CAR_Public/100824.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 24, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 166

                             Headlines

APOLLO GROUP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Statements
APPLIED MICRO: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Settlement Order
ARGO GROUP: Dismissal of PXREgroup Lawsuit Now Final
BECTON DICKINSON: Motion to Enjoin Settlement Agreement Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend "Bales" Suit

BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeals Court Affirms Small Tube Suit Dismissal
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
CENTURY 21: Judge Gives Class Action Status to Franchise Fund Suit
CHARTER COMMS: Goodell Settlement Approval Hearing in September
CHARTER COMMS: Faces Third Amended Complaint in Louisiana

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Defends "Lebryk" Suit in Illinois
CHARTER COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Bankruptcy Court Ruling
CLECO CORP: Cleco Power Faces Second Suit in Louisiana
DISH NETWORK: Faces Appeal of Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissal
DISH NETWORK: Trial on Retailer Class Suit Starts Oct. 12

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Hearing Set Wednesday on Shareholder Lawsuits
EQUINIX INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement Agreement
GANLEY MANAGEMENT: Ohio Appeals Court Holds Class Claim Dismissal
GLG PARTNERS: Reaches Settlement of Del. Suit Over Man Group Deal
IBM CORP: Accused in Texas Suit of Not Paying Overtime

INTERNAP NETWORK: Wants Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
JDA SOFTWARE: Discovery Ongoing in i2 Shareholder Suit
LAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls 3,700 Double Strollers
LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" & "Christ" Plaintiffs May Reinstate Appeal
LPL FINANCIAL: Court Orders Filing of Joint Stipulation by Aug. 27

MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Awaiting Decision on Class Action
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: 9th Cir. Reverses $29MM Award to 2 Law Firms
MERSCORP INC: Faces Class Action RICO Suit Over Foreclosure Fraud
NATIONAL CITY: Class Action Settlement Receives Court Approval
NATIONAL WESTERN: Awaits Court Approval of $17MM Suit Settlement

NBTY INC: Faces "Hutchins" Lawsuit in New York
NBTY INC: Faces "Gottlieb" Lawsuit Challenging Sale to Carlyle
NBTY INC: Stay in "Pesek" Suit Remains; CMC Continues
NBTY INC: "Beidler" Suit v. MET-Rx Unit Remains Stayed
NETWORK ENGINES: Appeal of Settlement Order in IPO Suit Pending

NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Suit Still Pending
PHILIPS ARENA: Abbey Spanier Files Suit for Suite Attendants
PNC FINANCIAL: Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Settlement Order
PNC FINANCIAL: Motion to Transfer Threatens Columbia Settlement
PNM RESOURCES: Navajo Allottees Appeal Order Dismissing Suit

PRICELINE.COM INC: Limited Discovery in Rome Suit Ongoing
PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Decision on Post-Verdict Motions
PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Dismiss Lake County Convention Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Gallup Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Plea
PRICELINE.COM INC: Certification Granted in Goodlettsville Suit

PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in Lyndhurst Suit Remains Pending
ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Filed by Earl Jones Victims
SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: 9th Circuit Tosses Suit as Another Looms
SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.
SMUGGLER'S ENTERPRISES: Move to Dismiss "Bates" Suit Partly Denied

SPRINT NEXTEL: Accused of Breaching Manufacturer's Warranty
SOLECTRON CORP: Shareholders' Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action
SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals on Consolidated Suit Settlement Pending
SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Discrimination Against Filipinos
SYNGENTA CROP: Aug. 25 Hearing on Bid to Quash Tillery Subpoena

TRANSMITTER SOLUTIONS: Sued for Making Unsolicited Fax Ads
TYSON FOODS: Court Sets Trial in "Williams" FLSA Suit for Oct. 12
TYSON FOODS: Appeals Pending in Consumer Refund Settlement
TULSA, OKLAHOMA: Reaches Settlement With Black Officers
UNITED KINGDOM: Might Face Class Action Suit by Holocaust Refugees

UNITED PARCEL: Barber Auto Lawsuit Still Pending in Alabama
UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Lawsuit Still Pending in New York
UNITED STATES: Suit Accuses Census Bureau of Bias in Job Screening
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Is Pending
YRC WORLDWIDE: Reply on Opposition to Dismissal Due Sept. 15

                            *********

APOLLO GROUP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, a professional corporation, said Thursday that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Apollo Group, Inc., during the period
between December 7, 2009 and August 3, 2010, inclusive.

Brower Piven said that no class has yet been certified in the
action and that members of the Class will be represented by the
lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.

The Complaint alleges that despite extensive positive statements
by defendants in press releases and SEC filings during the Class
Period regarding Apollo's operational performance and future
growth projections, these statements were false due to various
factors as like:

     1. Defendants had propped up the Company's results by
        fraudulently inducing students to enroll in Apollo's
        scholastic and educational programs and engaged in other
        manipulative recruiting tactics.

     2. Defendants had materially overstated the Company's growth
        prospects by failing to properly disclose that defendants
        had engaged in illicit and improper recruiting activities.

     3. Apollo did not maintain adequate systems of internal
        operational or financial controls.


APPLIED MICRO: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Settlement Order
----------------------------------------------------------
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation is still awaiting a decision on
appeals filed in connection with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York's order granting final approval of a
settlement in "IPO laddering cases," 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 October 6, 2009, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing the case. The Court
subsequently issued a final judgment. Several appeals of the
settlement and judgment were filed between October 29 and November
4, 2009. Should the settlement be overturned on appeal and the
final approval vacated, the Company's liability, if any, could not
be reasonably estimated at this time.

The Company acquired JNI Corporation in October 2003.  In November
2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against JNI and the
underwriters of its initial and secondary public offerings of
common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, case no. 01-Civ-10740 (SAS).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with JNI's public
offerings.  This lawsuit is among more than 300 class action
lawsuits pending in this District Court that have come to be known
as the "IPO laddering cases."  In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), a settlement has been
reached in all of the cases.

On October 6, 2009, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing the case.  The Court
subsequently issued a final judgment.  Several appeals of the
settlement and judgment were filed between October 29 and November
4, 2009.  Should the settlement be overturned on appeal and the
final approval vacated, the Company's liability, if any, could not
be reasonably estimated at this time, the Company said.

Applied Micro Circuits Corp. provides semiconductors and printed
circuit board assemblies for the communications and storage
markets. The Company is headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif.


ARGO GROUP: Dismissal of PXREgroup Lawsuit Now Final
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York's dismissal of a securities class action against Argo Group
International Holdings Ltd. is now final and not subject to
further review or appeal, 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.

Between May 3, 2006, and June 16, 2006, several class action
lawsuits were filed against PXREGroup Ltd., now Argo Group, and
certain former officers of PXRE on behalf of a putative class of
plaintiffs consisting of investors who purchased PXRE securities
traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "PXT" between September
11, 2005 and February 22, 2006.

The lawsuits were consolidated into one proceeding before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and were the subject of an Amended Class Action Complaint filed on
June 15, 2007.

The Amended Complaint alleges that during the purported class
period PXRE fraudulently understated the full impact of hurricanes
Katrina, Rita and Wilma on PXRE's business and that certain PXRE
executives made a series of materially false and misleading
statements or omissions about PXRE's business, prospects and
operations in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act.

On March 4, 2009, the Amended Complaint was dismissed with
prejudice by the District Court.  On December 21, 2009, the
District Court's decision was affirmed on appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the class
plaintiff's petition for rehearing was denied by the Court of
Appeals on January 11, 2010.

The District Court's dismissal of the Class Action is now final
and not subject to further review or appeal, the Company said.

Argo Group International Holdings Ltd. (Argo Group), formerly PXRE
Group Ltd. (PXRE) -- https://www.argolimited.com/ -- is an
international underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance
products in the property and casualty market.  For the year ended
December 31, 2007, Argo Group?s operations included three business
segments: Excess and Surplus Lines, Select Markets and
International Specialty.  Two operations are included in Argo
Group's Excess and Surplus Lines business segment Colony Insurance
Company and Argonaut Specialty.  Select Markets segment provides
property and casualty coverages designed to meet the specialized
insurance needs of businesses within certain defined markets.  The
International Specialty segment underwrites international and
United States reinsurance business.  In May 2008, it announced the
formation of Argo Surety.  In May 2008, it announced the
acquisition of 90% interest in Heritage Underwriting Agency plc.
In October 2008, it announced the launch of Argo Financial
Products Limited.


BECTON DICKINSON: Motion to Enjoin Settlement Agreement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of certain indirect purchaser plaintiffs seeking to
enjoin the consummation of the settlement entered into by Becton,
Dickinson and Co., and the direct purchaser plaintiffs, remains
pending, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

Direct Purchaser's Suit

The company is named as a defendant in these purported class
action suits brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the
company's products, such as distributors, alleging that the
company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging
of higher prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and
other purported class members.

The suits are:

     (1) Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et al. vs.
         Becton Dickinson and Company (filed in the U.S.
         District Court, Newark, New Jersey, on March 25, 2005);

     (2) SAJ Distributors, Inc. et al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
         Co. (filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District
         of Pennsylvania on Sept. 6, 2005);

     (3) Dik Drug Company, et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
         Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New
         Jersey, Sept. 12, 2005);

     (4) American Sales Company, Inc. et al. vs. Becton,
         Dickinson & Co. (filed in the U.S. District Court,
         Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 3, 2005); and

     (5) Park Surgical Co. Inc. et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
         and Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
         District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 26, 2005).

These actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.

Indirect Purchaser's Suits

The company is also named as a defendant in these purported class
action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the
company's products, alleging that the company violated federal and
state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices
for the company's products to the plaintiff and other purported
class members.

The suits are:

     (1) Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson &
         Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Greenville,
         Tennessee on June 7, 2005);

     (2) Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson
         and Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Newark,
         New Jersey on Jan. 17, 2006);

     (3) Medstar v. Becton Dickinson (filed in the U.S. District
         Court, Newark, New Jersey on May 18, 2006); and

     (4) The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
         Dickinson and Company (filed in the U.S. District
         Court, Southern District of New York on March 28,
         2007).

A fifth purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers,
International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice v. Becton
Dickinson & Company (U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey),
filed on April 5, 2007 was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek
monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) in Federal court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the direct purchaser plaintiffs in these actions.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
preliminary and final approval by the court following notice to
potential class members, the company will pay $45,000,000 into a
settlement fund in exchange for a release by all potential class
members of the direct purchaser claims related to the products and
acts enumerated in the Complaint, as well as a dismissal of the
case with prejudice.  The release would not cover potential class
members that affirmatively opt out of the settlement.

No settlement has been reached to date with the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs in these cases, which will continue to the extent these
cases relate to their claims.

On May 7, 2009, certain indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the
litigation, who are not parties to the settlement, filed a motion
with the court seeking to enjoin the consummation of the
settlement agreement on the grounds that, among other things, the
court had not yet ruled on the issue of which plaintiffs have
direct purchaser standing.

The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the indirect
plaintiffs' motions regarding direct purchaser standing and the
proposed injunction of the settlement.

Becton, Dickinson and Company -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a
medical technology company engaged in the manufacture and sale of
a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and
diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science
researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general
public.  The segments in which the company operates include BD
Medical, BD Diagnostics and BD Biosciences.


BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend "Bales" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company, continues to defend that matter
Bales v. Becton Dickinson et al., Case No. 98-CP-40- 4343, filed
in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas.

On Nov. 25, 1998, a suit was filed against the company on behalf
of an unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class
action certification in state court.

The action alleges that healthcare workers have sustained
needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices manufactured by the
company and, as a result, require medical testing, counseling
and/or treatment.  The plaintiff seeks money damages.

There is no current activity in this case.  The company continues
to oppose class action certification in this case, including
pursuing all appropriate rights of appeal.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Becton, Dickinson and Company -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a
medical technology company engaged in the manufacture and sale of
a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and
diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science
researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general
public.  The segments in which the company operates include BD
Medical, BD Diagnostics and BD Biosciences.


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeals Court Affirms Small Tube Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary
judgment in favor of all of defendants and dismissing a class
action complaint in connection with the amended third-party
complaint involving Brush Engineered Materials Inc., according to
the Company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2,
2010.

A purported class action styled Gary Anthony v. Small Tube
Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Small Tube Products Corporation,
Inc., et al., was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, case no. 000525, on
Sept. 7, 2006.  The case was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, case number 06-CV-4419,
on Oct. 4, 2006.  The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.  The
defendants are Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation, d/b/a Small
Tube Products Corporation, Inc.; Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube
Methods, Inc.; and Cabot Corporation.  The plaintiff purports to
sue on behalf of a class of current and former employees of the
U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have ever
been exposed to beryllium for a period of at least one month while
employed at U.S. Gauge.  The plaintiff has brought claims for
negligence.  Plaintiff seeks the establishment of a medical
monitoring trust fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines
and procedures for medical screening and monitoring of the class,
attorneys' fees and expenses.  Defendant Tube Methods, Inc., filed
a third-party complaint against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action
on Nov. 15, 2006.  Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied
beryllium-containing products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods
worked on those products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods
for indemnification and contribution.  Brush moved to dismiss the
Tube Methods complaint on December 22, 2006.
On January 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended third-party
complaint, which Brush moved to dismiss on January 26, 2007;
however, the Court denied the motion on September 28, 2007.  Brush
filed its answer to the amended third-party complaint on October
19, 2007.  On November 14, 2007, two of the defendants filed a
joint motion for an order permitting discovery to make the
threshold determination of whether plaintiff is sensitized to
beryllium.  On February 29, 2008, Brush filed a motion for summary
judgment based on plaintiff's lack of any substantially increased
risk of CBD.  Oral argument on this motion took place on June 13,
2008.  On Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted the motion for summary
judgment in favor of all of the defendants and dismissed
plaintiff's class action complaint.  On Oct. 29, 2008, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeals had granted a motion to stay the appeal due
to the bankruptcy of one of the appellees, Millennium
Petrochemicals.  On April 3, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed
a motion for relief in bankruptcy court from the automatic stay,
asking that the bankruptcy court modify the stay to allow Small
Tube Manufacturing's indemnification claim against Millennium
Petrochemicals and the Anthony case to proceed to final judgment,
including all appeals.  On May 14, 2009, the bankruptcy court
approved a stipulation and order modifying the automatic stay to
permit Millennium Petrochemicals and Small Tube Manufacturing to
participate in the appeal.  On May 27, 2009, Small Tube
Manufacturing filed an unopposed motion with the Court of Appeals
to lift the stay, which the court granted on June 22, 2009.  On
July 29, 2009, the company and the other appellees filed their
brief in the Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on Jan. 11, 2010.  On June 7, 2010, the Court affirmed
the trial court's ruling.

Brush Engineered Materials Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, supplies highly engineered
advanced enabling materials to global markets.  Products include
precious and non-precious specialty metals, inorganic chemicals
and powders, specialty coatings, specialty engineered beryllium
alloys, beryllium and beryllium composites, and engineered clad
and plated metal systems.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation said on its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2010, that appeals of an opinion granting
final approval of a settlement of a lawsuit against the Company is
still pending.

In December 2001, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its then
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering. The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
June 28, 2000 to December 6, 2000. An amended complaint was filed
on April 19, 2002.

The plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses for the Company's
June 28, 2000 initial public offering and November 16, 2000,
secondary offering were false and misleading in violation of the
applicable securities laws because the prospectuses failed to
disclose the underwriter defendants' alleged agreement to allocate
stock in these offerings to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements to make
additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices. Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds of
other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998;
the complaints have been consolidated into an action captioned In
re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92.

On October 9, 2002, the plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice,
the claims against the named officers and directors in the action
against the Company. The District Court directed that the
litigation proceed within a number of "focus cases" and on
October 13, 2004, the District Court certified the focus cases as
class actions. The Company's case is not one of these focus cases.
The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on
December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's class certification decision. On
August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended complaints against the six focus cases and on
September 27, 2007, again moved for class certification. On
November 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases
moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action
complaints. On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the
motions to dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by those
plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess of the
initial offering price and those who purchased outside the
previously certified class period. The motion for class
certification was withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the District Court for preliminary
approval. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the settlement
classes on June 10, 2009. The settlement "fairness" hearing was
held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court
entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement and
directing that the Clerk of the District Court close these
actions. Notices of appeal of the opinion granting final approval
have been filed.

Because of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because
the settlement remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of
the matter is uncertain, and management believes that the outcome
of the litigation will not have a material adverse impact on its
consolidated financial position and results of operations.

                       About Capstone Turbine

Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures and markets
micro turbine generator sets for use in stationary, vehicular and
other electrical applications. The Company also offers various
accessories including rotary gas compressors with digital
controls, batteries with digital controls for stand-alone or grid-
connected operations, packaging options, frames etc. Its
headquarters are located in Chatsworth, California.


CENTURY 21: Judge Gives Class Action Status to Franchise Fund Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Venuri Siriwardane, writing for The Star-Ledger newspaper based in
New Jersey, reports a state Superior Court judge granted class
action status [last] week to an 8-year-old lawsuit claiming
Century 21 Real Estate and its parent firm misused franchise
funds.

The plaintiffs now include those who were Century 21 franchisees
at any time between August 1995 and April 2002. They allege
Century 21 and its parent firm Cendant, based in Parsippany,
misappropriated fees paid by franchisees into a national
advertising fund, failed to provide support services and engaged
in other activities that violated franchise agreements.

"The money was supposed to be used for the benefit of Century 21,"
said Patrick Joseph Bartels, an attorney for the franchisees. "We
believe the money was actually used for various Cendant expenses
that were not permitted under the agreement."

He estimated that damages total "hundreds of millions of dollars."

Century 21 is now managed by Realogy, a Cendant spinoff. In a
statement, the firm said the charges are "without merit, and
remain so today."

"We will aggressively defend against these erroneous claims,"
Realogy said, adding it has "capably managed the Century 21
brand," since Cendant acquired it in 1995. The lawsuit was filed
in 2002 on behalf of five franchisees in New Jersey, Florida,
Michigan and Arizona. The class could total 7,000 franchisees
nationwide, said Mr. Bartels, adding that state-by-state figures
are not yet available.

Mr. Bartels said the judge's decision is significant, since it is
difficult to obtain certification for a class action suit alleging
consumer fraud.

The franchisees are represented by:

     Patrick Joseph Bartels, Esq.
     KEEFE BARTELS LLC
     170 Monmouth Street
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Telephone: 732-224-9400
                877-288-9247 (Toll Free)
     Facsimile: 732-224-9494


CHARTER COMMS: Goodell Settlement Approval Hearing in September
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Barbara Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin has scheduled a hearing on September 2010 to
consider final approval of the settlement agreement entered into
by Charter Communications, Inc., to resolve the matter Marc
Goodell et al. v. Charter Communications, LLC, and Charter
Communications, Inc., for $18 million, according to the company's
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On August 28, 2008, a lawsuit was filed against Charter and
Charter Communications, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former
broadband, system and other types of technicians who are or were
employed by Charter or Charter LLC in the states of Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri or California.  Plaintiffs allege that Charter
and Charter LLC violated certain wage and hour statutes of those
four states by failing to pay technicians for all hours worked.

Although Charter and Charter LLC continue to deny all liability
and believe that they have substantial defenses, in May 2010, the
parties entered a settlement agreement disposing of all claims,
including those potential wage and hour claims for potential class
members in additional states beyond the four identified above.

On May 24, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

A hearing to grant final approval is scheduled for September 2010.

Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a
broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable
operator in the United States.  Charter provides a full range of
advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital
Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R)
Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R).  Charter Business(TM)
similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective
broadband communications solutions to business organizations, such
as business-to-business Internet access, data networking, video
and music entertainment services, and business telephone.
Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold under
the Charter Media(R) brand.


CHARTER COMMS: Faces Third Amended Complaint in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc., faces a third amended complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In March 2009, Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. filed a putative class
action against Charter and Charter Holdco captioned Gerald Paul
Bodet, Jr. v. Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter
Communications Holding Company, LLC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In January 2010, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which
also named Charter Communications, LLC as a defendant.

In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that the
defendants violated the Sherman Act, the Communications Act of
1934, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act by forcing
subscribers to rent a set top box in order to subscribe to cable
video services which are not available to subscribers by simply
plugging a cable into a cable-ready television.  Defendants'
response to the Second Amended Complaint was due on April 2, 2010.

In April 2010, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint which
also named Charter Communications, LLC as a defendant.  In the
Third Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated the Sherman Act, state antitrust law and state unjust
enrichment law by forcing subscribers to rent a set top box in
order to subscribe to cable video services which are not available
to subscribers by simply plugging a cable into a cable-ready
television

Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a
broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable
operator in the United States.  Charter provides a full range of
advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital
Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R)
Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R).  Charter Business(TM)
similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective
broadband communications solutions to business organizations, such
as business-to-business Internet access, data networking, video
and music entertainment services, and business telephone.
Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold under
the Charter Media(R) brand.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Defends "Lebryk" Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc., continues to defend a suit styled
Derrick Lebryk and Nicholas Gladson v. Charter Communications,
Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, CCHC, LLC and
Charter Communications Holding, LLC.

In June 2009, Derrick Lebryk and Nichols Gladson filed a putative
class action against Charter, Charter Communications Holding
Company, LLC, CCHC, LLC and Charter Communications Holding, LLC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Sherman Act
based on similar allegations as those alleged in the suit Bodet v.
Charter, et al.

No further updates regarding the case were reported in the
company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a
broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable
operator in the United States.  Charter provides a full range of
advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital
Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R)
Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R).  Charter Business(TM)
similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective
broadband communications solutions to business organizations, such
as business-to-business Internet access, data networking, video
and music entertainment services, and business telephone.
Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold under
the Charter Media(R) brand.


CHARTER COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Bankruptcy Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the suit styled Herb Lair, Iron Workers Local
No. 25 Pension Fund et al. v. Neil Smit, Eloise Schmitz, and Paul
G. Allen, are appealing the ruling of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York stating the their causes of
action were released by the Third Party Release and Injunction
under Charter Communications, Inc.'s Plan of Reorganization.

The suit was filed in June 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas on June 1, 2009.  Mr. Smit and Ms.
Schmitz are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, respectively, of Charter.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of plaintiffs who
acquired Charter stock between Oct. 23, 2006 and Feb. 12, 2009,
allege that they and others similarly situated were misled by
statements by Ms. Schmitz, Mr. Smit, Mr. Allen and/or in Charter
SEC filings.

The plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

In February 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York held that these plaintiffs' causes of action
were released by the Third Party Release and Injunction under
Charter's Plan of Reorganization.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a
broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable
operator in the United States.  Charter provides a full range of
advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital
Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R)
Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R).  Charter Business(TM)
similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective
broadband communications solutions to business organizations, such
as business-to-business Internet access, data networking, video
and music entertainment services, and business telephone.
Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold under
the Charter Media(R) brand.


CLECO CORP: Cleco Power Faces Second Suit in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary, Cleco Power LLC,
faces a second class action lawsuit filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, according
to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf
of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.

The complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs
by applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as
Cleco Power applies to all of its retail customers.  The
plaintiffs allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely
for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and
distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of
Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers
in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Cleco Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a
franchise granted to Cleco Power by the city of Opelousas in 1986
and an Operating and Franchise Agreement dated May 14, 1991,
pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities
and leases and operates electric facilities owned by the city of
Opelousas.

In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC
appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of
Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are applicable
to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges have
been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric
customers from state to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, so that it could be properly addressed
under the terms of the Class Action Fairness Act.

On May 11, 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the
27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of
Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which
was submitted on behalf of a number of Opelousas residents.  Cleco
Power has responded in the same manner as with the first class
action lawsuit.

Cleco Corp. -- http://www.cleco.com/-- is a regional energy
company headquartered in Pineville, La.  It operates a regulated
electric utility company, Cleco Power LLC, which serves about
277,000 retail customers across Louisiana.  Cleco also operates a
wholesale energy business, Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, which
includes the pending sale of Acadia Power Station Unit 2.


DISH NETWORK: Faces Appeal of Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation continues to defend itself against an
appeal of an order dismissing an antitrust lawsuit filed by
subscribers in California, the company said in an August 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The suit
also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox,
Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney Company. The suit
alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

On October 16, 2009, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed.

The company intends to vigorously defend the case. It cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

DISH Network Corporation is the third largest pay television
provider in the United States with 14.1 million subscribers as of
December 31, 2009.  Annual revenues approximate $11.6 billion.


DISH NETWORK: Trial on Retailer Class Suit Starts Oct. 12
---------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the Retailer Class Actions in Colorado which attempts to
certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of DISH Network
Corporation's retailers will commence on October 12, 2010, the
company said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 9, 2010.

The lawsuits were filed in 2000 in Colorado state and federal
courts to attempt to certify nationwide classes on behalf of
certain of the company's retailers.  The plaintiffs are requesting
the Courts to declare certain provisions of, and changes to,
alleged agreements between DISH Network and the retailers invalid
and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs and other compensation.

DISH Network has asserted a variety of counterclaims.  The federal
court action has been stayed during the pendency of the state
court action.  DISH Network filed a motion for summary judgment on
all counts and against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to
respond to the summary judgment motion.  The state court granted
limited discovery which ended during 2004.  The plaintiffs claimed
DISH Network did not provide adequate disclosure during the
discovery process.  The state court agreed, and denied the motion
for summary judgment as a result.

In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class
certification motion and in January 2009, the state court entered
an order excluding certain evidence that DISH Network can present
at trial based on the prior discovery issues.  The state court
also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss DISH Network's
counterclaims.  In May 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for default
judgment based on new allegations of discovery misconduct.  In
April 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for default
judgment, but upheld its prior order excluding certain evidence.

Trial is scheduled to commence on October 12, 2010. Before trial,
the court will hold a hearing to establish the scope of its prior
evidentiary order, including the scope of an adverse inference
jury instruction.

DISH Network Corporation is the third largest pay television
provider in the United States with 14.1 million subscribers as of
December 31, 2009.  Annual revenues approximate $11.6 billion.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Hearing Set Wednesday on Shareholder Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Stewart, Tulsa World staff writer, reports shareholders of
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc. who have filed lawsuits
objecting to the proposed $1.27 billion merger with Hertz Global
Holdings Inc. will learn soon whether their concerns will be
consolidated as a class action.

Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine has scheduled a hearing for 9:30
a.m. Wednesday in the Delaware Court of Chancery in Wilmington to
determine whether the Dollar Thrifty plaintiffs should be
certified as a class.

At least five Dollar Thrifty shareholder lawsuits in Oklahoma and
five in Delaware have been filed that seek to block the proposed
merger with Hertz, court documents and company filings say.

The lawsuits were triggered by a merger agreement between the two
companies on April 25.

Hertz, the Park Ridge, N.J.-based parent of the country's second
largest rental car company, offered $41 a share to acquire Dollar
Thrifty, the fourth largest but most profitable rental car
company.

On the strength of the offer, Dollar Thrifty shares surged past
$41 and have traded above $46 a share for much of the summer.

A week after Hertz's offer, executives at Avis Budget Group Inc.
said they were prepared to make a "substantially higher" bid for
the Tulsa company.

In between the Hertz offer and Avis Budget's assertion, the
shareholder suits began.

Beginning April 28, multiple proposed class actions were filed by
Dollar Thrifty shareholders in Tulsa County District Court, U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma and the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

All of the lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin Dollar
Thrifty's board and executives from completing the proposed merger
with Hertz on the terms agreed upon by the two companies.

In the first shareholder lawsuit filed, Henzel vs. Dollar Thrifty
Automotive Group Inc., et al., the plaintiff alleges the $41 a
share offer is inadequate.

The suit also alleges the Dollar Thrifty board breached their
fiduciary duties to shareholders in negotiating and approving the
merger agreement.

The Henzel petition also alleges that Hertz and Dollar Thrifty
officers aided the alleged breaches by the company's directors.
The petition seeks various forms of relief, including an
injunction that would block the proposed merger.

Five lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery were
consolidated May 17 under the caption "In re Dollar Thrifty
Shareholder Litigation."

On July 29, the plaintiffs in the Delaware case filed a motion for
class certification.

Vice Chancellor Strine entered an order temporarily certifying the
lawsuit as a class action on Aug. 10. Vice Chancellor Strine also
temporarily certified the plaintiffs as class representatives and
their lawyer as class counsel.

Plaintiffs Pompano Beach (Fla.) Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System and Northern California Pipe Trades Pension Plan were
appointed as class representatives.

Joel Friedlander, Esq., of Bouchard Margules & Friedlander in
Wilmington, the lead attorney in the Delaware shareholder
litigation, could not be reached for comment.

In the midst of the court actions, Avis Budget countered Hertz's
offer with a bid of its own.

Late last month, Avis Budget offered $1.33 billion or $46.50 per
share for Dollar Thrifty.

On Aug. 3, Dollar Thrifty CEO Scott Thompson wrote Avis Budget
Chairman and CEO Ronald L. Nelson that the Tulsa company's board
of directors couldn't accept Avis Budget's offer.

Mr. Thompson said Dollar Thrifty's board was troubled by the
Parsippany, N.J.-based company's unwillingness to provide a
termination fee if the deal fell through and its refusal to
provide analytical data supporting its position that federal
antitrust approval was assured.

Hertz has offered a $44.45 million breakup fee to Dollar Thrifty
if the proposed merger is rejected by federal regulators.

In the wake of its rejection of the Avis Budget bid, the Dollar
Thrifty board said a special shareholder meeting on Sept. 16 to
vote on Hertz's offer would proceed as scheduled.

Dollar Thrifty shares closed Wednesday at $47.99, up 45 cents or
0.95%.

Hertz shares rose 23 cents to close at $9.69, and Avis Budget
shares closed at $10.01, up 4 cents.

The plaintiffs' lead counsel can be reached at:

     Joel Friedlander, Esq.
     BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A.
     222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
     Wilmington, Delaware 19801
     Telephone: (302) 573-3502
                (302) 593-3007 (mobile)
     Facsimile: (302) 573-3501
     E-mail: jfriedlander@bmf-law.com


EQUINIX INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc., awaits final approval of an agreement settling
three lawsuits in connection with its planned merger with Switch &
Data Facilities Company, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Oct. 27, 2009, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against Switch and Data,
members of Switch and Data's board of directors, Sundance
Acquisition Corporation and Equinix.

The lawsuit, Gibbs v. Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 5027-VCS), alleges that the members of Switch and
Data's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Switch and Data's stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger by, among other things, entering into the Merger Agreement
without first taking steps to obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration for Switch and Data's stockholders, by structuring
the transaction to benefit themselves and by including provisions
intended to dissuade other potential suitors from making competing
offers.

On Oct. 30, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Jiannaras v. Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 09-CA-027950), was filed against the same defendants
in a Hillsborough County, Florida state court.  The complaint
alleges that the members of Switch and Data's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Switch and Data's stockholders
by, among other things, failing to take steps to maximize the
value of Switch and Data to its public stockholders, failing to
value properly Switch and Data, failing to protect against the
directors' conflicts of interest and failing to disclose all
material information to allow a fully informed vote by the
stockholders.

On Dec. 7, 2009, a third purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Broadbased Equities v. Keith Olsen, et al. (Case No.
8:09-CV-02473), was filed against the same defendants (other than
Sundance Acquisition Corporation, which was not named) in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants have provided materially incomplete
information to Switch and Data stockholders in the Proxy
Statement, that Switch and Data's Chief Executive Officer and
President sought to advance his own interests at the expense of
Switch and Data stockholders in connection with the merger, and
that Switch and Data's directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the merger, including by agreeing to provisions
in the Merger Agreement intended to dissuade other potential
suitors from making competing offers.

On Jan. 19, 2010, counsel for parties in all three lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed
upon the terms of a settlement of all three lawsuits.  In
connection with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all claims
asserted therein are expected to be dismissed with prejudice.  The
memorandum of understanding provides that the parties will seek
approval of the settlement in Florida state court and that
simultaneously, the parties will agree to stay the actions pending
in the Delaware Chancery Court and the Florida.

On Jan. 19, 2010, counsel for parties in all three lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed
upon the terms of a settlement of all lawsuits.

In connection with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all
claims asserted therein would be dismissed with prejudice,
including the claims brought against Switch and Data and its
directors.

The parties will seek approval of the settlement in the Florida
state court; simultaneously, the parties will agree to stay the
actions pending in the Delaware Chancery Court and the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things,
the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the Florida state court.  The proposed settlement
contemplates that plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the Florida
state court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in an
aggregate amount of $900,000, and that the defendants will not
oppose or undermine this application.   The company expects that
approximately 70% of these attorneys' fees will be paid by
insurance maintained by Switch and Data, and that the company will
pay the remainder.

Pursuant to this agreement, the parties sought and obtained stays
of the Florida federal and Delaware actions pending approval of
the settlement.

On March 22, 2010, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement and release, adopting the terms of the memorandum of
understanding outlined above.

Pursuant to this stipulation, on March 25, 2010, the parties filed
a Joint Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of
Settlement in Florida state court.

On May 7, 2010, the Court granted the motion and a final approval
hearing was scheduled for Aug. 9, 2010.

Equinix, Inc. -- http://www.equinix.com/-- provides network-
neutral colocation, interconnection and managed information
technology infrastructure services to enterprises, content
providers and financial companies.  Through its International
Business Exchange (IBX) data centers, across 18 markets in North
America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, customers directly interconnect
with a network ecosystem of partners and customers.  Its services
comprises colocation, interconnection and managed IT
infrastructure services.  Colocation services include cabinets,
power, operations space and storage space for customers'
colocation needs.  Interconnection services include cross
connects, as well as switch ports on the Equinix exchange service.
Managed IT infrastructure services helps customers to leverage
Equinix's telecommunications.  In February 2008, it acquired Virtu
Secure Webservices B.V.  In May 2009, the company announced the
opening of the second phase expansion of its New York-4 IBX data
center in Secaucus, New Jersey.


GANLEY MANAGEMENT: Ohio Appeals Court Holds Class Claim Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Ingrassia appealed a trial court's decision to grant in
part a motion to dismiss by Ganley Management Co. and Ganley
Westside Imports, Inc.  Finding no merit to the appeal, the Court
of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County affirmed the
trial court's order.

On July 27, 2009, Mr. Ingrassia filed a class action complaint
against the defendants for an injunction.  The class action was
brought on behalf of Mr. Ingrassia, individually, and on behalf of
a class of consumers who have or will have their motor vehicle
serviced by the defendants.  Mr. Ingrassia and the class sought to
enjoin the defendants from charging sales tax on the discount
portion of their service agreement in violation of R.C.
5739.01(H)(1)(c). They allege that by including the discount
amount as part of the total price for purposes of sales tax
calculation, defendants violated Ohio tax law and wrongfully,
falsely, and knowingly represented to purchasers that this charge
is legal, with the intent of inducing purchasers to rely upon such
representation to their detriment, in violation of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act.

The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss as to Mr.
Ingrassia's class action CSPA violation claim, and denied
defendants' motion to dismiss as to Mr. Ingrassia's individual
CSPA violation claim.

A copy of the appeals court's decision in Ingrassia v. Ganley Mgt.
Co., No. 94266, is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inohco20100819490

Representing Charles Ingrassia are:

     Brian Ruschel, Esq.
     925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 660
     Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1405

          - and -

     Mark Schlachet, Esq.
     3637 South Green Road, Second Floor
     Beachwood, Ohio 44122

Representing Ganley Management Co. are:

     David D. Yeagley, Esq.
     Paul R. Harris, Esq.
     ULMER & BERNE LLP
     Skylight Office Tower
     1660 West 2nd St., Suite 1100
     Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1448


GLG PARTNERS: Reaches Settlement of Del. Suit Over Man Group Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Man Group Plc disclosed that GLG Partners, Inc., GLG's directors
and Man, as defendants in the shareholder class action relating to
Man's acquisition of GLG filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware captioned Duva v. GLG Partners, Inc., et al.,
have reached a proposed settlement (with no admission of
liability) with the plaintiff, which requires Court approval.
There are two elements to the proposed settlement: (i) changes to
three terms in the Merger Agreement; and (ii) additional
disclosures which the plaintiff felt are relevant to be made in
GLG's proxy statement. The terms and conditions of the proposed
settlement are set out in a memorandum of understanding dated 19
August 2010.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, Man and GLG have
amended the Merger Agreement to:

   (a) reduce the break fee payable, in the circumstances set out
       in the Merger Agreement, by each of GLG and Man from
       US$48 million to US$26 million;

   (b) reduce the period following the termination of the Merger
       Agreement, under certain circumstances, during which the
       break fee is payable by GLG from twelve months to nine
       months; and

   (c) reduce the period in which Man may amend the Merger
       Agreement so that a Superior Proposal is no longer superior
       from 3 business days to 2 business days.

The Memorandum of Understanding also provides for certain
additional disclosures that GLG has made and will make in its
proxy statement that will be filed with the SEC and distributed to
its common stockholders.

The settlement with the plaintiff is subject to the parties
finalizing formal settlement documentation for submission to the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the Court's
approval.  Upon effectiveness of such settlement, all claims which
were or could have been asserted against GLG, GLG's directors and
Man in the Delaware Action and in two separate shareholder actions
concerning the Acquisition filed in the New York Supreme Court
will be fully and completely discharged and dismissed.

Enquiries may be made to:

     Miriam McKay, Head of Investor Relations
     MAN GROUP PLC
     Tel: +44 (0)20 7144 3809

          - and -

     Philip Yates
     Graham Davidson
     Toby Rolls
     PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS (financial adviser to Man)
     Tel: +44 (0)20 7268 2800

          - and -

     Simon Fraser
     Matthew Watkins
     MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL
     (financial adviser, sponsor and corporate broker to Man)
     Tel: +44 (0)20 7628 1000


IBM CORP: Accused in Texas Suit of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
IBM stiffed its call-center workers for overtime, according to a
class action in Dallas Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Banks, et al. v. International Business
Machines Corporation, Case No. 10-cv-01599 (N.D. Tex.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/19/IBM.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
          1000 N. Central Expressway, Suite 725
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: 214-969-9029
          E-mail: roger@claxtonlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market St., Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  bdl@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          585 Stewart Ave., Suite 304
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: 516-683-3516
          E-mail: tjm@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          EGLESTON LAW FIRM
          360 Furman St., Suite 443
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: 646-227-1700
          E-mail: egleston@gme-law.com


INTERNAP NETWORK: Wants Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Internap Network Services Corp.'s motion to dismiss a putative
securities fraud class action lawsuit remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On Nov. 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and its former chief executive
officer, James P. DeBlasio, captioned Catherine Anastasio and
Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P.
DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF.  The complaint
alleges that the company and the individual defendant violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the individual
defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a
"control person" of Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to bring these
claims on behalf of a class of the company's investors who
purchased the company's stock between March 28, 2007 and March 18,
2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, we made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream, (b) customer
issues and related credits due to services outages, and (c) our
previously reported 2007 revenue that we subsequently reduced in
2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs assert that the
company and the individual defendant made these misstatements and
omissions in order to keep our stock price high.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

On Aug. 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Amended Complaint added a
claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on
alleged misrepresentations in the company's proxy statement in
connection with its acquisition of VitalStream.  The Amended
Complaint also added former Chief Financial Officer, David A.
Buckel, as a defendant and lengthened the putative class period.

On Sept. 11, 2009, the company and the individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss.  Those motions are currently pending before
the Court.

On Nov. 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Class Action
Complaint.  On Dec. 7, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint to add allegations
regarding, inter alia, an alleged failure to conduct due diligence
in connection with the VitalStream acquisition and additional
statements from purported confidential witnesses.  The company
opposed plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint and that motion is also currently pending
before the Court.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Internap Network Services Corporation -- http://www.internap.com/
-- is an Internet solutions and data center company providing a
suite of network optimization and delivery services and products
that manage, deliver and distribute applications.  Internap
provides services through 73 Internet protocol (IP) service
points, which include 20 content delivery network (CDN) points of
presences (POPs) and 47 data centers.  The company also has two
additional international standalone CDN POPs and two additional
domestic standalone data center locations through, which it
provides IP services by extension. Its private network access
points (P-NAPs) feature multiple direct high-speed connections to
major Internet backbones, also referred to as network service
providers (NSPs), such as Verizon Communications Inc., Global
Crossing Limited, Level 3 Communications, Inc., XO Holdings Inc.
and Cogent Communications Group, Inc. The Company operates in two
segments: IP services and data center services.


JDA SOFTWARE: Discovery Ongoing in i2 Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------
JDA Software Group, Inc., said on its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2010, that discovery is ongoing in the
shareholder action against i2 Technologies, Inc., and its board of
directors.

In December 2009, JDA Software was sued in a putative shareholder
class action against i2 and its board of directors, in the County
Court of Law No. 2 of Dallas County (No. CC-09-08476-B). The
plaintiffs allege that the directors of i2 breached their
fiduciary duties to shareholders of i2 by selling i2 to the
Company via an allegedly unfair process and at an unfair price,
and that the Company aided and abetted this alleged breach.

On January 26, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request for
a preliminary injunction that sought to enjoin the merger between
JDA and i2. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended
complaint, alleging unspecified monetary damages in addition to
declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company, i2 and i2's directors have denied all allegations and
discovery is ongoing.

                         About JDA Software

Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, JDA is a publicly-held
supplier of enterprise supply chain management software and
optimization solutions for the manufacturing, wholesale
distribution, retail and service industries.  JDA acquired fellow
supply chain software management company i2 Technologies on
January 28, 2010.


LAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls 3,700 Double Strollers
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lan Enterprises LLC of Hillsboro, Ore., and formerly of Beaverton,
Ore., announced a voluntary recall of about 3,700 double
strollers.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The stroller's frame latch above the front wheels can fail when
the stroller hits an object, causing the stroller to unexpectedly
collapse.  This can result in minor scrapes, cuts and bruises.

The company has received 185 reports of frame latch failures.  In
one incident a 13-month-old boy and a 3-year-old boy received
scrapes and bruises when their stroller hit a sidewalk and the
stroller collapsed.

This recall involves 2007 and 2008 Zooper Tango double strollers
with a model number of SL808B and SL808F.  The model numbers were
printed on the original packaging.  The strollers have production
dates ranging from January 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008.  The
production dates are printed on the warning labels attached to the
seats.  The word "Zooper" is printed on the stroller canopies and
grab bars.  The Web address http://www.zooper.com/is printed on
the basket under the stroller seats.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10321.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
juvenile product and mass merchandise retailers nationwide and at
http://www.babiesrus.com/from January 2007 through August 2008
for between $400 and $430.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled strollers
and contact Zooper USA to receive a free repair kit.  For
additional information, contact Zooper USA toll-free at (888) 966-
7379 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.zooper.com/


LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" & "Christ" Plaintiffs May Reinstate Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications, Inc., said on a Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2010, that the plaintiffs in the
"Beleson" class action and "Christ" class action may reinstate
their appeal.

                        "Beleson" Action

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed a purported class action complaint against Bernard Schwartz,
the former chief executive officer of Old Loral in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint sought, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable costs and
expenses. The complaint alleged (a) that Mr. Schwartz violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or
failing to state material facts about Old Loral's financial
condition relating to the sale of assets by Old Loral to Intelsat
and Old Loral's chapter 11 filing and (b) that Mr. Schwartz is
secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
person" of Old Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the
defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with him.

In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz with
substantially similar allegations were consolidated into the
Beleson case. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in
July 2008, and plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary
judgment in September 2008. In February 2009, the court granted
defendant's motion and denied plaintiffs' cross motion. In March
2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with respect to the
court's decision.

                         "Christ" Action

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich, filed a purported class action complaint
against Bernard L. Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend, the former
Chief Financial Officer of Old Loral, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint sought, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable costs and
expenses. The complaint alleged (a) that defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by making material misstatements or failing to state
material facts about Old Loral's financial condition relating to
the restatement in 2003 of the financial statements for the second
and third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting for certain
general and administrative expenses and the alleged improper
accounting for a satellite transaction with APT Satellite Company
Ltd. and (b) that each of the defendants is secondarily liable for
these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Old Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding the
defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with them.

In September 2008, the parties entered into an agreement to settle
the case, pursuant to which a settlement will be funded entirely
by Old Loral's directors and officers liability insurer, and Loral
will not be required to make any contribution toward the
settlement.

By order dated February 26, 2009, the court finally approved the
settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best
interests of the class. Certain class members objected to the
settlement and filed a notice of appeal, and other class members,
who together had class period purchases valued at approximately
$550,000, elected to opt out of the class action settlement and
commenced individual lawsuits against the defendants. In August
2009, the objecting and opt-out class members entered into an
agreement with the defendants to settle their claims, pursuant to
which a settlement will be funded entirely by Old Loral's
directors and officers liability insurer, and Loral will not be
required to make any contribution toward the settlement. In
addition, in March 2009, at the time that they filed a notice of
appeal with respect to the Beleson decision, the plaintiffs in the
Beleson case also filed a notice of appeal with respect to the
court's decision approving the Christ settlement, arguing that the
Christ settlement impairs the rights of the Beleson class.

                       Consolidated Appeal

Pursuant to stipulations entered into in February and July 2010
among the parties in the Beleson case and the Christ case, the
appeals, which have been consolidated, were withdrawn, provided
however, that plaintiffs may reinstate the appeal on or before
August 20, 2010.

                          About Loral Space

Loral Space & Communications Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/-- is a
satellite communications company.  It owns and operates a fleet of
telecommunications satellites used to broadcast video
entertainment programming, distribute broadband data, and provide
access to Internet services and other value-added communications
services.  Loral also is a world-class leader in the design and
manufacture of satellites and satellite systems for commercial and
government applications including direct-to-home television,
broadband communications, wireless telephony, weather monitoring
and air traffic management.


LPL FINANCIAL: Court Orders Filing of Joint Stipulation by Aug. 27
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl R. Zwart, Magistrate Judge at the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska issued a memorandum and order
on August 18, 2010, ordering parties in Ripley v. LPL Financial
Corp., No. 4:10CV3115, to file a joint stipulation regarding a
class action complaint.

A telephonic conference was held to discuss the procedural posture
created by LPL Financial Corp.'s pending Motion to Dismiss Richard
Ripley and Carol Ripley's Class Action Claims and Compel
Arbitration of Plaintiffs' Individual Claims, and the plaintiffs'
notice of voluntary dismissal. The defendant filed evidence in
support of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, thereby
potentially converting the motion to a Rule 56 motion for summary
judgment, (Fed, R. Civ. P 12(d)). The court questioned whether the
defendant was consenting to plaintiff's dismissal of the case and,
if not, raised the issue of whether the plaintiff can voluntarily
dismiss the action without the defendant's consent.

Based on the parties' representations, Judge Zwart said the
pending matters raised before her can be resolved by joint
stipulation.

Thus, Judge Zwart ordered that on or before August 27, 2010:

    1) The parties shall file a joint stipulation for dismissal of
       all claims, specifically identifying any issues to be
       dismissed with prejudice, any issues (if any) to be
       dismissed without prejudice to re-filing a lawsuit for full
       and final determination by a judicial forum, and any issues
       dismissed without prejudice for determination and
       resolution through arbitration.

    2) The parties shall jointly submit a proposed Judgment of
       Dismissal for the court's review and approval. The proposed
       Judgment shall be submitted in WordPerfect or MS Word
       format by e-mail to: czwart@ned.uscourts.gov


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Awaiting Decision on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., and its co-defendants in a
consolidated class action are awaiting a decision from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, 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 November 17, 2008, December 5, 2008, and January 20, 2009,
three separate alleged purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from February 27, 2008, through November 5, 2008
filed purported class action complaints against MII; Bruce
Wilkinson, MII's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board; and Michael S. Taff, MII's former Chief Financial
Officer, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and
misleading information and concealing material adverse information
relating to the operational and financial status of three ongoing
construction contracts in the Company's Offshore Oil and Gas
Construction segment for the installation of pipelines off the
coast of Qatar.  Each complaint seeks relief, including
unspecified compensatory damages and an award for costs and
expenses.  The three cases were consolidated and transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.

In May 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which, among other things, added Robert A. Deason,
JRMSA's former President and Chief Executive Officer, as a
defendant in the proceedings.  In July 2009, MII and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
referred to a Magistrate Judge.  In February 2010, the Magistrate
Judge entered a Memorandum and Recommendation on the motion,
finding that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief
under the securities laws and, therefore, recommended to the
District Court that motion to dismiss be granted.

On March 26, 2010, the Court issued an order adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full and dismissing the
case.  However, the order granted the plaintiffs leave to request
to amend their complaint and, on April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a motion with the District Court for leave to amend the
complaint.  The defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
motion in May 2010 and the District Court has not yet ruled on the
matter.

The Company continues to believe the substantive allegations
contained in the amended complaint are without merit, and the
Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously.

Houston-based McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering and
construction company with specialty manufacturing and service
capabilities and is the parent company of the McDermott group of
companies.


MERCURY INTERACTIVE: 9th Cir. Reverses $29MM Award to 2 Law Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Jones at The National Law Journal reports a federal appeals
court has snatched away a $29 million fee award that two law firms
received for serving as lead plaintiffs counsel in a California
backdating securities class action.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday vacated a lower
court ruling granting the fee award to New York's Labaton Sucharow
and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg of Los Angeles. In a 2-1 decision, an
appeals panel held that U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel denied
the plaintiffs in the backdating case the opportunity to argue for
reducing the fee. The panel remanded to Judge Fogel, who sits in
the Northern District of California.

Labaton Sucharow partner Joel Bernstein provided a written
statement about the ruling. "The 9th Circuit found no fault with
Judge Fogel's opinion that the fee awarded to us was reasonable,"
he said. "Rather, it only determined that the notice procedures
required improvement and therefore remanded the case to Judge
Fogel for a rehearing."

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg did not respond to a request for comment.

The ruling stemmed from a securities class action filed in August
2005 against Mercury Interactive Corp., its officers and directors
and its auditor.  The case settled relatively quickly in 2007 for
$117.5 million.  At the time that the lower court certified the
settlement, it required notice to class members that the attorneys
were seeking 25% of the settlement amount.

The fee motion notice disclosed in general terms what the
attorneys wanted.  The New York State Teachers' Retirement System
filed a timely objection to the fees, arguing that 18% was the
fair amount.

Plaintiffs counsel then moved for a fee award, but did so two
weeks after the deadline for objections, the appeals court said. A
week later, the lower court held a hearing on the fairness of the
fees, but none of the objectors attended. Judge Fogel approved the
fees.

In vacating the award, the appeals court held that federal civil
procedure rules required the lower court to give class members a
chance to object to a fee motion itself, not just to the
preliminary notice that a fee motion was pending.

"At the time that its objections to the fee request were due, [the
objectors] could make only generalized arguments about the size of
the total fee because they were only provided with generalized
information," the panel wrote. The panel expressed no opinion
about the merits of the fee motion. Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote
the decision, joined by Judge Susan Graber.

Judge Jay Bybee dissented, writing that the retirement system had
waived its right to object to the fees and at least could have
objected to the schedule that the court followed in considering
them. He added that the retirement system should have provided
more than "boilerplate allegations" in its objections. "Teachers
were not at all diligent in presenting their arguments to the
district judge," he wrote.

Representing the New York State Teachers' Retirement System was
Ryan Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren in Milwaukee. Robert
Long of Covington & Burling in Washington filed an amicus brief on
behalf of the Council of Institutional Investors.

Listed in court papers as plaintiffs counsel from Labaton Sucharow
were Bernstein, Louis Gottlieb and Michael Rogers. Attorneys from
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg were Lionel Glancy, Peter Binkow and Neal
Dublinsky.


MERSCORP INC: Faces Class Action RICO Suit Over Foreclosure Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Susan Chana Lask on August 17, 2010, filed a Federal
Class Action Complaint on behalf of tens of thousands of New York
State homeowners who lost their homes to an alleged foreclosure
fraud orchestrated for years by a New York "foreclosure mill"
attorney and major mortgage companies.  The case is filed in the
US District Court, Eastern District of New York, entitled "Connie
Campbell against Steven Baum, MERSCORP, Inc., et al.", Case
#10CV3800.  It alleges RICO civil racketeering, RESPA, Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act violations and that homeowners paid
inflated foreclosure and other fees fictionalized by Mr. Baum who
profited from the scheme since 2005.

The action seeks to return tens of thousands of foreclosed homes
to their owners or the values thereof and hundreds of millions in
punitive damages against Mr. Baum, MERSCORP and HSBC.

Ms. Lask discovered the alleged foreclosure scheme after her
client lost her $1.7 million Brooklyn Caroll Gardens Brownstone
home to a $190,000 mortgage foreclosure filed by attorney Steven
Baum for HSBC.  The foreclosure court filings were false as filed
in HSBC v. Concepcion Campbell, et al., New York Supreme Court,
Kings County, Index #20393/07. Steven Baum's foreclosure complaint
he filed was for HSBC against Ms. Campbell . It admits the loan
was never assigned to HSBC, yet he sued for HSBC. A later
Satisfaction of Mortgage was not filed for HSBC but for a company
named MERS, admitting HSBC never owned the loan and the
foreclosure complaint should have never been filed in the first
place. The actual Mortgage was always in MERSCORP's name and never
assigned as required by law.  Just who owns the loans Steven Baum
forecloses on is a deliberate mystery and potentially tens of
thousands of New York homeowners lost their homes on a mystery.

But there's more. The documents filed in the Courts are signed by
attorneys from Mr. Baum's office under penalty of perjury that
they are filing with knowledge of the transaction; however, they
have no knowledge as they admit they do not have the documents
they attest to in their office. In fact, in the later case filed
of Concepcion Campbell v. Walendowski, et al., New York Supreme
Court, Kings County, Index # 08-3467, when Ms. Lask subpoenaed Mr.
Baum's firm for the original Note, they responded it was not
needed and refused to produce it; implying they never had it yet
they swear they reviewed it in their court filings "under penalty
of perjury." Also, in the original foreclosure case of HSBC, they
file documents by an alleged officer of MERS named Rebecca A.
Cosgrove by a notary in "Erie County". But MERS is located in
Virginia and Erie County is in Buffalo New York where Steven
Baum's office is. It is suspect that Ms. Cosgrove is even an
officer of MERS, no less that she flew all the way to Buffalo NY
for the day just to sign a document before a notary. In fact,
other courts recently discovered these same false notaries and
"officer" claims in other cases involving Mr. Baum and MERS.

"Mr. Baum is an attorney who knows better, yet his foreclosure
filings for parties who have no standing to sue confuse the courts
and homeowners while he and his banking clients profit
tremendously by throwing people on the streets after their bad
loans sold by the very same banks become unaffordable to innocent
people," says Ms. Lask.

The aforementioned false foreclosure filings potentially hit tens
of thousands of New Yorkers who were foreclosed upon. "Courts have
rules and laws are made to be followed. Corporate America needs to
follow the rules and be accountable just like the rest of us, else
we're all victims to one big Bernie Madoff scam," says Ms. Lask.

Courts blast Mr. Baum for his sloppy filings claimed to be
deliberate to hasten foreclosures on unwitting homeowners and
courts.  On July 29, 2010, NY County Supreme court Judge Alice
Schlessinger summed up a MERS foreclosure as "I am unable to say
with any confidence that this was an honest transaction." (Index
#109824/05). The Manhattan US Trustees office started an
investigation of Steven Baum months ago.

His tens of thousands of filings hit innocent and desperate people
victimized by the present economic crisis who don't know how to
defend themselves nor have the money for an attorney, according to
Ms. Lask and courts as referenced above. People lose their
property for false filings.

This process allows banks to avoid recording loans in the proper
name, which saves the banks county clerk recording fees and allows
them to resell the mortgage under different names that are hard to
trace if not recorded. "They profit at every angle, starting with
all the fees they get from the initial mortgage closing, then
reselling it on the market to investors, right down to taking
someone's house away to sell it for more money on top of
everything they already got," says Ms. Lask.

Contact:

     Susan Chana Lask, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN CHANA LASK
     244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2369
     New York, NY 10001
     Telephone: 212-358-5762


NATIONAL CITY: Class Action Settlement Receives Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
National City Corp., which is now owned by PNC Financial Services
Group, disclosed that its settlement agreement relating to a class
action has received court approval.

In April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
Court of Common Pleas against National City, certain officers and
directors, and its auditor, Ernst & Young, LLP.  Ernst & Young was
subsequently dropped as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The complaint was brought as a class action on behalf of all
current and former National City employees who acquired stock
pursuant to and traceable to a December 1, 2006 registration
statement filed in connection with the acquisition of Harbor
Federal Savings Bank and who were participants in the Harbor Bank
Employees Stock Ownership Plan and the Harbor Bank Stock Incentive
Plan.

The plaintiffs alleged that the registration statement contained
false and misleading statements and omissions in violation of the
federal securities laws.  The parties entered into a settlement
agreement in April 2010.  The court approved the settlement in
June 2010.

The amount of the settlement is not material to PNC, the Company
said in its August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.pnc.com/--
is a diversified financial services companies in the U.S., with
businesses engaged in retail banking, corporate and institutional
banking, asset management and global fund processing services.
The Company provides its products and services nationally and
others in its primary geographic markets located in Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia,
Ohio, Kentucky and Delaware.  PNC also provides certain global
fund processing services internationally.  The Company has four
businesses engaged in providing banking, asset management and
global fund processing products and services: Retail Banking;
Corporate & Institutional Banking; BlackRock, and PFPC.  In March
2008, PNC announced that it completed the sale of J.J.B. Hilliard,
W.L. Lyons, a brokerage and financial services company, to
Houchens Industries, Inc.  In April 2008, the Company acquired
Sterling Financial Corp.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Awaits Court Approval of $17MM Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Co. is awaiting court approval of
its $17 million settlement agreement with certain California
policyholders, 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.

The Company was a defendant in a class action lawsuit initially
filed on September 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.  The California state
court certified a class consisting of certain California
policyholders age 65 and older alleging violations under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200.  The court
additionally certified a subclass of 36 policyholders alleging
fraud against their agent, and vicariously against the Company.

The California Insurance Department had intervened in the case
asserting that the Company has violated California insurance laws.
The parties to the case had been involved in court-ordered
mediation and ongoing negotiations.

On February 22, 2010, the Company reported in a Form 8-K filing a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and plaintiff in
intervention providing a settlement benefit of approximately $17
million, which was included in the Company's legal accrual
provision at December 31, 2009.

The settlement agreement was subject to final court approval at a
Fairness Hearing on August 20, 2010.  Including attorney's fees
and other considerations, the Company has accrued $22.8 million at
June 30, 2010, for the case.

National Western Life Insurance Company --
https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life insurance
company and doing business in 49 states, the District of Columbia,
and four United States territories or possessions.  The company is
also licensed in Haiti, and although not otherwise licensed,
accepts applications from and issues policies to residents of
various countries in Central and South America, the Caribbean, the
Pacific Rim, Eastern Europe and Asia.  Such policies are
underwritten, accepted, and issued in the United States upon
applications submitted by independent contractors.  It provides
life insurance products for the savings and protection needs of
approximately 148,000 policyholders and for the asset accumulation
and retirement needs of 117,000 annuity contract holders.  It
offers a portfolio of individual whole life, universal life and
term insurance plans, and annuities, including supplementary
riders.  It manages its business between Domestic Insurance
Operations and International Insurance Operations.


NBTY INC: Faces "Hutchins" Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc., said it intends to vigorously defend itself in a
putative class-action filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, 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 May 11, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned John F.
Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, against the Company
and certain officers, claiming that the defendants made allegedly
false material statements, or concealed allegedly adverse material
facts, for the purpose of causing members of the class to purchase
NBTY stock at allegedly artificially inflated prices.

To date, there has been no activity since the filing of the
complaint.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend this action.  At this time, however, no
determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of any
of the defendants.

NBTY is a vertically integrated VMS manufacturer and marketer,
with a strong U.K. retail presence that constitutes about 23% of
the company's fiscal 2009 net sales.  S&P believes the company's
vertical integration and manufacturing efficiency allow it to
produce low-cost products.  NBTY's three-tier distribution
strategy, which includes retail, wholesale, and direct-response
channels (including mail order and internet sales), provides
diversification and lowers distribution risk.  However, it is
S&P's opinion that the VMS market remains highly competitive and
fragmented in all distribution channels, and is currently
characterized by heavy promotional and discount activity.  NBTY
has historically grown through acquisitions.  Since 1986, it has
acquired and integrated nearly 30 companies, and has made larger
acquisitions in recent years, including Rexall Sundown, Solgar,
and Leiner Health Inc.  The acquisitions strengthen its existing
customer relationships and enable it to gain some key new ones,
diversify its product mix, and gain significant manufacturing and
distribution capacity.  NBTY has customer concentration with one
national retailer accounting for about 30% of wholesale sales.
However, NBTY also gained a sizable new customer through its
Leiner acquisition.  The company has been successful integrating
its acquisitions.


NBTY INC: Faces "Gottlieb" Lawsuit Challenging Sale to Carlyle
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc., is facing a putative class-action filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, relating to the
sale of the Company to The Carlyle Group, 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 July 22, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned Philip
Gottlieb v. NBTY, Inc., et al, was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Nassau, against the Company, the
members of its board of directors, The Carlyle Group and certain
Carlyle-related entities, challenging the Board of Directors'
decision to sell the Company to Carlyle for the price of $55 per
share.  The complaint alleges that this price per share does not
represent fair value for the Company and seeks to enjoin the
anticipated sale and to invalidate certain related transactions.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend this action.  The Company cannot presently
predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of
liability, if any, on the part of any of the defendants.

NBTY is a vertically integrated VMS manufacturer and marketer,
with a strong U.K. retail presence that constitutes about 23% of
the company's fiscal 2009 net sales.  S&P believes the company's
vertical integration and manufacturing efficiency allow it to
produce low-cost products.  NBTY's three-tier distribution
strategy, which includes retail, wholesale, and direct-response
channels (including mail order and internet sales), provides
diversification and lowers distribution risk.  However, it is
S&P's opinion that the VMS market remains highly competitive and
fragmented in all distribution channels, and is currently
characterized by heavy promotional and discount activity.  NBTY
has historically grown through acquisitions.  Since 1986, it has
acquired and integrated nearly 30 companies, and has made larger
acquisitions in recent years, including Rexall Sundown, Solgar,
and Leiner Health Inc.  The acquisitions strengthen its existing
customer relationships and enable it to gain some key new ones,
diversify its product mix, and gain significant manufacturing and
distribution capacity.  NBTY has customer concentration with one
national retailer accounting for about 30% of wholesale sales.
However, NBTY also gained a sizable new customer through its
Leiner acquisition.  The company has been successful integrating
its acquisitions.


NBTY INC: Stay in "Pesek" Suit Remains; CMC Continues
-----------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by various California consumers
against NBTY, Inc.'s subsidiary, Rexall Sundown, Inc., and certain
of its subsidiaries remains stayed, 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.

Rexall and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in a class-
action lawsuit, captioned Jamie Pesek, et al., v. Rexall Sundown,
Inc., et al., brought in California Superior Court, County of San
Francisco in 2002 on behalf of all California consumers who bought
various nutrition bars.  Plaintiffs allege misbranding of
nutrition bars and violations of California unfair competition
statutes, misleading advertising and other similar causes of
action.  Plaintiffs seek restitution, legal fees and injunctive
relief.  The Company has defended this action vigorously.

Since December 2007, with Rexall's and the other defendants'
renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings pending, the Court
has stayed the case for all purposes, pending rulings on relevant
cases before the California Supreme Court.

Although the California Supreme Court has resolved some of those
cases, others remain pending as of August 9, 2010.  Accordingly,
the case remains stayed.

The Court held a case-management conference on Aug. 5, 2009.  At
that time, the parties requested, and the Court agreed, to keep
the stay in place for at least another nine months.

The Court scheduled a subsequent CMC for February 25, 2010, but
canceled that conference upon being informed by the parties that
the California Supreme Court had not yet acted.  The Court set
another CMC for May 21, 2010, and instructed the parties to report
back before that date as to the status of the cases before the
California Supreme Court.

By agreement of the parties, the May 21, 2010 CMC has been
continued for nine months.  The California Supreme Court still has
not resolved the outstanding issues pending before it.  Based upon
the information currently available, no determination can be made
at this time as to the final outcome of this case, nor can its
materiality be accurately ascertained.

NBTY is a vertically integrated VMS manufacturer and marketer,
with a strong U.K. retail presence that constitutes about 23% of
the company's fiscal 2009 net sales.  S&P believes the company's
vertical integration and manufacturing efficiency allow it to
produce low-cost products.  NBTY's three-tier distribution
strategy, which includes retail, wholesale, and direct-response
channels (including mail order and internet sales), provides
diversification and lowers distribution risk.  However, it is
S&P's opinion that the VMS market remains highly competitive and
fragmented in all distribution channels, and is currently
characterized by heavy promotional and discount activity.  NBTY
has historically grown through acquisitions.  Since 1986, it has
acquired and integrated nearly 30 companies, and has made larger
acquisitions in recent years, including Rexall Sundown, Solgar,
and Leiner Health Inc.  The acquisitions strengthen its existing
customer relationships and enable it to gain some key new ones,
diversify its product mix, and gain significant manufacturing and
distribution capacity.  NBTY has customer concentration with one
national retailer accounting for about 30% of wholesale sales.
However, NBTY also gained a sizable new customer through its
Leiner acquisition.  The company has been successful integrating
its acquisitions.


NBTY INC: "Beidler" Suit v. MET-Rx Unit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Jerry Beidler v. MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc., filed
against NBTY, Inc.'s subsidiary MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc., remains
stayed.

In March 2004, a putative class-action lawsuit, captioned Jerry
Beidler v. MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc, was filed in New Jersey Superior
Court, Mercer County, against MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc., a subsidiary of
the Company, claiming that the advertising and marketing of
certain prohormone supplements were false and misleading and that
plaintiff and the putative class of New Jersey purchasers of these
products were entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

Because these allegations were virtually identical to allegations
made in a putative nationwide class-action previously filed
against Met-Rx in California (in an action styled Eric Ayala v.
MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc. et. al.), the Company moved in 2004 to dismiss
or stay the New Jersey action pending the outcome of the
California action.  The motion was granted, and the New Jersey
action is stayed at this time.

The California action against Met-Rx was dismissed in 2009.

No further updates were reported in 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.

NBTY is a vertically integrated VMS manufacturer and marketer,
with a strong U.K. retail presence that constitutes about 23% of
the company's fiscal 2009 net sales.  S&P believes the company's
vertical integration and manufacturing efficiency allow it to
produce low-cost products.  NBTY's three-tier distribution
strategy, which includes retail, wholesale, and direct-response
channels (including mail order and internet sales), provides
diversification and lowers distribution risk.  However, it is
S&P's opinion that the VMS market remains highly competitive and
fragmented in all distribution channels, and is currently
characterized by heavy promotional and discount activity.  NBTY
has historically grown through acquisitions.  Since 1986, it has
acquired and integrated nearly 30 companies, and has made larger
acquisitions in recent years, including Rexall Sundown, Solgar,
and Leiner Health Inc.  The acquisitions strengthen its existing
customer relationships and enable it to gain some key new ones,
diversify its product mix, and gain significant manufacturing and
distribution capacity.  NBTY has customer concentration with one
national retailer accounting for about 30% of wholesale sales.
However, NBTY also gained a sizable new customer through its
Leiner acquisition.  The company has been successful integrating
its acquisitions.


NETWORK ENGINES: Appeal of Settlement Order in IPO Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various notices of appeal filed relating to the final order of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New York approving the
settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class action
against Network Engines, Inc., remain pending.

On or about December 3, 2001, a putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company; Lawrence A. Genovesi, former chairman and
chief executive officer; Douglas G. Bryant, chief financial
officer and vice president of finance and administration; and
underwriters of the company's initial public offering.  The suit
alleges, inter alia, that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling securities pursuant to the
Company's initial public offering in July 2000 without disclosing
to investors that the underwriter defendants had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors.  The suit seeks damages and certification of a
plaintiff class consisting of all persons who acquired shares of
the Company's common stock between July 13, 2000, and December 6,
2000.

In October 2002, Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas G. Bryant were
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  On December 5, 2006,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned the District Court's certification of a plaintiff
class.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek
to certify a more limited class in the District Court.

On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in certain designated "focus cases" in the District
Court.  That motion has since been withdrawn.

On November 13, 2007, the issuer defendants in certain designated
"focus cases" filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended class action complaints that were filed in those cases.
On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order
denying, in large part, the motions to dismiss the amended
complaints in the "focus cases."

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a new proposed settlement between plaintiffs, the
underwriter defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers for
the issuer defendants.  On June 10, 2009, the Court issued an
opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, and
scheduling a settlement fairness hearing for September 10, 2009.

On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an opinion granting
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, approval
of the plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and
certification of the settlement classes.  An Order and Final
Judgment was entered on December 30, 2009.

Various notices of appeal of the District Court's October 5, 2009
order have been filed.  The Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this suit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued
as of June 30, 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.

Network Engines, Inc., designs and manufactures server-based
platforms and appliance solutions, on which software applications
are applied for both enterprise and telephony information
technology networks. The Company also provides support services
related to solution design, integration control, global logistics,
services, and support and maintenance programs. The Company
markets its application platform solutions to original equipment
manufacturers, and independent software vendors that then deliver
their software applications in the form of a network-ready device.
The Company offers its customers with a range of services
associated with solution design, integration control, global
logistics, services, and support and maintenance. The Company
produces and fulfills devices branded for its customers. The
Company's customers resell and support these platforms under their
own brands to their customer bases.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
NextWave Wireless, Inc.'s motion for dismissal of a second amended
consolidated complaint in a securities class action lawsuit filed
California remains pending, according to the Company's August 10,
2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2010.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the company and certain of the
company's officers.  The suit alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading statements or omissions in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive,
equitable or other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from
March 30, 2007 to August 7, 2008.

A second putative class action lawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al.
v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on October 21, 2008
alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during an extended class period, from November 27,
2006 through August 7, 2008.

On February 24, 2009, the Court issued an Order consolidating the
two cases and appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
and on June 29, 2009, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss that
Amended Complaint. On March 5, 2010, the Court granted the Motion
to Dismiss without prejudice, permitting the lead plaintiff to
file an Amended Complaint.

On March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.

On April 30, 2010, NextWave filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint and the Motion now has been fully briefed and is
under submission to the court.  At this time, there can be no
assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation, the
Company said.

NextWave Wireless Inc. -- http://www.nextwave.com/-- is a holding
company engaged in wireless technology that develops, produces,
and markets mobile multimedia and consumer electronic connectivity
products, including device-embedded software for mobile handsets,
client-server media platforms, media sharing software for consumer
electronics and pocket-sized mobile broadcast receivers, and
manages and maintains wireless spectrum licenses.  The company's
customers include handset and wireless service providers. NextWave
has two segments: Multimedia, consisting of the operations of its
wholly owned subsidiary PacketVideo Corporation (PV) and Strategic
Initiatives, focused on the management of its wireless spectrum
interests.


PHILIPS ARENA: Abbey Spanier Files Suit for Suite Attendants
------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a Class Action lawsuit
in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a class of
persons who worked as Suite Attendants at Philips Arena, The
Georgia Dome, or the Atlanta Motor Speedway from January 1, 2006
to present.  The defendants are Levy Premium Foodservice Limited
Partnership d/b/a Atlanta Sports Catering, and Compass Group North
America d/b/a Levy Restaurants in Atlanta, Georgia.

The action arises out of defendants' wrongful failure to pay
Plaintiffs and the Class the 20% service charge defendants
automatically add to each bill for food and beverages purchased by
suite owners and patrons at the hundreds of events held each year
from 2006 to present at these Venues.

The Complaint alleges that defendants have publicly represented to
the Suite Attendants, and to suite owners and patrons that the
Service Charge is paid to the "suite employees" in the form of
compensation.  The Complaint further alleges that Levy has failed
to pay the Service Charge to the Suite Attendants and instead
retains this money for its own benefit.  The lawsuit seeks class
action status, monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, the Law Offices of Mitchell
Schley, LLC and Greenfield Millican P.C. have been retained to
represent the Class.  The attorneys at Abbey Spanier Rodd &
Abrams, LLP, have extensive experience in class action cases, and
have played lead roles in major cases resulting in the recovery of
over one billion dollars for class members.  If you would like to
discuss this action or if you have any questions concerning this
case, you may contact:

     Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
     Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
     ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
     212 East 39th Street
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: (212) 889-3700
                (800) 889-3701
     E-mail: Jspanier@abbeyspanier.com
             nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com


PNC FINANCIAL: Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Settlement Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court's approval
of a settlement, which resolves and releases all claims in all
actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the merger of PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., and
National City Corp., the merger agreement, and any disclosure made
in connection with the merger, 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.

National City Corp. was a defendant in numerous lawsuits filed in
and after October 2008 as class actions on behalf of National City
stockholders.  These lawsuits were pending in the Delaware
Chancery Court, all of which were consolidated into a single
lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio and the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common
Pleas.

The consolidated Delaware case and most of the Ohio cases included
the Company as a defendant.  All of these lawsuits also named as
defendants National City's directors and one of the Ohio federal
lawsuits named National City officers as defendants.

The complaints in these cases alleged that the National City
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of
National City in connection with the proposed transaction with
PNC.  The lawsuits generally alleged that National City directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing
National City to enter into the proposed transaction at an
allegedly inadequate and unfair price, engaging in self-dealing
and acting with divided loyalties, and failing to disclose
material information to the stockholders.

Some lawsuits alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
In the cases naming PNC as a defendant, PNC was alleged to have
aided and abetted the other defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The various complaints sought, among other remedies, an
accounting, imposition of a constructive trust, unspecified
damages, rescission, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees.

In addition, the plaintiffs in one of the [pending] derivative
lawsuits against the National City directors in the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas referred to above moved to amend
their complaint to add merger-related claims, including claims
that National City's directors agreed to sell National City in
order to extinguish their own personal liability in derivative
litigation pending against them.  PNC was not named as a defendant
in the proposed amended complaint.

The parties to the Delaware lawsuit and to certain of the Ohio
state court lawsuits entered into a stipulation of settlement in
February 2009 to resolve the Delaware lawsuit, one of the Ohio
state court lawsuits and the acquisition-related claim proposed to
be filed in the derivative lawsuit pending in Ohio state court.

In February 2009, the Court of Chancery preliminarily approved a
class of all persons who were National City common stockholders
during the period from the close of business on October 23, 2008,
through and including December 31, 2008.  In July 2009, the Court
of Chancery approved the settlement.

In connection with the settlement, the Court of Chancery awarded
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel to be paid by
PNC.  In September 2009, objectors to the settlement filed appeals
of the approval to the Delaware Supreme Court.  The plaintiffs
cross-appealed the size of the award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court's approval
of the settlement in April 2010.  Subsequently, the Delaware
Supreme Court granted reconsideration en banc of the appeal.

Upon reconsideration, in July 2010, the Supreme Court affirmed
again the Chancery Court's approval.  The settlement resolves and
releases all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger
agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith.  All
of the other pending federal and state litigation relating to the
acquisition of National City have been voluntarily dismissed.
Other than the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses, these
cases have been resolved without any payments by PNC.

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.pnc.com/--
is a diversified financial services companies in the U.S., with
businesses engaged in retail banking, corporate and institutional
banking, asset management and global fund processing services.
The Company provides its products and services nationally and
others in its primary geographic markets located in Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia,
Ohio, Kentucky and Delaware.  PNC also provides certain global
fund processing services internationally.  The Company has four
businesses engaged in providing banking, asset management and
global fund processing products and services: Retail Banking;
Corporate & Institutional Banking; BlackRock, and PFPC.  In March
2008, PNC announced that it completed the sale of J.J.B. Hilliard,
W.L. Lyons, a brokerage and financial services company, to
Houchens Industries, Inc.  In April 2008, the Company acquired
Sterling Financial Corp.


PNC FINANCIAL: Motion to Transfer Threatens Columbia Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The tentative settlement among parties in the lawsuit against
National City Corp., et al., pending in the District of Columbia
has been threatened by a pending motion before the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to determine whether the lawsuit
should be transferred to the MDL Court, according to PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc.'s August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

PNC Financial Services Group now owns National City.

Beginning in October 2009, PNC Bank and National City Bank have
been named in five lawsuits brought as class actions relating to
the manner in which they charged overdraft fees on ATM and debit
transactions to customers.

Three lawsuits naming PNC Bank and one naming National City Bank,
along with similar lawsuits against numerous other banks, have
been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The first of these cases was originally filed against PNC Bank in
October 2009 in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and an amended complaint was filed in June 2010 in
the MDL Court.  The class sought to be certified in the case is
limited to customers with accounts in New Jersey branches.

The other cases that have been consolidated were filed in June
2010 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida and seek to certify national classes of customers for
common law claims, and subclasses of PNC Bank customers with
accounts in Pennsylvania branches in one case, PNC Bank customers
with accounts in Pennsylvania and Illinois branches in another
case, and National City Bank customers with accounts in Illinois
branches in the third case, in each situation for purposes of
claims under those states' consumer protection statutes.

No class periods are stated in any of the complaints, other than
for the applicable statutes of limitations, which vary by state
and cause of action.

The fifth lawsuit is pending against National City Bank in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  The
class sought to be certified in this case is a national class of
National City Bank customers with subclasses of customers with
accounts in Michigan and Ohio branches for purposes of claims
under those states' consumer protection statutes.

In July 2010, the parties reached a tentative settlement of the
lawsuit pending in the District of Columbia, which is subject,
among other things, to notice to the proposed class, and court
approval.  The amount of the settlement would not be material to
PNC, the Company said.

There is a motion pending before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to determine whether the case should be
transferred to the MDL Court, which was referred to the Panel on
July 29, 2010, for disposition.  No decision has yet been
rendered.  The plaintiffs and National City Bank have opposed the
transfer.  If approved, the transfer could have an impact on the
tentative settlement.

The complaints in each of these lawsuits allege that the banks
engaged in unlawful practices in assessing overdraft fees arising
from electronic point-of-sale and ATM debits.  The principal
practice challenged in these lawsuits is the banks' purportedly
common policy of posting debit transactions on a daily basis from
highest amount to lowest amount, thereby allegedly inflating the
number of overdraft fees assessed.  Other practices challenged
include the failure to decline to honor debit card transactions
where the account has insufficient funds to cover the
transactions.

In the cases in the MDL Court, the plaintiffs assert claims for
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
unconscionability; conversion, unjust enrichment; and violation of
the consumer protection statutes of Pennsylvania, Illinois and New
Jersey.

The action against National City pending in the District of
Columbia adds claims under the Ohio and Michigan consumer
protection statutes and the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
Plaintiffs seek restitution of overdraft fees paid, unspecified
monetary damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees, and declaratory relief finding the
overdraft policies to be unfair and unconscionable.  These cases
are in early stages, with no responsive pleadings or motions
having yet been filed.

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.pnc.com/--
is a diversified financial services companies in the U.S., with
businesses engaged in retail banking, corporate and institutional
banking, asset management and global fund processing services.
The Company provides its products and services nationally and
others in its primary geographic markets located in Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia,
Ohio, Kentucky and Delaware.  PNC also provides certain global
fund processing services internationally.  The Company has four
businesses engaged in providing banking, asset management and
global fund processing products and services: Retail Banking;
Corporate & Institutional Banking; BlackRock, and PFPC.  In March
2008, PNC announced that it completed the sale of J.J.B. Hilliard,
W.L. Lyons, a brokerage and financial services company, to
Houchens Industries, Inc.  In April 2008, the Company acquired
Sterling Financial Corp.


PNM RESOURCES: Navajo Allottees Appeal Order Dismissing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Navajo Nation allottees are appealing an order of the U.S.
District Court in Albuquerque dismissing their lawsuit entitled
"Begay v. PNM et al.," filed against PNM Resources, Inc., and
other utilities, 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 suit was filed against PNM and other
utilities on February 11, 2009, in the U.S. District Court in
Albuquerque.  Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the
Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation.
Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general
assertions that defendants, including PNM, are right-of-way
grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are
either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of
rights-of-way or both.  The plaintiffs, who have sued the
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive
trust.  They have also included a breach of trust claim against
the United States and its Secretary of the Interior.

PNM and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the action.

On March 31, 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed.  The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.  PNM intends to participate in order to
preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way
implicated in the appeal.

As the administrative appeal process is only in its initial
stages, PNM says it cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding
at this time.

PNM Resources, Inc. -- http://www.pnmresources.com/-- is a
holding company of energy and energy-related businesses.  The
subsidiaries of the company are Public Service Company of New
Mexico and subsidiaries (PNM), Texas-New Mexico Power Company and
subsidiaries (TNMP), First Choice Power, L. P. and subsidiaries
(First Choice) and Optim Energy Twin Oaks, LP; formerly known as
Altura Power L.P. (Altura).  PNM is a public utility with
regulated operations engaged in the generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity, the transmission and distribution and
sale of natural gas.  TNMP is a regulated utility operating in
Texas and New Mexico.  First Choice is a REP operating in Texas.
PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries (PNMR) owns 50% of Optim
Energy (formerly, EnergyCo), which is focused on unregulated
electric operations, within the areas of Texas covered by Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), including the development,
operation and ownership of generation assets and wholesale
marketing.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Limited Discovery in Rome Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter City of Rome, Georgia, et. al, v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., are presently conducting limited
discovery, according to priceline.com Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective
state against the company and other defendants, including, among
others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.

The court, on July 10, 2009, lifted the stay it had entered to
require plaintiffs to pursue administrative remedies.

In lifting the stay, the court relied on recent Georgia Supreme
Court rulings that the administrative process in Georgia can be
exhausted when a municipality issues a notice of assessment.
Thereafter, the parties agreed to continue the stay of the
litigation, except for limited discovery that would allow the
parties to engage in mediation of the case.

The parties met for an initial mediation session on May 17, 2010.

The parties presently are conducting limited discovery.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Decision on Post-Verdict Motions
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter City of San Antonio, Texas v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., are awaiting the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division's decision on
post-verdict motions, according to priceline.com Inc.'s Aug. 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective
state against the company and other defendants, including, among
others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.

A class action lawsuit styled City of San Antonio, Texas v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, brought by
the City of San Antonio on behalf of itself and a class of 172
Texas municipalities against the company and other on-line travel
companies.

On Oct. 30, 2009, priceline.com received a jury verdict in the
case.

The jury's verdict found that the company and the other on-line
travel companies that are defendants in the lawsuit control hotels
under the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances and are, therefore,
responsible for collecting and remitting local hotel occupancy
taxes.  The jury rejected the City of San Antonio's claim for
conversion -- essentially, that the company and the other on-line
travel companies had collected a tax and "pocketed" the tax
dollars -- and for punitive damages.

The court previously had granted plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on Sept. 28, 2009, on a number of defendants'
affirmative defenses, including laches, waiver, estoppel and
statute of limitations, but denied summary judgment on all
remaining issues.

The final amount of the judgment against the company has not been
determined.

The jury found that the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Travelweb LLC, owed the City of San Antonio and the 172 Texas
municipalities that make up the class approximately $2.0 million
for historical damages through May of 2009.

In further proceedings, the Court will determine, among other
things, whether the occupancy tax ordinance applies to the
company's service fee and the amount of penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees, which could be significant.  The Company recorded
a charge to general and administrative expenses in the amount of
$3.7 million related to this judgment in the twelve months ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The company says it believes that the jury's decision is
inconsistent with the ordinances and the evidence presented at
trial that it does not control hotels, the company intends to
vigorously pursue its rights on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Currently, the parties are
awaiting the Court's decision on post-verdict motions.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Dismiss Lake County Convention Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana has
dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs in the matter Lake County
Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and Marshall County, Indiana
v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 2:06-cv-00207-JVBAPR, according to
priceline.com Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective
state against the company and other defendants, including, among
others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.

On March 31, 2009, in the suit styled Lake County Convention and
Visitors Bureau, Inc. and Marshall County, Indiana v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al., defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based
on the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  On
March 30, 2010, the court granted summary judgment dismissing
plaintiffs' claims.  No appeal was taken.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Gallup Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Plea
---------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter City of Gallup, New Mexico v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., are awaiting the court's decision on its
motion for reconsideration on the denial of its motion for summary
judgment, according to priceline.com Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective
state against the company and other defendants, including, among
others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Jan. 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Briefing on plaintiffs' class certification motion
was completed on April 30, 2009.

Also on Jan. 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
the complaint.  The court granted that motion on Jan. 16, 2009.

On Feb. 2, 2009, defendants answered the First Amended Complaint.

On July 7, 2009 the court entered an order certifying a class.

On Aug. 27, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
entered an order denying defendants' petition to appeal the order
certifying a class.

On Sept. 22, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.

Defendants' opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment
was due on Nov. 13, 2009.  The court has since stayed discovery in
the case pending its decision on the motion for partial summary
judgment.

The parties scheduled a mediation for March 3, 2010.

On March 1, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.  On March 9, 2010, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration
of the court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Defendants' opposed plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on
March 26, 2010.

Plaintiffs also filed a motion to compel discovery related to
their remaining claims.  The parties have completed briefing and
are awaiting the Court's decision on both motions.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Certification Granted in Goodlettsville Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
matter The City of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, et al. v.
priceline.com Incorporated, et al., 3 :08-cv-00561, according to
priceline.com Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective
state against the company and other defendants, including, among
others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.

The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification on
April 20, 2010 and the parties' motion to approve form and manner
of notice of class certification on May 24, 2010.  The parties are
currently conducting discovery.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in Lyndhurst Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the action styled
The Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey v. priceline.com
Incorporated, et al., remains pending in the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeal for the Third Circuit, according to priceline.com Inc.'s
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective
state against the company and other defendants, including, among
others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law,
attorneys' fees and other relief.

On March 18, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice on the grounds that plaintiff lacked standing to bring
its claims.

On April 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit.

On July 6, 2009, plaintiff filed its appellate brief.

The defendants' answering brief was filed on Aug. 5, 2009, and the
Township's reply brief was filed on Aug. 19, 2009.

On June 10, 2010, the Third Circuit held oral argument and asked
for supplemental submissions relating to standing issues, which
the parties provided by June 18, 2010.

On June 18, 2010, the Township also filed a motion to certify a
question to the New Jersey State Court of Appeal.  Defendants
opposed the motion on June 25, 2010.

The parties are awaiting the decision of the Third Circuit Court
on the appeal and the motion to certify.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Filed by Earl Jones Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Juan of Dow Jones Newswires reports that victims of
convicted fraudster Earl Jones have formally filed a class-action
suit against Royal Bank of Canada, claiming C$40 million in
damages and alleging that the bank allowed Mr. Jones to use his
trust account at the bank to perpetrate his Ponzi scheme.

The suit, filed Thursday in the Superior Court in Montreal,
alleges that the bank allowed Mr. Jones to use his trust account
at the bank for personal use, and attributed him VIP-client
status, which allowed him to conduct "numerous irregular and
inappropriate privileges" that facilitated Mr. Jones in his Ponzi
scheme, according to the court document.

"Substantial amounts of money belonging to the members of the
Class were deposited to the Earl Jones in Trust Account, were
never invested and were never fully reimbursed," according to the
court document.

The lawsuit is expected involve up to 180 claimants.

In an e-mail statement RBC spokeswoman Gillian McArdle claimed the
bank was "deceived by Earl Jones, just as his clients were."
McArdle said the bank "is confident in (its) position and intends
to present a robust defense at the merits stage of the
proceeding."

The filing of the suit follows Quebec Superior Court's move in
mid-July to authorize Virginia Nelles, Esq., who represents the
class, to proceed with the lawsuit against the Canadian banking
giant.

The disgraced Montreal businessman, who presented himself as a
financial adviser although he wasn't registered as such, deposited
millions of dollars into the "Earl Jones in Trust" account with
RBC's Beaconsfield, Que. branch on Montreal's West Island from
Oct. 22, 1981 to Aug. 28, 2008.

Mr. Jones pleaded guilty to two fraud charges and was sentenced in
February to 11 years in prison.

The Quebec Superior Court last July identified several issues that
will be dealt with in the class-action case, including whether RBC
was negligent and willfully blind in allowing Mr. Jones to
perpetrate a Ponzi scheme using the Earl Jones In Trust account
for about 27 years; and whether RBC failed to put an end to the
irregular operation of account in a timely manner.


SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: 9th Circuit Tosses Suit as Another Looms
------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Anderson, writing for TheMutualFundWire.com, reports that
Schwab already settled lawsuits surrounding its beleaguered
YieldPlus fund, and last week it outright defeated a similar suit
involving its Total Bond Market Fund.  But the fight isn't over
yet.  A new suit may be just over the horizon.

On August 12, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ordered a federal district court to dismiss Northstar
Financial Advisors v. Schwab Investments, which was filed by
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis.  Northstar claimed that Schwab
violated part of the '40 Act by deviating from Total Bond's
strategy (as laid out in the prospectus) and ultimately losing
money in mortgage-backed securities.  Basically, the court ruled
that private investors don't have the right to sue over such a
deviation.

"Neither the language of section 13(a) [of the '40 Act], the
structure of the ICA [i.e. Investment Company Act of 1940], nor
the statute's legislative history . . . reflect any congressional
intent to create, or recognize a previously established, private
right of action to enforce section 13(a)," Judge Mary Schroeder
wrote in her opinion.  "The job of enforcement remains exclusively
with the SEC."

Yet the very next day another law firm, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, unveiled its own similar investigation into Schwab's
Total Bond fund.  Hagens may file its own suit.

            Co-Lead Counsel Report on "Northstar" Suit

In a news release, Wolf Popper LLP and Greenbaum Rowe Smith &
Davis LLP, co-lead counsel for the named plaintiff in Northstar
Investment Advisor Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 08-cv-4119 (N.D.
Cal.), invite interested shareholders in the Schwab Total Bond
Market Fund (symbol:  SWLBX) to contact Robert Finkel (212-451-
9620) or Marc Gross (973-577-1810) to discuss the status of the
action.  The Northstar  complaint alleges that defendants deviated
from the Fund's stated investment policy to track the Lehman
Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index by investing in high-risk non-
U.S. agency collateralized mortgage obligations, rather than the
conservative debt instruments that were part of the Index.  On
August 12, 2010, the Ninth Circuit granted defendants' appeal
seeking to dismiss plaintiff's claim under the Investment Company
Act of 1940.  Other state law claims remain in the action and are
being aggressively prosecuted by co-lead counsel.

CONTACT: Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
         WOLF POPPER LLP
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: 212-451-9620
         Facsimile: 212-486-2093
         E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

                    Hagens Berman Starts Probe

In a news release, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP said it is
investigating potential new claims against Schwab Investments and
Charles Schwab Management Inc. for causing the Schwab Total Bond
Market Fund (NASDAQ:SWLBX) to deviate from its fundamental
investment objective to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate
Bond Index beginning August 31, 2007.

According to Hagens Berman's investigation, the Fund deviated from
its stated investment objective by investing a material percentage
of its portfolio in high risk non-U.S. agency collateralized
mortgage obligations (CMOs). The Fund also deviated from its
stated fundamental investment objective by investing more than 25%
of its total assets in U.S. agency and non-agency mortgage-backed
securities and CMOs. The Fund's deviation from its stated
investment objective caused investors to suffer a negative 12.64%
differential in total return for the Fund compared to the Index
for the period August 31, 2007 through February 27, 2009,
consisting of a negative total return of 4.80% for the Fund
compared to a positive total return of 7.85% for the Index over
that same period (including interest payments).

On August 12, 2010, in a separate action filed by other counsel
and a financial advisor, the Ninth Circuit dismissed all federal
claims based upon Section 13a of the Investment Company Act of
1940. While that action will continue on certain claims, Hagen
Berman's investigation is looking at other claims that can be
asserted by those who held shares in the fund since August 31,
2007 that are not affected by that opinion or asserted in that
action.

If you owned shares of the Fund at any time from August 31, 2007
to the present (the Class Period) and suffered damages as a result
therefore, you may be eligible to be a lead or representative
plaintiff in an action seeking recovery for losses incurred by you
and other holders of SWLBX shares. To discuss this matter,
contact:

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

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


SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued Thursday by the law firm of
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the securities of SciClone
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCLN) ("SciClone" or the
"Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired SciClone's
securities between May 11, 2009 and August 10, 2010, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) toll
free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@btkmc.com

The Complaint charges SciClone and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SciClone
engages in the development and commercialization of therapeutics
for the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases in the
People's Republic of China and internationally.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that defendants had propped up the Company's results by
manipulating SciClone's sales abroad by allegedly engaging in
illegal and improper sales behavior that eventually caused the
Company to become the subject of investigations by the Securities
Exchange Commission ("SEC") and Department of Justice ("DOJ") for
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"); (2) that
SciClone had inadequate systems of internal operational or
financial controls, such that SciClone's reported financial
statements were true, accurate, or reliable; (3) the Company's
financial statements and reports were not prepared in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States
("GAAP") and SEC rules; and (4) the defendants lacked any
reasonable basis to claim that SciClone was operating according to
plan, or that SciClone could achieve guidance sponsored and/or
endorsed by defendants.

SciClone's principal product is ZADAXIN which is used for the
treatment of hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses and certain
cancers, as well as for use as a vaccine adjuvant or as a
chemotherapy adjuvant for cancer patients with weakened immune
systems.  Throughout the Class Period, SciClone claimed to have
commercialization rights for DC Bead, a product candidate for the
treatment of advanced liver cancer in China, as well as for
ondansetron RapidFilm, an oral thin film formulation of
ondansetron to treat and prevent nausea and vomiting caused by
chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery in China and Vietnam.

As investors ultimately learned, the Company's expansion in China,
as well as its representations concerning its systems of controls
and procedures, were patently untrue.  The truth later emerged
that the defendants were allegedly engaged in illegal and improper
sales and marketing activities in China which  ultimately caused
the Company to become the focus of a joint investigation by the
SEC and the DOJ for possible violations of the FCPA. On this news,
shares of the Company's shares declined almost 30% in the single
trading day, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal
courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit http://www.btkmc.com/

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not
later than October 12, 2010, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

CONTACT:

     Darren J. Check, Esq.
     D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
     BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Toll Free: 1-888-299-7706
     Telephone: 1-610-667-7706


SMUGGLER'S ENTERPRISES: Move to Dismiss "Bates" Suit Partly Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John E. Steele of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, grants in
part and denies in part Smuggler's Enterprises, Inc., doing
business as Laishley Crab House, and Bruce Laishley's motion to
dismiss Melissa Bates' complaint and motion to compel arbitration.

The first two counts in the Complaint allege violations of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay proper
overtime compensation and failing to pay minimum wages.  In Count
III, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to pay her the state
minimum wage for all hours worked, in violation of Article 10,
Section 24, of the Florida Constitution. Count III states a cause
of action based solely upon the cited provision of the Florida
Constitution.

Defendants seek to dismiss Count III for failing to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Defendants argue that plaintiff
was required to comply with the notice requirement imposed by
Florida Statutes, Section 448.110, but failed to do so.
Additionally, defendants assert that Count III cannot be brought
as a class action except pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220, and
that plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of that
rule. Finally, defendants assert that the entire matter should be
dismissed or stayed in lieu of mandatory alternative dispute
resolution.

Judge Steele granted the defendants motion to the extent that
Count III cannot be maintained as a collective action and has not
been pled as a class action, but may remain as an individual claim
by plaintiff. The motion is otherwise denied.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100819a37


SPRINT NEXTEL: Accused of Breaching Manufacturer's Warranty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kandance Clark, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Case No. 10-cv-03625 (N.D.
Calif. August 17, 2010), accuses the telecommunications company of
"routinely" rejecting claims for repairs covered under its
warranty and service plans on the pretext that her cellular phone
suffered water damage (based on the rejection sticker in the
cellular phone changing color), without first ascertaining that
there was in fact actual water exposure, and requiring those
holding insurance policies to pay a deductible ($50 dollars or
$100, depending on the cellular device) before they can obtain a
replacement.  Ms. Clark says that by failing to state in clear and
conspicuous language the reasons for which it will deny coverage,
and for denying coverage for a reason not previously disclosed,
Sprint is engaged in deceptive acts and practices prohibited by
the California Business and Professions Code.

Ms. Clark relates that in 2009, she acquired a Sprint cellular
telephone and began paying Sprint for an Equipment Service &
Repair Program ("ESRP") and an insurance policy (which Sprint
calls an Equipment Replacement Program.  Ms. Clark says that when
she took her cellular phone to a Sprint store in San Pedro,
California, to be fixed, the Sprint employee said that the
rejection sticker had turned red (supposedly indicating water
damage), which voids the manufacturer warranty.  The employee, who
made no attempt to investigate what actually caused the problem,
required her to pay $100 so that she can have her cellular
telephone replaced under her insurance policy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kassra P. Nassiri, Esq.
          Charles H. Jung, Esq.
          NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
          477 Kearny Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 762-3100
          E-mail: knassiri@nassiri-jung.com
                  cjung@nassiri-jung.com

               - and -

          Howard Yellen, Esq.
          11200 Donner Pass Road, Suite 132
          Truckee, CA 96161
          Telephone: (415) 578-4550
          E-mail: howardyellen@yahoo.com


SOLECTRON CORP: Shareholders' Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed Thursday that a lawsuit on behalf of
former public shareholders of Solectron Corp. (NYSE:SLR) has been
certified to proceed as a class action.  The class is represented
by Robbins Umeda LLP, led by partner S. Benjamin Rozwood.

Class members include holders of approximately 900 million shares
of Solectron common stock before it was acquired by Flextronics,
one of Solectron's competitors in the electronic manufacturing
services industry.  The suit, Carrigan v. Solectron Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:07-CV-087219, seeks a money judgment and related relief
based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, including loyalty,
due care, candor, and Revlon duties to obtain the best value for
class members in Flextronics's acquisition of Solectron.

The class certification order, along with the operative complaint
and other orders in the case, may be accessed at:

             http://robbinsumeda.com/solectron.html

Institutional and individual shareholders may contact Mr. Rozwood
of Robbins Umeda LLP for more information at 1-800-350-6003.

Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com/-- is a
securities litigation firm with significant experience
representing debt and equity investors in M&A-related shareholder
class actions, shareholder derivative actions, and securities
fraud class actions.


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

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

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

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

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 14, 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

SWK Holdings Corporation -- http://www.swkhold.com/-- was
formerly a provider of customer service solutions until the sale
of substantially all its assets in December 2009.  It is currently
seeking to redeploy its cash to enhance stockholder value and are
seeking, analyzing and evaluating potential acquisition
candidates.  This strategy may allow SWK Holdings to realize
future cash flow benefits from its net operating loss
carryforwards.  It was incorporated in Delaware in September 1999
under the name KANA Software, Inc. In December 2009 the Company
changed its name to SWK Holdings Corporation.


SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Discrimination Against Filipinos
------------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Hennessy-Fiske, writing for The Los Angeles Times, reports
that the California Nurses Association has filed a class-action
grievance against Sacramento-based Sutter Health and the company's
California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, alleging that
hospital managers refused to hire Filipino nurses.

On Thursday, union officials and Bay Area Filipino activists
called on the San Francisco Human Rights Commission to investigate
the discrimination claims.

Three former managers at California Pacific Medical Center, which
also operates St. Luke's Hospital, submitted statements to the
commission alleging that between 2007 and 2009, supervisors told
them not to hire Filipino nurses. The union also submitted records
showing the percentage of Filipino nurses at the hospital dropped
from 65% to 10% in 2008.

"There can be no excuse for racial or ethnic discrimination,"
Zenei Cortez, a registered nurse and union official, said in a
statement Thursday.

More than 35 Filipino community groups signed a letter to the
hospital calling for officials to investigate the allegations.

"Sutter's discriminatory practices against Filipino nurses is as
much about denying job opportunities as it is about punishing
unionized Filipina nurses at St. Luke's who stood up to Sutter's
plans to cut services to our community," said Lillian Galedo of
Oakland-based Filipino Advocates for Justice.

The union has been locked in a contract dispute with Sutter for
three years.  Sutter officials dismissed the lawsuit as a
negotiating ploy.

"We pride ourselves on our diverse hiring policies and our
longstanding commitment to promoting equal opportunity
employment," Dr. Warren Browner, California Pacific Medical
Center's chief executive, said in a statement, calling the
allegations "dishonest and without merit."

Dr. Browner said Sutter does not track how many of its nurses are
Filipino, but said the percentage of Asian nurses at St. Luke's
has actually risen slightly, from 63% in 2007 to 66% today.

"We stand by our record as an employer that is committed to
diversity," Dr. Browner said.


SYNGENTA CROP: Aug. 25 Hearing on Bid to Quash Tillery Subpoena
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder will oversee a motion
hearing Aug. 25 in a proposed class action against atrazine
manufacturer Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.

The hearing will tackle two motions to compel filed by plaintiff
Holiday Shores Sanitation District against Syngenta and the
University of Chicago, and potentially other issues.

The University of Chicago is one of a number of outside groups
that have filed pleadings asking the court to quash subpoenas they
received from plaintiff's attorney, Stephen Tillery, and his team.

Moves to quash the summons were filed in July.

The case is one of a series of proposed class actions filed four
years ago by lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District,
which claims that atrazine -- a common weed killer used by farmers
-- runs off fields and fouls their drinking water supplies. They
claim that atrazine contamination can lead to human health
problems.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that
atrazine is safe in drinking water up to three parts per billion,
Holiday Shores claims even smaller amounts cause medical issues.

Even though Judge Crowder unloaded most of her civil docket
because of the time-consuming role as newly appointed asbestos
judge, she will continue to preside over this atrazine case until
she enters a ruling on a Syngenta plea.

Syngenta has asked Judge Crowder to either dismiss or stay the
Holiday Shores suit pending the outcome of a similar class action
filed by Tillery in federal court in East St. Louis earlier this
year.

That suit, filed on behalf of a proposed class of water providers
in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and other states, makes virtually
identical claims to those filed in the Madison County suits.

Once Judge Crowder rules on the dismissal or stay, the case will
join the other atrazine suits that were reassigned to Circuit
Judge Daniel Stack.

Unless that ruling comes before Aug. 25, Judge Crowder will be the
judge hearing that day's arguments.

Kurtis Reeg, Esq., represents Syngenta.

The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The atrazine class actions are case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TRANSMITTER SOLUTIONS: Sued for Making Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Addison Automatics, Inc., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Transmitter Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No.
2010-CH-34965 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. August 13, 2010), accuses
the Bountiful, Utah-based company of faxing unsolicited
advertisements, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  Addison Automatics says that defendants' faxes
cause recipients to lose paper and toner consumed in the printing
of defendants' faxes, waste the recipients' valuable time, and
unlawfully interrupt plaintiff's and the other class members'
right to privacy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


TYSON FOODS: Court Sets Trial in "Williams" FLSA Suit for Oct. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc., said on its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2010, that the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia has scheduled trial in Williams, et al.
v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, May 23, 2007), which involves
the Company's Dawson, Georgia facility, for October 12, 2010.

Several private lawsuits are pending against Tyson Foods alleging
that the Company failed to compensate poultry plant employees for
all hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of
the FLSA.

In most of these private lawsuits, particularly Sheila Ackles, et
al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (N. Dist. Alabama, October 23, 2006);
McCluster, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M. Dist. Georgia, December
11, 2006); Dobbins, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D.
Alabama, December 21, 2006); Buchanan, et al. v. Tyson Chicken,
Inc., et al. and Potter, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al.
(N.D. Alabama, December 22, 2006); Jones, et al. v. Tyson Foods,
Inc., et al., Walton, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. and
Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (S.D. Mississippi,
February 9, 2007); Balch, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D.
Oklahoma, March 1, 2007); Adams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D.
Arkansas, March 2, 2007); Atkins, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(M.D. Georgia, March 5, 2007); Laney, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
and Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, May 23,
2007), plaintiffs in each case seek or have sought to act as class
representatives on behalf of all current and former employees who
were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees.  Each of these matters involves allegations that
employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre-
and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of
protective and sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking
to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas.

On April 6, 2007, the Company filed a motion for transfer of the
actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which was granted on August 17,
2007. These cases and five other cases subsequently filed
involving the same allegations, Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods,
Inc. (W.D. Tennessee, January 30, 2008); Maldonado, et al. v.
Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Tennessee, January 31, 2008); White, et
al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Texas, February 1, 2008); Meyer, et
al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Missouri, February 2, 2008); and
Leak, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. North Carolina, February
6, 2008), were transferred to the U.S. District Court in the
Middle District of Georgia, In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor
Standards Act Litigation.

On January 2, 2008, the Court issued a Joint Scheduling and Case
Management Order. This order granted Conditional Class
Certification and called for notice to be given to potential
putative class members via a third party administrator. The
potential class members had until April 18, 2008, to "opt-in" to
the class. Approximately 13,800 employees and former employees
filed their consents to "opt-in" to the class. On October 15,
2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for equitable
tolling, which, if granted, would have extended the time period in
which the plaintiffs could have sought damages. However, in
addition to the consents already obtained, the Court allowed the
plaintiffs to obtain corrected and reaffirmed opt-in consents that
were previously filed in the matter of M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. (N.D. Alabama, June 22, 1999). The deadline for filing
these consents was December 31, 2008, and according to the third
party administrator, approximately 4,000 reaffirmed consents were
filed, some or all of which may be in addition to the
approximately 13,800 consents filed previously.

The parties have completed discovery at eight of the Company's
facilities and its corporate headquarters in Springdale, Arkansas.
In July 2009 the Company filed class decertification motions for
the eight facilities involved in discovery. The Company also filed
Motions for Partial Summary Judgment for these eight facilities.
Oral arguments for these motions occurred on February 3, 2010,
and, on March 16, 2010, the Court granted partial summary judgment
with respect to two unionized facilities and denied the remaining
motions. The Court concluded that the activities at these two
facilities met the definition of "clothes changing" under Section
203(o) of the FLSA and that the time engaged in pre- and post-
shift donning and doffing is not compensable. The Court did not
rule on whether Section 203(o) activity could begin the continuous
work day, thereby making all walking, sanitizing and washing time
after that activity compensable. The Company then filed a motion
for certification of a permissive appeal on whether Section 203(o)
activity can start the continuous workday and whether washing
required clothing items is covered by Section 203(o). On April 23,
2010, the Court granted the Company permission to appeal these
issues to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court also retained jurisdiction with respect to the eight
facilities while staying proceedings with respect to seven. It
then scheduled trial in Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(M.D. Georgia, May 23, 2007), which involves the Company's Dawson,
Georgia facility, for October 12, 2010.

On April 16, 2010, the Court lifted a previously entered stay of
discovery with respect to the Company's remaining 32 facilities
subject to the MDL Proceedings and ordered the parties to meet,
confer, and report to the Court any discovery agreements and
disputed issues within 45 days. On June 7, 2010, the Court issued
a scheduling order which set the close of discovery for the
remaining 32 facilities for May 31, 2012.

                        About Tyson Foods

Based in Springdale, Ark., Tyson Foods, Inc. produces, distributes
and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied
products. Its operations are conducted in four segments: Chicken,
Beef, Pork and Prepared Foods.


TYSON FOODS: Appeals Pending in Consumer Refund Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc., said on its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2010, that appeals of a court order
approving the settlement of a class action charging the Company
with falsely advertising that its chickens are raised without
antibiotics are pending.

In 2008, 12 separate lawsuits were filed, with the various
plaintiffs alleging that the Company falsely advertised chicken
products as "raised without antibiotics" in violation of various
state consumer protection statutes (Cutsail v. Tyson, D. Maryland,
June 23, 2008; Cohen v. Tyson, E.D. Arkansas, April 25, 2008;
Wright v. Tyson, D. New Jersey, June 18, 2008; Wilson v. Tyson,
E.D. Arkansas, June 18, 2008; Gupton v. Tyson, E.D. Arkansas, July
2, 2008; Kranish v. Tyson, D. Maryland, June 20, 2008; Zukowsky v.
Tyson, E.D. Arkansas, June 30, 2008; Brickerd v. Tyson, D.
Maryland, July 9, 2008; Court v. Tyson, W.D. Washington, June 19,
2008; Epstein v. Tyson, N.D. California, June 4, 2008; Johnson v.
Tyson, D. Idaho, July 16, 2008; and Mize v. Tyson, W.D. Arkansas,
June 30, 2008). Plaintiffs in each of the cases seek to pursue
claims on behalf of themselves and proposed classes of other
similarly situated consumers. Plaintiffs in each of the cases seek
compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount in
excess of $5 million.

Plaintiffs in two of the cases, Cutsail v. Tyson and Cohen v.
Tyson, petitioned the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to transfer all of these actions to a single court for
consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1407. On October 17, 2008, the Judicial Panel granted the
multidistrict litigation petitions and transferred the pending
cases to the District of Maryland. Subsequently, plaintiffs
Gupton, Latimer and Mize filed voluntary dismissals of their
claims. The three cases were subsequently dismissed.

The parties have now reached a settlement of the matter. Under the
terms of the settlement, the Company will pay up to $5 million in
class claims, notice and administrative costs, and Court-approved
incentive awards to the named plaintiffs. If the sum of valid
class claims, notice and administration costs, and incentive
awards is less than $5 million, the Company will make in-kind
donations of our products to food banks in such amounts to bring
its total payout to $5 million (excluding attorneys' fees and
expenses). The settlement agreement also provided that plaintiffs'
counsel may apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and
actual expenses in a total amount not to exceed $3 million. On
January 15, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement. Notice of the proposed settlement was
published, and a final fairness hearing occurred on May 7, 2010.

On June 2, 2010, the Court entered a final judgment and order
approving the settlement agreement, including an award of $3
million for the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and $20,000 as an
incentive award to be shared by the named plaintiffs. Three class
members have filed notices of appeal of the final judgment and
order.

                        About Tyson Foods

Based in Springdale, Ark., Tyson Foods, Inc. produces, distributes
and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied
products. Its operations are conducted in four segments: Chicken,
Beef, Pork and Prepared Foods.


TULSA, OKLAHOMA: Reaches Settlement With Black Officers
-------------------------------------------------------
P.J. Lassek and David Harper, Tulsa World staff writers, report
that Mayor Dewey Bartlett told the Tulsa City Council on Thursday
that a long-standing racial-discrimination lawsuit against the
city of Tulsa has come to an end.

Mayor Bartlett told councilors that both the city and the
plaintiffs in the case have approved the form and content of the
final documents in the lawsuit and that the agreed-upon terms
await only the final approval of U.S. Senior District Judge
Terence Kern.

Judge Kern has overseen the long-standing class action lawsuit for
the past five years, while U.S. Chief District Judge Claire Eagan
has handled the settlement effort.

Mayor Bartlett said this is a significant event in resolving a
case that has been ongoing for 16 years. He pointed out that a
previous administration spent $2 million to resolve the case "and
didn't accomplish anything other than getting $2 million to an
Atlanta, Ga., firm."

He said this time the city was able to utilize "the mediating
capabilities of Judge Eagan."

"I make that point, obviously, to encourage next week when you
vote on (mediation) that you consider it very seriously," Mayor
Bartlett said.

During the closing days of the black officers lawsuit settlement
process, mediation was suggested to resolve the conflicts that
have grown between the council and the mayor.

"Our issues are not that far apart; they're not that difficult,"
the mayor told the council, "certainly not along the lines of what
we've seen in the black officers suit."

The council is to vote Thursday on whether to enter mediation with
Mayor Bartlett.

Before the council meeting, Mayor Bartlett said he was called to
Eagan's court that afternoon to discuss the termination of the
black officers lawsuit and was told that a compromise had been
worked out on the pending issues connected to the settlement.

Tulsa attorney Joel Wohlgemuth, who represents the city, said all
the disputed issues in the settlement process were resolved
Thursday.

Three court orders must be signed by Judge Kern before the lawsuit
is finalized and terminated, Mr. Wohlgemuth said.

One order would terminate a consent decree approved by the court
seven years ago. Another is related to surveillance cameras in
police cars, and the third involves final payment of fees to
plaintiffs' attorneys, he said.

"The consent decree as well as the court's jurisdiction is finally
concluded in the case, which was filed in 1994," Mr. Wohlgemuth
said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Louis Bullock said, "We've got all the
details worked out."  He declined to comment further Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed in January 1994 by then-Officer Roy Johnson,
who alleged that the Tulsa Police Department discriminated against
him and other black officers. It was made a class action in 1998.

In a sense, Thursday's announcement signaled at least the third
time the case has been successfully settled.

In May 2003, then-federal judge Sven Erik Holmes approved a
consent decree between the plaintiffs and the city that resolved
the case short of trial. That development, which occurred over the
objection of the Fraternal Order of Police, occurred after an
attempt to settle the matter the previous year was rejected by
Holmes.

Judge Holmes wrote in 2003 that a trial on the allegations in the
lawsuit would have been "lengthy and complex" and "very expensive
for all parties."

He wrote that if the plaintiffs had received all the relief
requested at the time, the city could have been liable for up to
$17 million in damages, in addition to lawyers' fees and costs.

Among other things, the consent decree called for the Police
Department to seek accreditation through the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, contained provisions
for a data-collection system to gauge officer performance, and set
up an independent auditor and a dispute-avoidance resolution
committee.

Whether it was the establishment of a process to resolve disputes
outside the glare of an open courtroom or a product of Judge
Holmes' resigning from the federal bench in March 2005, the case
did not appear in the headlines as much in subsequent years.

When it did, the news was usually something to do with the legal
bills that continued to mount.

Late last August, Judge Kern signed off on an agreement in which
the black officers' attorneys were to receive $41,010.50 for work
performed on the case between Nov. 10, 2007, through Aug. 4, 2009.

On Nov. 29, 2007, Judge Kern had approved a $175,000 settlement
for the plaintiffs' attorney fees from May 2003 -- when the
parties entered into the consent decree -- through Nov. 9, 2007.

The settlements on the attorney fees were in addition to the
millions of dollars the city had already spent, including more
than $2 million to represent itself in the lawsuit -- the sum
Mayor Bartlett referred to on Thursday.

In April 2005 the Tulsa City Council approved paying more than
$2.1 million for plaintiffs' attorney fees and interest. Judge
Holmes had approved those attorneys fees in 2003.

In January 2009, Judge Kern issued an order in which he wrote the
case appeared "ripe for termination" and sent any remaining issues
to Eagan for resolution.

In May, Judge Kern approved a settlement between the plaintiffs
and the city over the objection of the FOP. The judge said then
that he didn't believe that the FOP's consent was legally required
for the court to approve the pact, although he said he understood
the union's concerns.


UNITED KINGDOM: Might Face Class Action Suit by Holocaust Refugees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cnaan Liphshiz, writing for Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, reports a
group of Israel-advocacy activists last week announced they would
file a class-action lawsuit against the British government for
"increasing the scale of the Holocaust" by refusing to allow
Jewish European refugees into British Mandate Palestine during
WWII.

People involved in British-Israeli relations expressed mixed
feelings about the intended civil lawsuit, which according to its
initiators is designed to counter the ongoing debate in Europe
about whether Israel has a right to exist, and Israel's
international delegitimization.

The lawyer preparing the suit, Tali Tamarin, said details about it
would be made available this week at a press conference in Atlit,
where the British detained thousands of illegal Jewish immigrants.
The motion is on behalf of the families of European Jews who
perished in the Holocaust after being deported back to Nazi-
controlled Europe by the British.

While there are no more than a few thousand documented cases of
Jews being sent back to Europe during the Holocaust era, the
group's team of researchers say that based on testimony they
estimate that up to 30,000 Jews trying to reach British-controlled
Palestine were forced to turn back to Europe and eventually died
during the war.  The immigrants were either caught in Palestine or
in its territorial waters.  Mr. Tamarin said the suit "will be for
recognition and not for damages."

Brenda Katten, former chairperson of the Israel, Britain and The
Commonwealth Association -- which promotes British-Israel
relations -- said she had mixed feelings about the initiative.

"It's not so black and white," she said. "On the one hand I agree
that there can be no doubt that the White Paper (a British policy
paper from 1939 limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine) did
result in the death of many Jews. On the other hand, Britain took
in 10,000 Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Europe."


UNITED PARCEL: Barber Auto Lawsuit Still Pending in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by Barber Auto Sales against United Parcel
Service, Inc., remains pending in Alabama federal court, 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 Barber Auto Sales v. UPS, which a federal court in Alabama
certified as a class action in September 2009, the plaintiff
asserts a breach of contract claim arising from UPS's assessment
of shipping charge corrections when UPS determines that the
"dimensional weight" of packages is greater than reported by the
shipper.

The Company denied any liability with respect to these claims and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this case.  At this time,
the Company has not determined the amount of any liability that
may result from this matter or whether the liability, if any,
would have a material adverse effect on its  financial condition,
results of operations, or liquidity.

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

United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- is a package
delivery company.  The company delivers packages each business day
for 1.8 million shipping customers to 6.1 million consignees in
over 200 countries and territories.  Its primary business is the
time-definite delivery of packages and documents worldwide.  UPS
operates in three segments: U.S. Domestic Package operations,
International Package operations, and Supply Chain & Freight
operations.


UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Lawsuit Still Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action alleging price-fixing activities filed against
freight forwarders, including United Parcel Service, Inc., remains
pending in New York district court, 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 January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services.  UPS was not named in this case.

On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants.  UPS and
UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in
the amended complaint.

The Company denied any liability with respect to these claims and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this case.  At this time,
the Company has not determined the amount of any liability that
may result from this matter or whether the liability, if any,
would have a material adverse effect on its  financial condition,
results of operations, or liquidity.

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

United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- is a package
delivery company.  The company delivers packages each business day
for 1.8 million shipping customers to 6.1 million consignees in
over 200 countries and territories.  Its primary business is the
time-definite delivery of packages and documents worldwide.  UPS
operates in three segments: U.S. Domestic Package operations,
International Package operations, and Supply Chain & Freight
operations.


UNITED STATES: Suit Accuses Census Bureau of Bias in Job Screening
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Davidson at The Washington Post reports Precious Daniels was
upset with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for its stance on
health-care legislation last year, so she decided to demonstrate
her anger with a peaceful protest.

She blocked the doorway of the company's Detroit headquarters and
got arrested for her trouble.  Her husband paid the $50 bail, then
she was released and told to appear for a court date on a
disorderly conduct charge.

When she did, the misdemeanor was dropped. The arresting officer
apparently thought so little of the case that he didn't even file
the paperwork.

But the arrest means much more to the Census Bureau.

After Ms. Daniels applied to help Uncle Sam count his people, he
said no.

A fingerprint check "resulted in a positive match with a criminal
history record maintained by the FBI," according to her rejection
letter. "Based on the nature of the facts disclosed in the record,
we find you to be ineligible for this temporary position."

There could not have been much in that record, because Ms. Daniels
had only the one arrest and no convictions.

"I never thought something that peaceful and well organized would
cost me a job with the federal government," she said.

The letter was quite a surprise because, according to the job
application, "If you have had a conviction of a violation of the
law since age 18 for something other than a minor traffic
violation it could be a basis for nonselection." It says nothing
about only an arrest record.

"We like to think that you are innocent until proven guilty in our
system, but using an arrest record turns that around on its head,"
said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, an
organization that promotes criminal-justice reforms.

Ms. Daniels was so discouraged by the letter that she crumpled it
in frustration and gave up on the census job. Now she's fighting
back. She is one of the named plaintiffs in a class-action suit
that accuses the Census Bureau of knowingly using a screening
process that could result in massive racial and ethnic
discrimination.

Administration officials were warned more than a year ago that
excluding applicants on the basis of arrest only was not right.
"The Census Bureau should not rely on arrest records for which
there was no conviction," Stuart J. Ishimaru, then the acting
chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, wrote in
a July 2009 letter to the Census Bureau and its parent, the
Commerce Department. Officials at Commerce and the Census Bureau
would not comment on the case. Papers filed by the Justice
Department call for the case to be dismissed on procedural
grounds.

The government is quiet on these central points of the lawsuit:
"The law is quite clear that Census cannot disqualify applicants
based on arrest charges alone" unless the charge is pending.
"Census' use of these arbitrary pre-employment screens is not only
unfair, it also has the result of discriminating on the basis of
race . . ."

Coupling race with arrest records raises issues that stretch this
case beyond many others in federal discrimination litigation. It
carries the issue into disparate treatment by the criminal justice
system, and the lifelong impact that it can have on those who have
been arrested, whether guilty or not. Studies have shown that
black people, when compared with white people, are treated more
severely for similar offenses at every stage of the criminal
justice system.

By blocking applicants with only an arrest record, "you just take
the disparities from the criminal justice system and export them
into your hiring practices," said Samuel R. Miller, a lawyer with
the New York firm of Outten & Golden, who represents Ms. Daniels,
along with a coalition of civil rights organizations. He said the
Census Bureau followed similar discriminatory policies during the
2000 Census.

Citing Justice Department figures, a report by the Justice Policy
Institute, an organization that seeks alternatives to
incarceration, says 13% of black youths reported selling drugs,
compared with 17% of white youths -- yet in 2003, African
Americans were arrested for drug-abuse violations at nearly twice
the rate of whites.

"For example," says a report by the New York Civil Liberties
Union, "white students at Columbia University on the upper west
side of Manhattan walking around with marijuana in their pockets
are almost never arrested -- the area has one of the lowest
marijuana arrest rates in New York City. However, blacks in west
and central Harlem, just a few blocks from Columbia University,
are routinely stopped, searched and arrested."

And a 2000 study by Building Blocks for Youth said that "when
white youth and minority youth were charged with the same
offenses, African-American youth with no prior admissions were six
times more likely to be incarcerated in public facilities than
white youth with the same background."

Mr. Miller said the census case is important in part because it
highlights "the long-term consequences of criminal justice policy
that creates racial disparities. The collateral consequences of
that disparate treatment is going to follow those people for
decades."


VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viasystems Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended
class action complaint relating to its acquisition of Merix
Corporation 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.

On October 13, 2009, and November 5, 2009, respectively, Asbestos
Workers Pension Fund and W. Donald Wybert, both former Merix
shareholders, filed putative class action complaints in Oregon
state court (Multnomah County), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Merix, the members of its board
of directors and Viasystems.

The complaints, which were substantively identical and sought to
enjoin the Company's acquisition of Merix, alleged, among other
things, that Merix' directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Merix' shareholders by attempting to sell Merix to Viasystems for
an inadequate price and that Viasystems aided and abetted those
breaches.

On November 23, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases.  On or about December 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which largely
mirrored the original complaints, but also added Maple Acquisition
Corp. (the merger vehicle) as a defendant and alleged that Merix'
proxy statement for the Merix Acquisition was materially
deficient.

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

On February 5, following oral arguments, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion.  The Merix Acquisition was consummated on
February 16, 2010.  Merix became a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company.  Merix was a leading manufacturer of technologically
advanced, multi-layer printed circuit boards with operations in
the United States and China.

After the Court denied plaintiff's motion to enjoin the
transaction, plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint dated April
19, 2010.  All defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
on July 8, 2010.  The parties have not yet fully briefed the
dismissal motion, and the Court has not yet set a motion hearing
date.

Viasystems Group, Inc., provides complex multi-layer printed
circuit boards (PCBs) and electro-mechanical solutions (E-M
Solutions).  The Company is based in St. Louis.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Reply on Opposition to Dismissal Due Sept. 15
------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide, Inc., is expected to submit a reply brief on
September 15, 2010, in relation to its motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action complaint, 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.

Four class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, based on
similar allegations and causes of action.

On November 17, 2009, Eva L.Hanna and Shelley F. Whitson, former
participants in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement Plan,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
fromApril6, 2009 to the present; on December 7, 2009, Daniel J.
Cambra, a participant in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement
Savings Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain
persons participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the
plan) from October 25, 2007 to the present; on January 15, 2010,
Patrick M. Couch, a participant in one of the merged 401(k) plans,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
fromMarch 23, 2006 to the present; and on April 21, 2010, Tawana
Franklin, a participant in the YRC Worldwide 401(k) Plan, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of certain persons participating
in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan) from October 25,
2007 to the present.

In general, the complaints allege that the defend ants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing participants
Company common stock as part of their matching contributions and
by not removing the stock fund as an investment option in the
plans in light of the Company's financial condition.  Although
some Company matching contributions were made in Company common
stock, participants were not permitted to invest their own
contributions in the Company stock fund.

The complaints allege that the defendants failed to prudently and
loyally manage the plans and assets of the plans; imprudently
invested in Company common stock; failed to monitor fiduciaries
and provide them with accurate information; breached the duty to
properly appoint, monitor, and inform the Benefits Administrative
Committee; misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse financial
information; breached the duty to avoid conflict of interest; and
are subject to co-fiduciary liability.

Each of the complaints seeks, among other things, an order
compelling defendants to make good to the plan all losses
resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, attorneys'
fees, and other injunctive and equitable relief.  Based on the
four separate complaints previously filed, the Company believes
the allegation sare without merit and intends to vigorously
contest the claims.

On March 3, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating three
of the four cases and, on April 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint.

The consolidated complaint asserts the same claims as the
previously-filed complaints but names as defendants certain former
officers of the Company in addition to those current officers and
directors that have already been named.

The fourth case (Franklin) was consolidated with the first three
cases on May 12, 2010.  The defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on June 1, 2010, and the plaintiffs' filed
their memorandum in opposition on August 6, 2010.  Defendants
intend to submit a reply brief on or before September 15, 2010.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kan., YRC Worldwide Inc. (NASDAQ:
YRCW) -- http://www.yrcw.com/-- is a holding company that through
wholly owned operating subsidiaries offers its customers a wide
range of transportation services.  These services include global,
national and regional transportation as well as logistics.

                           *********

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  * * *