell and that jail guards could have prevented the beating if
they had monitored the cell. The department claims the two men
were held in the same cell because of crowding. On the day of the
incident, there were 1,868 inmates, in a jail built to hold 894.
The case is in U.S. District Court and is pending trial.


PENWEST PHARMA: Accused in Wash. of Breaching Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders accuse directors
or Penwest Pharmaceuticals of self-dealing, unjust enrichment and
breach of duties in the proposed sale to Endo Pharmaceuticals, for
$5 a share, or $168 million, in King County Court, Seattle.

A copy of the Complaint in Jackson v. Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co.,
et al., Case No. 10-2-29162-8 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/13/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-623-7292

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN& DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 484-588-5516


PMA CAPITAL: Faces "Kahn" Lawsuit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of PMA Capital Corporation filed a complaint against
the company in Pennsylvania court for an alleged breach of
fiduciary duties, according to PMA Capital's August 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 9, 2010, the Company and Old Republic International
Corporation entered into a merger agreement pursuant to which Old
Republic will acquire all of the Company's outstanding common
stock.

On June 15, 2010, and as amended on July 30, 2010, a purported
derivative and class action lawsuit was filed by an alleged
shareholder of PMA Capital Corporation naming PMA Capital, its
Board of Directors, Old Republic International Corporation and OR
New Corp. as defendants.

The action was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania.  The action is Alan R. Kahn and Wister S.
Baisch v. Peter S. Burgess, et al., Case No. 2010-15690.

The complaint claims to be a class action on behalf of all of PMA
Capital's shareholders, except the defendants and any of their
affiliates.  The complaint alleges that the merger consideration
is inadequate, the proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection
with the merger fails to disclose all material information about
the merger, the directors of PMA Capital breached their fiduciary
duties and failed to manage prudently the business of PMA Capital
and Old Republic International Corporation and OR New Corp. aided
and abetted the alleged breaches by PMA Capital's directors.

The complaint seeks several forms of relief, including monetary
damages and injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the
merger from closing on the terms set forth in the merger
agreement.

The defendants believe that the complaint has no merit and intend
to vigorously defend against the action.

On June 29, 2010, a second complaint was filed by an alleged
shareholder of PMA Capital naming PMA Capital and its Board of
Directors as defendants.  The complaint was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The action was Wister
S. Baisch v. Peter S. Burgess, et al., Case ID 100603098.  The
matter was discontinued without prejudice by the plaintiff on
July 29, 2010, and the plaintiff joined the Kahn complaint.

PMA Capital Corporation -- http://www.pmacapital.com/--
headquartered in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, is a publicly traded
company whose shares are traded under the ticker symbol PMACA on
The NASDAQ Stock Market.  PMA Companies is a premier provider of
workers' compensation and related commercial insurance risk
management solutions to clients throughout the US. PMA Companies
is comprised of: The PMA Insurance Group, as well as fee-based
businesses, PMA Management Corp., PMA Management Corp. of New
England and Midlands Management Corporation.


RCN CORP: Awaiting Approval of Settlement of Delaware Action
------------------------------------------------------------
RCN Corp. is awaiting court approval of a memorandum of
understanding settling a class action complaint filed in Delaware,
according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

RCN entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Yankee Cable
Acquisition, LLC, Yankee Metro Parent, Inc., and Yankee Metro
Merger Sub, Inc., on March 5, 2010, pursuant to which those
entities agreed to acquire RCN for total consideration of
approximately $1.2 billion, including the assumption of debt.
Cable Buyer, Metro Parent and Merger Sub are controlled by a
private equity fund associated with ABRY Partners, LLC. The
transaction was approved at a special meeting of stockholders held
on May 19, 2010, and is expected to be completed in the second
half of 2010, subject to receipt of regulatory approvals, as well
as satisfaction of other customary closing conditions. The
transaction is not subject to any financing condition.

On March 8, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the Court
of Chancery in the State of Delaware, on behalf of putative
classes of RCN stockholders and naming RCN, all of the members of
RCN Board of Directors, Cable Buyer, Metro Parent, Merger Sub and,
in the case of the Delaware complaint, ABRY, as defendants,
alleging among other things breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the pending sale of RCN to affiliates of ABRY and seeking
injunctive relief and monetary damages in connection therewith.

On April 23, 2010, RCN, the members of its Board, Cable Buyer,
Metro Parent, Merger Sub and ABRY entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiff in the Delaware Action reflecting
an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action based on
the inclusion in the company's Definitive Proxy Statement of
certain additional disclosures that had been requested by the
plaintiff in the Delaware Action.

RCN, the members of RCN Board, Cable Buyer, Metro Parent, Merger
Sub and ABRY each have denied, and continue to deny, that they
have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in
the Delaware Action, and maintain that they have diligently and
scrupulously complied with their fiduciary, disclosure and other
legal duties.

RCN, the members of RCN Board, Cable Buyer, Metro Parent, Merger
Sub and ABRY believe that the Delaware Action is without merit,
and they have entered into the MOU solely to avoid the risk of
delaying the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and
to minimize the expense of litigation.  The MOU is subject to
customary conditions, including completion of appropriate
settlement documentation, completion of confirmatory discovery to
confirm the fairness of the settlement and approval by the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

If the settlement contemplated by the MOU is consummated, the
Delaware Action will be dismissed with prejudice and the
defendants and other released persons will receive from or on
behalf of all persons and entities who held RCN common stock at
any time from March 5, 2010, through the date of consummation of
the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement a release of
all claims relating to the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby and the disclosure made in connection
therewith.

Neither the MOU nor the proposed settlement would affect the
amount of the merger consideration that RCN stockholders would
be entitled to receive if the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement are consummated.  Notwithstanding, there can be
no assurance that the settlement contemplated by the MOU will be
completed.

RCN Corporation -- http://www.rcn.com/-- is a competitive
broadband services provider delivering all-digital and high
definition video, high-speed internet and premium voice services
to residential and small-medium business customers under the
brand names of RCN and RCN Business Services, respectively.  In
addition, through its RCN Metro Optical Networks business unit,
RCN delivers fiber-based high-capacity data transport services to
large commercial customers, primarily large enterprises and
carriers, targeting the metropolitan central business districts
in the company's geographic markets.  RCN's primary service areas
include Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Lehigh Valley (PA), New
York City, Boston and Chicago.


RCN CORP: Continues to Defend Against Virginia Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
RCN Corp. continues to defend itself in a class action complaint
filed in Virginia, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

RCN entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Yankee Cable
Acquisition, LLC, Yankee Metro Parent, Inc., and Yankee Metro
Merger Sub, Inc., on March 5, 2010, pursuant to which those
entities agreed to acquire RCN for total consideration of
approximately $1.2 billion, including the assumption of debt.
Cable Buyer, Metro Parent and Merger Sub are controlled by a
private equity fund associated with ABRY Partners, LLC. The
transaction was approved at a special meeting of stockholders held
on May 19, 2010, and is expected to be completed in the second
half of 2010, subject to receipt of regulatory approvals, as well
as satisfaction of other customary closing conditions. The
transaction is not subject to any financing condition.

On March 8, 2010 and March 11, 2010, class action complaints were
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
respectively, on behalf of putative classes of RCN stockholders
and naming RCN, all of the members of RCN Board of Directors,
Cable Buyer, Metro Parent, Merger Sub and, in the case of the
Delaware complaint, ABRY, as defendants, alleging among other
things breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the pending
sale of RCN to affiliates of ABRY and seeking injunctive relief
and monetary damages in connection therewith.

On April 23, 2010, RCN, the members of its Board, Cable Buyer,
Metro Parent, Merger Sub and ABRY entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiff in the Delaware Action reflecting
an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action based on
the inclusion in the company's Definitive Proxy Statement of
certain additional disclosures that had been requested by the
plaintiff in the Delaware Action.

If the settlement contemplated by the MOU is consummated, the
Delaware Action will be dismissed with prejudice and the
defendants and other released persons will receive from or on
behalf of all persons and entities who held RCN common
stock at any time from March 5, 2010, through the date of
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement a release of all claims relating to the Merger Agreement
and the transactions contemplated thereby and the disclosure made
in connection therewith -- including the claims asserted in the
Virginia Action.

On April 30, 2010, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia granted RCN's motion to stay the
Virginia Action and denied the Virginia plaintiff's motions for a
preliminary injunction and expedited proceedings.

RCN said it intends to continue to defend the Virginia Action
vigorously.

RCN Corporation -- http://www.rcn.com/-- is a competitive
broadband services provider delivering all-digital and high
definition video, high-speed internet and premium voice services
to residential and small-medium business customers under the
brand names of RCN and RCN Business Services, respectively.  In
addition, through its RCN Metro Optical Networks business unit,
RCN delivers fiber-based high-capacity data transport services to
large commercial customers, primarily large enterprises and
carriers, targeting the metropolitan central business districts
in the company's geographic markets.  RCN's primary service areas
include Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Lehigh Valley (PA), New
York City, Boston and Chicago.


RIGEL PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended complaint in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the company related to the results
of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product candidate R788,
remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its
officers, directors and underwriters for the company's February
2008 stock offering.

An additional purported securities class action lawsuit containing
similar allegations was subsequently filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 20, 2009.

By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action.

On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the Inter-Local
Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia as lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
July 24, 2009.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 8, 2009.  On Dec.
21, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion and dismissed the
consolidated complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on Jan. 27,
2010.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements made by the company related to the
results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product candidate
R788.  The plaintiffs seek damages, including rescission or
rescissory damages for purchasers in the stock offering, an award
of their costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for
purchasers of its common stock during the period between Dec. 13,
2007 and Feb. 9, 2009, including purchasers in the stock offering.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on Feb. 16, 2010.

Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete and the company is
awaiting a ruling on that motion from the Court.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com-- is a
clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and
develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory
and autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases.  The company's
research focuses on intracellular signaling pathways and related
targets that are critical to disease mechanisms.  Rigel has
collaborations with pharmaceutical partners to develop and market
its product candidates.  The company has internal product
development programs in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, such
as rheumatoid arthritis and thrombocytopenia, and cancer, as well
as partnered product development programs relating to asthma and
cancer.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Continues to Face 3 Lawsuits Over Arena Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc., continues to face three putative class
action lawsuits in Oklahoma regarding its merger with Arena
Resources, Inc., according to Sandridge's August 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On July 16, 2010, the Company and one of its subsidiaries
completed the acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of
common stock of Arena for a combination of Company common stock
and cash.

As disclosed in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2010, after the April 3, 2010
announcement of the transaction, nine putative class action
lawsuits challenging the transaction were filed in Oklahoma and
Nevada by Arena stockholders.  All nine lawsuits contained
substantially similar allegations -- that Arena's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and approving the
transaction and by administering a sale process that failed to
maximize stockholder value and that Arena, the Company and/or a
subsidiary of the Company aided and abetted such alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty. One lawsuit was filed in federal court and also
alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with
allegedly issuing an incomplete and misleading proxy statement.
The lawsuits sought, among other relief, an injunction preventing
the consummation of the merger and, in certain cases, unspecified
damages.

On May 27, 2010, the Company and Arena reached an agreement in
principle -- and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing --
for the coordinated settlement of six of the putative stockholder
class actions related to the merger, including five of the
lawsuits filed in state courts in Nevada and Oklahoma and the
lawsuit filed in federal court. In connection with this agreement,
the Company and Arena agreed to provide certain additional
disclosures about the merger and to amend certain provisions of
the merger agreement with respect to payment of termination fees
and non-solicitation of alternative takeover proposals. The
additional disclosures about the merger were made in joint Current
Reports on Form 8-K filed by the Company and Arena on May 28,
2010.

The three remaining lawsuits arising from the acquisition of Arena
were stayed by the District Court of Oklahoma County on May 10,
2010.  On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiffs commenced appellate
proceedings before the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging the stay
and filed an emergency motion seeking to expedite the appeal. On
July 8, 2010, the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the emergency
motion and, as of the date of August 9, 2010, there has been no
further action with respect to these proceedings. The Company
believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously against them.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is a natural gas and oil company
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma with its principal focus
on exploration and production.  SandRidge and its subsidiaries
also own and operate gas gathering and processing facilities and
CO2 treating and transportation facilities and conduct marketing
and tertiary oil recovery operations.  In addition, Lariat
Services, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of SandRidge, owns and
operates a drilling rig and related oil field services business.
SandRidge focuses its exploration and production activities in
West Texas, the Permian Basin, the Mid-Continent, the Cotton
Valley Trend in East Texas, the Gulf Coast, and the Gulf of
Mexico.


SCI WESTERN: Ct. Dismisses Plaintiffs That Didn't Comply Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mary H. Murguia granted SCI Western Market Support
Center, L.P., et al.'s Motion to Dismiss All Opt-In Plaintiffs Who
Have Failed to Comply With This Court's Discovery Orders.

The judge directed the parties in the case to meet and confer,
either telephonically or in person, and thereafter provide the
Court with a joint list of all opt-in Plaintiffs who are to be
dismissed and those who are to be exempt for good cause.

In November 2009, Defendants submitted a set of 11 interrogatories
to each of the approximately 1,400 individuals who "opted-into"
the Federal Labor Standards Act class action as Plaintiffs.  On
January 12, 2010, the Court held a hearing where Plaintiffs were
ordered to respond.

On April 5, 2010, the Court held yet another hearing to deal with
Defendants' interrogatories, among other discovery related
concerns.  At this hearing, Defendants pointed out -- despite the
Court's previous Order overruling Plaintiffs' objections to the
set of eleven interrogatories -- that all of the individual opt-in
Plaintiffs who had answered the interrogatories included identical
objections and verbatim qualifying language in their responses.
Defendants argued that the responses obscured the questions
presented and rendered the interrogatories worthless.  Defendants
also noted that many individual opt-in Plaintiffs had altogether
failed to answer.  The Court then ordered all individual opt-in
Plaintiffs to submit new responses to Defendants' interrogatories.
For those opt-in Plaintiffs that had submitted non-conforming
responses, the Court directed that they respond in a manner more
responsive to Defendants' questions.  For those individual opt-in
Plaintiffs who had yet to respond, the Court determined that those
individuals would be provided with another opportunity to answer
Defendants' interrogatories.  The Court proceeded to set May 14,
2010 as the deadline for all opt-in Plaintiffs to submit revised
interrogatory responses.  Counsel for Defendants then suggested
that the Court set an appropriate sanction in advance of any
responses.  Defense counsel requested the ultimate sanction of
dismissal for any opt-in Plaintiffs failing to submit conforming
responses by May 14, 2010.  This request was strongly opposed by
Counsel for Plaintiffs. The Court concluded the hearing by
directing the Parties to submit supplemental briefing on May 14,
2010 as to the sanction issue, noting that "the Court will
entertain briefing as to why [dismissal of non-responsive opt-in
plaintiffs] wouldn't be [an appropriate] sanction absent good
cause."

On May 14, 2010, both Parties submitted supplemental briefing as
to the appropriate sanction for opt-in Plaintiffs who failed to
comply with the Court's discovery Order.  On May 20, 2010, for
purposes of creating a clear court record, Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss.  On June 16, 2010, the Court heard oral
argument on that Motion, which was supported by the Parties'
earlier supplemental briefing.

The case is James Stickle, et al., plaintiff, v. SCI Western
Market Support Center, L.P., et al., defendant, case no.
08-cv-083 (D. Ariz. August 13, 2010), and a copy of the order is
available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100813958


STEC INC: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated suit remains pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

From Nov. 6, 2009, through March 2, 2010, seven purported class
action complaints were filed against the company and several of
its senior officers and directors.

The Court consolidated these actions and appointed Lead
Plaintiffs.

A consolidated complaint was filed on April 9, 2010, and is
purportedly brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
acquired the company's common stock during the period of June 16,
2009, to Feb. 23, 2010.

The consolidated complaint alleges claims against the company and
several of its senior officers and directors for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and claims against several of the company's
senior officers and directors for violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory
damages for all damages sustained as a result of the defendants'
alleged actions including reasonable costs and expenses, and other
relief the Court may deem just and proper.

On May 12, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On July 15, 2010, prior to hearing the defendants' motion, the
Court replaced the former Lead Plaintiffs with a new Lead
Plaintiff.

The Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss.

STEC, Inc., fka SimpleTech, Inc. -- http://www.stec-inc.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and markets custom memory
solutions based on Flash memory and Dynamic Random Access Memory
technologies.  Headquartered in Santa Ana, California, the company
specializes in developing high-density DRAM memory modules and
high-speed, high-capacity solid state Flash drives and memory
cards used in sensitive and highly- volatile environments.  STEC
offers a comprehensive product line of Flash and DRAM-based memory
solutions used by original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs.


TREX COMPANY: Records Additional $9 Million in Warranty Reserve
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc., relates that it recorded an addition of
$9.0 million to its warranty reserve in the second quarter of
2010, in connection with the settlement of a class action suit,
according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 2007, the company substantially increased its warranty reserve
related to surface flaking of a limited amount of product produced
at the company's Nevada facility prior to mid-2006.

During 2009, a class action suit related to surface flaking was
filed against Trex.

The company believes that, as a result of the suit and related
public announcements in several national periodicals and the
subsequent announcement of the settlement in March 2010, there was
an influx of claims.  These claims have been reviewed, and as a
result, the warranty reserve was increased.

Accordingly, the company recorded an addition of $9.0 million to
its warranty reserve in the second quarter of 2010.

Trex Company, Inc. -- http://www.trex.com/-- manufactures
composite decking, railing and fencing.  Built on "green"
principles and values, Trex makes its products from a unique
formulation of reclaimed wood and waste plastic, combined through
a proprietary process.  Trex decking, railing and fencing offer
significant design flexibility with fewer ongoing maintenance
requirements than wood, as well as a truly environmentally
responsible choice.  In addition, Trex distributes ultra-low
maintenance PVC decking under the trademark Trex Escapes(R) and
PVC trim under the trademark TrexTrim(TM).


TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. Suit Complains About "Smart Keys"
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyotas with "smart keys" are
dangerous because the cars will continue to run if the driver
forgets to push the off key, even after removing it, according to
a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court.


WASHINGTON D.C.: Part of DCPS Special Educ. Suit May Be Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Fabel, writing for The Washington Examiner, reports that
dispute over the quality of special needs programs remains
unresolved.  Lawyers say the most substantive portion of a 13-year
lawsuit over the District's failure to provide adequate special
education services will remain unresolved this year, even as city
officials tout an agreement to drop part of the complaint.

The lawsuit, referred to as the Blackman-Jones case, concerns the
school system's ongoing struggle to provide timely hearings and
solutions for dissatisfied parents, and the clearing of a backlog
of complaints that had hardly been dealt with at all.

Last week, D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles announced that the
Blackman portion of the case, demanding timely hearings for
aggrieved parents, likely will be dismissed in court by September
2010, in agreement with the plaintiffs.

No agreement has been reached on the meatier "Jones" portion of
the case, concerning the delivery of adequate special education
services in response to the complaints, lawyers said.

Ira Burnim, Esq., a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said "significant
strides" have been made by D.C. Public Schools and the Office of
the State Superintendent regarding timely hearings.  A new chief
hearing officer was hired, and some "problematic" officers did not
have their contracts renewed, he said.

Mayor Adrian Fenty commended the likely resolution of Blackman,
saying the case "has been an important impetus for the District to
work to improve special education services in our neighborhood
schools."  Regarding "Jones," however, Mr. Nickles predicted a
resolution in the next six months.

Mr. Burnim was less optimistic, saying the six-month goal is "very
uncertain." The disagreement over timing comes down to a
disagreement about whether students with diagnosed special needs
-- from autism to mental illness to dyslexia -- are actually
receiving a good education.

According to the city, at least 90% of them are on track, putting
the schools in compliance with the law.

But according to Mr. Burnim, two separate studies showed that the
compliance rate is actually "significantly lower" than 90%.  "What
was happening is that they were taking some shortcuts that didn't
ensure that the kids got services that they were supposed to get,"
he said.


WEBMD HEALTH: Has Until Aug. 23 to File Joint Discovery Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut gave WebMD
Health Corp. until August 23, 2010, to file a joint class-related
discovery plan in relation to a lawsuit alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the company's
August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In December 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Dr. Roger H. Kaye (and
Roger H. Kaye MD PC) individually, and as an alleged class action,
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and under a similar
Connecticut statute, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut against subsidiaries of the Company.

The lawsuit claims that faxes allegedly sent during the period
August 1, 2006, to the present by subsidiaries of the Company and
by The Little Blue Book business that the Company sold in
September 2009 were sent in violation of the TCPA and the
Connecticut statute.

With respect to the TCPA claims, the lawsuit seeks statutory
damages in excess of $5,000 for each of two classes of plaintiffs,
and a trebling of those damages.  With respect to the claims under
the Connecticut statute, under which trebling is unavailable, the
lawsuit additionally seeks an undetermined amount of damages.

In April 2010, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making
substantially the same claims as were asserted in the original
complaint.  The Company's subsidiaries have filed their answer as
well as a motion to dismiss the action with prejudice on the
grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and also
filed a motion to stay discovery, which was granted pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss.

On July 8, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and
ordered that class-related discovery should proceed, while
continuing a stay of full merits discovery.  The Court has further
ordered the parties to submit a joint class-related discovery plan
and schedule by August 23, 2010, targeted toward determining
whether the case should proceed as a class action.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend the action.

WebMD Health Corp. -- http://www.webmd.com/-- is a provider of
health information services to consumers, physicians and other
healthcare professionals, employers and health plans through its
public and private online portals and health-focused
publications.


WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Sued in Colo. Over Alleged "Systematic Fraud"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that more than
700 students and 50 employees complained about "systemic fraud" at
for-profit Westwood College, according to a federal class action.
Students say the college lied about its accreditation, tuition,
fees, job placement services and curriculum, so as to enroll as
many student-victims as possible and "maximize its obtainment of
federal and private loan money."  The complaint is one of at least
four class actions filed around the country late last week
alleging fraud at for-profit colleges.

The U.S. Senate has joined the Government Accountability Office in
investigating such colleges, which receive 25% of the federal
Title IV loans and grants, though they enroll just 10% of U.S.
college students, according to the class action complaint.

The 32-page complaint cites findings from the GAO and testimony of
for-profit college administrators and members of accreditation
boards who testified to the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions (the HELP Committee).

The HELP Committee held its first hearing on the alleged "systemic
fraud" in for-profit colleges on June 24.  According to the
Westwood class action: "The report from the first hearing found
that for-profit colleges spend huge sums of Federal Title IV
dollars -- taxpayer dollars -- on TV advertisements, billboards,
phone solicitation, web marketing and aggressive sales staff.  It
noted that the for-profit industry obtains an alarming 25% of the
$89 billion in Federal Title IV loans and grants, despite
enrolling only 10% of post-secondary education students.  By
spending an average of 31% of their revenue on advertising as
compared to the 2% that is usually spent by community colleges,
defendants and others in the industry turn profit margins that are
among the highest in corporate America. While the HELP Committee's
first report was instructive, it barely brushed the surface of
defendants' deceptive trade practices.

Westwood operated under a slew of corporate umbrellas, including
Alta Colleges, Grant Corp., Trav Corp., Wesgray Corp., Paris
Management Co., Elbert Inc., Bounty Island Corp., and also did
business as Westwood College Online and Redstone College,
according to the complaint.

Two individuals also are named as defendants: George Burnett,
acting CEO and director of Alta Colleges, and William Ojile, chief
legal and compliance officer for Alta Colleges and its
subsidiaries.

Westwood, on the other hand, claims that the attorneys bringing
about such class actions suits against the school do not actually
represent a class of former students and have "engaged in the 'in
terrorem' tactic of filing serial 'strike suits' in several states
-- all with the hopes of extracting an attorney's fee-rich
settlement," it stated in a letter to CNS.

It says that such accusations "are opportunistic, not
representative of the experiences of the overwhelming majority of
Westwood students and graduates, and therefore cannot proceed on a
class basis," to which the American Association of Arbitration has
agreed, the school claims.

In their complaint, the lawyers for the plaintiffs say, "Burnett
did not hold an academic position before being tapped as CEO and
director of Alta Colleges.  Rather, he had a history of marketing,
online, and technological business experience from his previous
position as the chief marketing officer for Qwest Communications
International, a large telecommunications company.  Qwest was
investigated by the SEC for securities fraud and eventually fined
about $250 million for fraudulently reporting $4 billion in
revenue and expenses.  As CEO of Alta Colleges, Burnett ushered in
an era of aggressive sales and marketing tactics that he honed at
Qwest geared to raise revenues and maximize profit.  To this end,
Burnett devised, implemented, authorized, or sanctioned the
internal policies and the comprehensive training programs that
teach Westwood's admissions representatives to engage in the
deceptive trade practices described herein."  The complaint adds:
"Previous to his current position, Ojile worked alongside Burnett
at Qwest."

According to the Westwood students deceptive trade complaint: "As
detailed in the accounts of more than 700 students, more than 50
former employees, and the United States Senate, defendants engage
in deceptive trade practices at every step of the process from
recruitment to post-graduate job placement.  Defendants train
their admissions representatives to provide uniform
misrepresentations and make material omissions as to the costs and
fees related to Westwood programs; job placement opportunities and
salary expectations; accreditation status and the transferability
of credits; and the academic qualifications and roles of the
admissions representatives themselves.  As revealed at the second
HELP Committee Hearing, when defendants' conduct in these areas
became so outrageous that the Accrediting Commission of Career
Schools and Colleges ('ACCSC') issued a show cause order asking
why Westwood should be entitled to keep its accreditation,
Westwood responded by telling ACCSC "that they had chosen to make
application at another agency . . . because they were unable to
meet our standards with regards to student achievement. . . .
Notably, ACCSC is the same accrediting agency that had standards
lax enough to enable several of the other 15 for-profit colleges
exposed in the GAO report to engage in blatantly deceptive trade
practices."

The class claims that Westwood and its co-defendants "for years
have been deceiving tens of thousands of students into pursuing an
'education' that has little-to-no value.  Defendants follow a
simple formula: recruit those with the greatest financial need and
enroll them in high-cost institutions to maximize the amount of
federal funding defendants receive.  In 2008, Alta Colleges
received $181 million in federal funds ($27.5 million in Pell
Grants and $154.4 million in federal loans)."

Westwood charges from $68,174 to $81,905, or more, for a
bachelor's degree, according to the complaint.

"Prior to the congressional scrutiny, defendants flourished in the
unscrupulous culture of the for-profit college industry, making it
clear why the words 'for profit' come before 'college,'" the
complaint states.  "Through their institutions known as Westwood
College. Westwood College Online and Redstone College
(collectively 'Westwood'), defendants have perfected the art of
preying on the hopes and dreams of vulnerable students who are
desperately seeking better lives.  Defendants spend more on
recruiting than any other portion of their operations, including
education instruction.  The extreme amount of money spent on
advertising has produced flashy Westwood commercials, which offer
the enticing promise that 'Your future is in your hands,' followed
by the invitation to find out 'What will it hold?' Students
understandably answer with dreams of graduate degrees; high-
paying, gratifying careers; and, more than anything else, brighter
futures.  The reality is that Westwood knows exactly what the
answer is for many of these students: lives impaired by
insurmountable debt obtained in the pursuit of useless degrees."

Among other things, the class claims that Westwood admissions
representatives hide the true cost of admissions and reveal
tuition rates only "on a 'per term' basis because most traditional
schools have only two to three terms per year while Westwood has
five."

Westwood inflates its job placement statistics to lure students,
the class claims.

"For example, admissions representatives would routinely promise a
game-design student a high-paying job at a major development
company when, in reality, the highest possible position they could
obtain is a game-tester at approximately $10 an hour.  Further,
game-tester is a job that can be obtained without a college degree
and certainly without $80,000 in debt," the complaint states.

The class adds that "Westwood may consider a copy assistant at
Kinko's to be a job in the graphic design field or a shift manager
at Quizno's as a business management job."

Though Westwood is nationally accredited, it failed to disclose
that it was denied regional accreditation by the Higher Learning
Commission, the complaint states.  The school claimed that that
accreditation was "just around the corner," would be
"retroactive," which is untrue, the class says.  It adds that
admissions counselors misrepresented Westwood's accreditation
status, leading "students into believing that national
accreditation is of equal or even greater value than regional
accreditation," failing to state that Westwood credits may not
transfer to other schools.

Admissions reps at Westwood are under constant pressure to "meet a
minimum enrollment quota to maintain employment and receive
promotions," according to the complaint.

Students say the admissions officers are given incentives "to sign
up as many students as possible over that quota by participating
in competitive 'games' based on applications, actual enrollments,
and sales tactics."

Westwood divides its representatives into teams and encourages
them to announce their new sales "in a demeaning and degrading
manner," the class claims.

The complaint continues: "By way of illustration, an admissions
representative sent an email from 'The Drivers' team stating
'Everyone Hit the DECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A Drive BY JUST Occurred!'
with a violent depiction of a drive-by shooting."

That "drive-by" message announced that a sales rep had just
procured "his second application of the day," the class says.

The two named plaintiffs are Krystel Bernal and Amanda Krol.

Bernal claims that Westwood charged her "more than $75,000 in
tuition, books and fees" for a three-year degree in fashion
merchandising -- "more than $20,000 more than the figure provided
by the admissions representative."  She says she applied for that
amount in federal and private student loans.  She adds that
"during her final quarter at Westwood," she was told "that if she
did not pay her account balance in full by graduation, she would
automatically receive an Apex loan in the amount of her account
balance with an interest rate of 18%, and she would not receive
her diploma."

As a final insult, she says, "When Bernal informed the team that
she intended to seek a job in fashion merchandising -- the career
towards which she had now paid $75,000 -- Westwood's
representatives told Bernal to not 'aim so high.' Instead, she was
advised to look for an 'entry level' position in retail sales at
local department stores -- the very position that Bernal had prior
to attending Westwood, and for which she knew she did not need a
college degree."

Ms. Krol, a single mom, says she was charged more than $85,000 for
a four-year degree in criminal justice, and that Westwood's
admission rep told her "that Westwood would help her find a Job
after graduation and that she could expect to make over $100,000 a
year while working for organizations like Disney or the FBI."

But once she enrolled, Ms. Krol says, Westwood not only charged
her "much more money for tuition and costs," but "All the while,
the admissions representatives, who had been so eager to help Krol
during enrollment, were no longer communicating with her."

She says that when she found that she could not transfer her
credits, as she had been promised, she "felt that she had no
choice but to complete her Westwood education" because she and her
mother were already tens of thousands of dollars in debt."

The class demands damages for deceptive trade.

A copy of the Complaint in Bernal, et al. v. Burnett, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-01917 (D. Colo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/16/Westwood2.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan C. Friedberg, Esq.
          Timothy M. Kratz, Esq.
          PENDLETON, FRIEDBERG, WILSON & HENNESSEY, P.C.
          1875 Lawrence St., 10th Floor
          Denver, CO 80202-1898
          Telephone: 303-839-1204
          E-mail: afriedberg@penberg.com
                  kratz@penberg.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          Sean Estes, Esq.
          JAMES, HOYER, NEWCOMER, SMILJANICH & YANCHUNIS, P.A.
          4830 West Kennedy Blvd.
          Urban Center One, Suite 550
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: 813-286-4100
          E-mail: jyanchunis@jameshoyer.com
                  jcohen@jameshoyer.com
                  sestes@jameshoyer.com

                           *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, 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  * * *