CAR_Public/100825.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 25, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 167

                             Headlines

ALABAMA: New Occupational Tax Suit Expected to Become Class Action
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Court Hears Oral Argument in "Tolin" Suit
ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers
AURORA LOAN: Hagens Berman Files Class-Action Suit for Homeowners
AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Still Pending

BANK OF THE CASCADES: Accused of Breach of Contract
BEAR LAKE GOLD: Ontario Ct. OKs $1.3-Mil. Class Suit Settlement
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Sex Abuse at Oakalla Prison
BOWNE & CO: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger
BP PLC: Faces New Oil Spill Lawsuit in New Orleans

CABOT CORP: Cleared of Medical Monitoring Charges
CHRYSLER GROUP: N.J. Suit Complains About Defective Dodge Brakes
DENVER, CO: Judge Says DNC Arrests Lawsuit Can Be Class Action
DIEBOLD INC: Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement Still Pending
DIEBOLD INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio

FEDEX GROUND: Faces Class Action Suit by Drivers in Massachusetts
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Taylor Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Wants Sanctions Imposed on Searcy Plaintiffs
FIFTH THIRD: Antitrust Litigation Remains Pending
FIFTH THIRD: Consolidated Securities Complaint Remains Pending

FIRST DATA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Overcharging Merchants
GILEAD SCIENCES: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Set Nov. 5
HAWAII: State Sup. Ct. Won't Hear Appeal on Teachers' Back Pay
HUNTINGON BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Appeal on Securities Suit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Consolidated ERISA Suit Settlement Pending

ICX TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
J&J CHEMICAL: Trail Creek Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Oil Spill
JACK KITZIS: Displaced Salisbury Tenants Mull Class Action
KINDER MORGAN: Concludes Discovery in "Going Private" Suits
KKR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending

LOJACK CORP: Continues Defense vs. Employee Suit in California
LOJACK CORP: Seeks Removal of Lawsuit to California District Court
MASSEY ENERGY: Motion to Consolidate Two Suits Pending in Virginia
MASSEY ENERGY: Units Still Awaiting Ruling on Class Certification
MASSEY ENERGY: Spartan Appeal Pending in 4th Circuit

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Agrees to Settle Suits Over Zicam Cold Remedy
MCAFEE INC: Being Sold to Intel for Too Little, Calif. Suit Says
MEDQUIST INC: NJ Appellate Division Affirms "Kahn" Suit Dismissal
MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion Opposing Plea to Amend Suit Still Pending
MRV COMMS: Court to Consider Final OK of $10MM Settlement in Nov.

NETCO INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit to Be Heard Friday
ORIENT PAPER: Rosen Firm Reminds Investors of Oct. 5 Deadline
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Ninth Circuit Dismisses Paskowitz's Appeal
PIPER JAFFRAY: Remains a Defendant in Securities Violation Suits
PRICELINE.COM INC: Settlement Agreement Signed in Monroe Suit

PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suit by Lawrence County
PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in "Genesee" Suit Ongoing
PRICELINE.COM INC: Motion to Dismiss Pine Bluff's Suit Pending
PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Nassau Suit Conducting Discovery
PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal of "Marshall" Plaintiffs Still Pending

PRICELINE.COM INC: Motion to Dismiss "Chiste" Remains Pending
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Walsh Files Voluntary Dismissal of Suit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Defends Property Account Litigation in Iowa
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Hurd" Suit in Southern Iowa
REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending

REGIONS FIN'L: S.D.N.Y. Ct. Dismisses Suit by Securities Buyers
REGIONS FIN'L: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Overdraft Fees
SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
SOLTA MEDICAL: Reliant Subsidiary Defends Suit in California
SOLTA MEDICAL: Inks Agreement to Settle TCPA-Violations Suit

SPRINT NEXTEL: Accused of Breaching Manufacturer's Warranty
SPRINT NEXTEL: Judge Permits Arbitration Between Firms Over Fees
STRYKER CORP: NY Securities Suit Transferred to Michigan Court
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Charged With Usury and Conversion

TRANSMITTER SOLUTIONS: Sued for Making Unsolicited Fax Ads
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Dentists' Suit
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Ethridge Action
VERIZON: Sued for Not Providing Family Leave Benefits to Workers
VERMONT: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Overtime Lawsuit

VULCAN MATERIALS: Subsidiary Defends Two Consolidated Complaints
VULCAN MATERIALS: Class Certification Hearing in Addair Stayed
WHITNEY CANADA: Quebec Court Okays Class Action in Land-Fraud Case

                            *********

ALABAMA: New Occupational Tax Suit Expected to Become Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Collins at WBRC reports that a Montgomery Judge is expected
to okay a request to turn a lawsuit challenging Jefferson County's
new occupational tax into a class action case.

On Friday morning, Montgomery Judge Charles Price held a hearing
about the request.  Judge Price received the case after Jefferson
County judges recused themselves from the case.

Attorney Clayton Lowe Jr. filed the lawsuit.  Mr. Lowe contends
the new occupational tax was not properly passed by Alabama
legislature.

On Tuesday last week, the Jefferson County Commission voted to
settle a lawsuit which struck down the old occupational tax.
Commissioners say if they lose the latest lawsuit it could again
plunge the county into a financial crisis where county workers had
to be put on administrative leave and satellite court houses shut
down.

Attorneys for Jefferson County say they will not oppose turning it
into a class action.

Another hearing is set for later this year.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Court Hears Oral Argument in "Tolin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
heard, on August 4, 2010, oral argument on the motion by Ambac
Financial Group, Inc., et al., to dismiss a securities complaint
filed by Stanley Tolin, et al., 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 December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action
entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et
al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and
director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241.

An amended complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009.

This action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured
Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A
Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial
Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 from June 29, 2007 through April 22,
2008.  The STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly
issued by a subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly
collateralized solely by Ambac's DISCS.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
Ambac's business and financial results and Ambac's guarantees of
CDO and MBS transactions, in violation of the securities laws.

On April 15, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants named
in Tolin moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On December 23, 2009, the Court initially denied defendants'
motion to dismiss, but later recalled that decision and requested
further briefing from parties in the case before it rendered a
decision on the motion to dismiss.

The additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010, and oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was heard on August 4, 2010.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.ambac.com/-- is a
primarily a holding company.  The company, through its
subsidiaries, provides financial guarantees and financial
services to clients in both the public and private sectors
worldwide.  Ambac's activities are divided into two business
segments. The Financial Guarantee segment provides financial
guarantees (including credit derivatives) for public finance,
structured finance and other obligations.


ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to face claims raised in several
purported class-actions filed on behalf of purchasers of filters.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including a prior
subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices,
rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive
filters.  This suit is a purported class action on behalf of
direct purchasers of filters from the defendants.

Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of
indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other
plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and
Canada.

On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida
filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois based on these same allegations.  On May 25,
2010, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of
Washington informed the company that it also was investigating the
allegations raised in these suits.

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.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- supplies
integrated systems, modules and components to the motor vehicle
industry.  The Company celebrated its centennial anniversary in
2009.  The company serves commercial truck, trailer and specialty
original equipment manufacturers and certain aftermarkets, and
light vehicle manufacturers.


AURORA LOAN: Hagens Berman Files Class-Action Suit for Homeowners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of homeowners Friday filed a class-action lawsuit against
Aurora Loan Services LLC, claiming the mortgage company duped them
into paying tens of thousands of dollars each to have troubled
mortgages reviewed by the company with promises of loan
modifications, only to have their property foreclosed with little
or no notice.

The suit states that Aurora reaped more than $100 million in what
the court documents call "illicit profits" from the alleged
scheme.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in San Jose, the suit seeks to represent homeowners who
paid the Littleton, Colo.-based company money in exchange for the
company's help in 'curing' delinquent home mortgages.

In exchange for between three and six large monthly payments,
Aurora said it would halt the foreclosure process and work with
homeowners to restructure, modify or resell the loan, allowing
homeowners a chance to keep their homes, the suit states.

"We intend to prove that Aurora's workout plan was nothing more
than a cynical ploy to take advantage of homeowners desperate to
hold on to their homes," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and the attorney
representing the proposed class.

The suit contends that, after a period of months, Aurora
foreclosed on the homes without giving the borrowers any notice
that their requests for loan modification were denied and without
allowing borrowers access to any method for ending their loan
deficiency, despite the provisions of the workout agreements.

The suit states that the workout agreements provided for four
methods for ending loan deficiency: bringing the loan current,
refinancing with another lender, modification of the terms of the
loan at the discretion of Aurora and another workout option at the
company's discretion.

"The past three years have been tough enough on homeowners without
them having to worry about being preyed upon by unscrupulous loan
services," Mr. Berman said.

The complaint outlines the stories of two married couples who
engaged Aurora in an attempt to forestall foreclosure. The first
couple, from San Jose, refinanced their home with a mortgage
company in early 2006. Two years later, the couple suffered
economic setbacks in the form of poorly performing investments and
a temporary loss of work. In late 2009, the couple contacted
Aurora and signed one of the so-called workout agreements.

Over the next several months, the couple paid a total of $33,500
in return for Aurora's promise to work on modifying the terms of
the loan, among other possible outcomes. In May 2010, the family
was served with a Notice to Vacate, indicating their home had been
sold in foreclosure. The family had received no prior notice that
the foreclosure process had been completed. In addition, Aurora
did not notify the family that it had been denied a loan
modification, according to the complaint.

In another instance, a second San Jose couple refinanced their
home in mid-2007. Two years later, the couple suffered financial
hardship as a result of an illness and the death of a parent,
which led to increased expenses and loss of income. In early 2009,
the couple contacted Aurora and signed one of the company's
workout agreements, the complaint alleges.

Over the next several months, the family paid a total of $23,700
in return for Aurora's promise to work on modifying the terms of
their loan. Like the first couple, the family was served with a
Notice to Vacate in late June 2010, signaling their home had been
sold in foreclosure. The family was not told prior to receiving
the notice that the foreclosure process on their home had begun,
according to the complaint.

"We've heard of cases like this a lot over the last few years,"
Mr. Berman said. "We'd like to bring struggling homeowners some
sense of relief."

The complaint -- which can be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/aurora-- accuses
Aurora of negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation
of the California Unfair Business Practices Act and other
violations of California law.

Hagens Berman believes the workout agreements were fraudulent in
nature and seeks to have the agreements declared void. The firm
also seeks an injunction against Aurora forbidding the company
from continued offering of its deceptive workout agreements,
restitution to be determined at trial, damages to be determined at
trial and trial and attorneys' fees.

If you entered into a so-called workout agreement with Aurora, you
are encouraged to join this case.

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a consumer-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.


AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a putative class
action lawsuit against AXIS Capital Holdings Limited's U.S.
insurance subsidiaries remains pending.

In 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
company's U.S. insurance subsidiaries.

The suit is In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation and was
filed on Aug. 15, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and includes as defendants numerous
insurance brokers and insurance companies.

The lawsuit alleges antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations in connection with the payment of
contingent commissions and manipulation of insurance bids and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the District Court granted, in part, motions to
dismiss filed by the defendants, and ordered plaintiffs to file
supplemental pleadings setting forth sufficient facts to allege
their antitrust and RICO claims.  After plaintiffs filed their
supplemental pleadings, defendants renewed their motions to
dismiss.

On April 15, 2007, the District Court dismissed without prejudice
plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, and granted plaintiffs 30 days
to file another amended complaint and/or revised RICO Statement
and Statements of Particularity.

In May 2007, plaintiffs filed:

     (i) a Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action
         complaint,

    (ii) a Revised Particularized Statement Describing the
         Horizontal Conspiracies Alleged in the Second
         Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint,
         and

   (iii) a Third Amended Commercial Insurance Plaintiffs' RICO
         Case Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(4).

On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice
plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law
claims.

On Oct. 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of all
adverse orders and decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, and a hearing was held in April 2009.

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.

AXIS Capital Holdings Limited -- http://www.axiscapital.com/-- is
a Bermuda-based global provider of specialty lines insurance and
treaty reinsurance with shareholders' equity at March 31, 2010 of
$5.4 billion and locations in Bermuda, the United States, Europe,
Singapore, Canada and Australia.


BANK OF THE CASCADES: Accused of Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------
Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, bondholders say the Bank of the Cascades
cost them $23.5 million by handing over the money to a company
that "had no assets, no investments, no independent income, and in
fact was prohibited from receiving bond proceeds under the terms
of the offering documents."

Named plaintiffs Russell and Rena Firkins say the bank "utterly
failed to fulfill its obligations" in bonds issued by a real
estate investment company.  The Firkins say the bank knowingly
issued bond proceeds into a "shell corporation," DBSI Realty,
which had no assets or income.

"In return, defendant obtained 'security' in a number of leases to
which DBSI Realty was not even a party.  As difficult as this may
be to believe, these are facts found by the United States
Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware," according to the
complaint.

The class claims the bank should have known DBSI a shell
corporation that acted as "paymaster" for a group of DBSI
companies.  It claims that the Delaware bankruptcy judge issued an
opinion in May this year, finding that DBSI Realty was not a party
to any of the master leases for the bonds, that the leases did not
describe security interests between any entities other than the
lessor and lessee, and that property records made no reference to
Bank of the Cascades nor the assignments to the bondholder trusts.
"The court concluded that DBSI Realty had no security interests in
anything," the complaint states.

"By disbursing all of the bond proceeds to DBSI Realty, a company
with no investments, no assets, and no income, defendant left the
bondholders with nothing."

The Firkins seek class damages of more than $23.5 million, and
"punitive damages, if available," for breach of contract and
conversion.

A copy of the Complaint in Firkins, et ux. v. Bank of the
Cascades, Case No. 10-cv-00414 (D. Idaho) (Dale, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/CascadesBank.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip H. Gordon, Esq.
          Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
          GORDON LAW OFFICES
          623 West Hays St.
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: 208-345-7100

               - and -

          Geoffrey Bestor, Esq.
          4204 Maple Terrace
          Chevy Chase, MD 20815
          Telephone: 240-463-8503
          E-mail: gbesq@bestorlaw.com


BEAR LAKE GOLD: Ontario Ct. OKs $1.3-Mil. Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Bear Lake Gold Ltd. (TSX:BLG)
said Wednesday that the Ontario Superior Court has approved the
$1.3-million settlement of a shareholder class action.  The suit
was filed against Bear Lake Gold last summer over inconsistencies
in exploration data at its Larder Lake property.

Quebec-based Bear Lake Gold said the settlement was approved on
Aug. 10, and is not an admission of wrongdoing by the defendants,
who continue to deny the allegations against them.

Siskinds LLP filed the suit against Bear Lake last August,
alleging "serious material inconsistencies in its exploration
data."

As part of the settlement, former vice-president of exploration
Bernard Boily has agreed not to accept a position as an officer or
director of an Ontario publicly traded company for 10 years.

The settlement payment will be shared among people or entities
who bought stock of BLG on the TSX Venture Exchange on or after
July 18, 2006, and held them on July 17, 2009.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Sex Abuse at Oakalla Prison
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Moreau, writing for Burnaby Now, reports that North
Vancouver's Poyner Baxter LLP is filing a class action lawsuit
against the provincial government over a former Oakalla worker who
was allegedly sexually assaulting inmates.  If successful, the
suit would apply to all those who were similarly victimized at
Oakalla, also known as the Lower Mainland Regional Correctional
Centre.

The suit identifies the plaintiff by his initials only -- E.D.L.
-- but names the former staffer as Roderick David MacDougall. The
offences against E.D.L. occurred in 1980 and 1981, when he was in
his late teens.  Mr. MacDougall was criminally convicted of nine
counts of indecent or sexual assault and served a prison term.

Nine previous civil actions against the government and Mr.
MacDougall were also successful, and compensation was usually in
the area of $50,000 to $60,000.

"What bothers me about all of this, precipitating the class action
against the government, is that more than 100 other victims of
MacDougall had been identified by the date of the last court case
in 2006," said lawyer Jim Poyner. "Why did the government not
conduct a thorough review and make sure that all of the victims
were found, interviewed and helped in whatever fashion appeared to
be best suited to each individual case?"

Mr. Poyner said Mr. MacDougall had not been charged and convicted
of crimes against E.D.L.

"He was already charged and convicted in criminal court. We're not
seeking additional time, we're dealing with this as a civil
matter," Mr. Poyner said, adding he's expecting a lot of other
victims to come forward.

"He was in that position for 21 years, and our investigation into
the situation was he was attacking people on a regular basis. Over
21 years, there could be a lot of people," Mr. Poyner said.

"The provincial government had to know what was going on several
years ago," he added.

"The main thing that really annoys me about this is the government
had to know, . . . and they did nothing about it."

Mr. MacDougall worked in a supervisory position as Oakalla's pass
and transfer coordinator.  He was approving day passes and other
benefits for inmates, and the allegations are that he used these
things as bribes to participate in oral sex and other illicit
activities.

Burnaby resident Ronald Jack is working on documentary film about
Oakalla, interviewing former inmates and guards and researching
the prison's history.

"I'm sure there are lots of people out there who were victims.
They will appear," he said.

While Mr. Jack said he hadn't heard anything about the MacDougall
case in particular, he's heard similar tales.

"I've heard many, many stories about sexual abuse and favours that
were exchanged. There was never a public inquiry. Maybe this class
action suit will trigger something," he said.

Oakalla used to be on the South Slope, overlooking Burnaby's Deer
Lake. It was shut down in 1991 and eventually demolished.

At press time, a statement of defence had not been filed, and
allegations in the suit have not been proven in court.


BOWNE & CO: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Bowne & Co., Inc., has entered in a memorandum of understanding to
resolve a consolidated complaint arising out of its planned merger
with R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 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 Feb. 23, 2010, the company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with R.R. Donnelley.  The merger agreement was approved
by the Boards of Directors of the parties to the merger agreement.
The merger was also approved by the company's shareholders in May
2010.

The company, members of its board of directors and management,
R.R. Donnelley and Merger Sub were named as defendants in four
purported class action lawsuits brought in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York and consolidated under the caption and index
number Sartoretti v. Bowne & Co., Inc., et al., Index No.
600531/2010.

The consolidated complaint filed on April 12, 2010, alleges breach
of fiduciary duty by the directors and officers in connection with
the acquisition contemplated by the merger agreement, and asserts
aiding and abetting claims against the company, R.R. Donnelly and
Merger Sub.

On April 21, 2010, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, which contemplates, subject to completion of
definitive settlement documents and court approval, a settlement
of the consolidated cases.

The Company has accrued approximately $600,000 as of June 30, 2010
related to the estimated settlement costs.

Bowne & Co., Inc. -- http://www.bowne.com/-- provides shareholder
and marketing communications services around the world. Dealmakers
rely on Bowne to handle critical capital markets communications
with speed and accuracy.  Compliance professionals turn to Bowne
to prepare and file regulatory and shareholder communications
online and in print.  Investment managers and third party fund
administrators count on Bowne's integrated solutions to streamline
their document processes and produce high quality communications
for their shareholders.  Marketers look to Bowne to create and
distribute customized, one-to-one communications on demand.  With
2,700 employees in 50 offices around the globe, Bowne has met the
ever-changing demands of its clients for more than 230 years.


BP PLC: Faces New Oil Spill Lawsuit in New Orleans
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle Krupa, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports a class
action lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in New Orleans
charges that BP and other companies involved in drilling the ill-
fated Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico should be held liable for
punitive damages.

The suit on behalf of Corliss Gallo, a Grand Terre Island
landowner whose property was degraded by the oil leak and trampled
by clean-up workers, says that the "outrageous conduct" by BP,
Transocean Ltd., Cameron International and Halliburton represents
"a common thread of gross negligence and willful, wanton, and
reckless indifference for the rights of others."

The suit, believed to be the first to tackle the controversial
question of punitive damages, seeks to test an opening left by the
landmark 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that knocked down the
punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case in Alaska.

After an Alaska jury in 1994 awarded fishermen and others suing
Exxon $5 billion in punitive damages, a series of court rulings
culminating in the Supreme Court decision reduced the payment to
$507.5 million, an amount equal to the actual damages awarded. The
tanker struck a reef in Prince William Sound in 1989.

The Supreme Court said that a one-to-one ratio of punitive to
compensatory damages was "a fair upper limit" in maritime cases.
However, in its opinion, the Supreme Court left open the
possibility that in the case of reckless profiteering, punitive
damages could rise to as much as three times the actual damages
caused, the level set by law in some states.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court noted that the behavior of the
Valdez captain, who was fatigued and possibly drunk, was "worse
than negligent but less than malicious" because his actions didn't
increase Exxon's profits.

In discussing situations where a three-to-one punitive damage
ratio might be warranted, the Supreme Court noted that there could
be "quite different cases involving some of the most egregious
conduct, including malicious behavior and dangerous activity
carried on for the purpose of increasing a (defendant's) financial
gain."

Dawn Barrios, the New Orleans maritime attorney who filed the
Gallo case, believes the BP oil disaster fits the exception.

The suit she filed Friday weaves together early findings of Coast
Guard and Congressional hearings on the Deepwater Horizon
explosion and resulting oil spill to paint a picture of companies
that knowingly took risks and failed to fix equipment because they
were too busy trying to make a buck.

"Punitive damages are going to be a critical component of this
litigation because the behavior was so egregious, and the Feinberg
fund is not going to cover punitive damages," Ms. Barrios said,
referring to the $20 billion BP compensation fund administered by
Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg at the behest of the Obama
administration.

In filing the case, Ms. Barrios is joined by Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, the San Francisco attorney who was co-lead counsel
representing plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez suit.

The Gallo case will most certainly get rolled into the litigation
over the BP oil disaster that has been consolidated before Judge
Carl Barbier, Ms. Barrios said.  Judge Barbier is likely to
subdivide the massive case into different tracks, such as personal
injury, natural resource damages, economic injury damages,
racketeering charges and punitive damages.


CABOT CORP: Cleared of Medical Monitoring Charges
-------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation obtained Court rulings dismissing it from
charges of medical monitoring in beryllium-related lawsuits,
according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

Cabot has been a party to several actions in connection with its
discontinued beryllium operations in Reading, Pennsylvania.  Cabot
entered the beryllium industry through an acquisition in 1978.

The Company ceased manufacturing beryllium products at one of the
acquired facilities in 1979, and the balance of its former
beryllium business was sold to NGK Metals, Inc. in 1986.

The actions involve claims for personal injury and medical
monitoring relating to alleged contact with beryllium in various
ways and are pending in state court in Pennsylvania, and, until
the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals and the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles
County.

In June 2010, Cabot was dismissed with prejudice from the cases
pending in the Superior Court of California, all of which involved
claims for medical monitoring.

Also in June 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's grant of summary judgment in Cabot's favor in the
Sheridan et al. v. NGK North America, Inc. et al., and Anthony v.
Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., et al., class actions, which also
involved claims for medical monitoring.

Boston-based Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a
reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and
coatings. The Company also holds its own as a maker of fumed metal
oxides like fumed silica and fumed alumina, which are used as
anti-caking, thickening, and reinforcing agents in adhesives and
coatings.


CHRYSLER GROUP: N.J. Suit Complains About Defective Dodge Brakes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that brakes on Chrysler's 2009-
2010 Dodge Journeys are "inadequate for the size and weight of the
Journey" and "fail at barely 12,000 miles," a class action claims
in Newark Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Tatum, et al. v. Chrysler Group LLC,
Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 9247 in Case No. 33-av-
00001 on Aug. 19, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/ChryslerCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Rd.
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-994-1700

               - and -

          Steven N. Berk, Esq.
          BERK LAW PLLC
          1225 Fifteenth St. NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-232-7550

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW LLC
          1818 Market St., 13th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 610-660-9631

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Scott Alan George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad St.
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: 973-639-9100

               - and -

          Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC
          30 East Butler Pike
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: 215-540-8888
          E-mail: ckimmel@lemonlaw.com


DENVER, CO: Judge Says DNC Arrests Lawsuit Can Be Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a U.S. district judge ruled
Friday that a lawsuit against the Denver Police Department for
mass arrests during the Democratic National Convention in Denver
can become a class action suit.

Court papers say 92 people were arrested on Aug. 25 during the
2008 convention.

The lawsuit names the City and County of Denver and at least three
police officers.


DIEBOLD INC: Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated class-action suit against
Diebold, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, is pending final approval, 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 has been served with various lawsuits, filed against
it and certain current and former officers and directors, by
shareholders and participants in the Company's 401(k) savings
plan, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties with respect to the
401(k) plan.

These complaints seek compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
fees and expenses related to the lawsuits and the granting of
extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief:

       -- McDermott v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV170
          (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 24, 2006).

       -- Barnett v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV361 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 15, 2006).

       -- Farrell v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV307 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 8, 2006).

       -- Forbes v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV324 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 10, 2006).

       -- Gromek v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV579 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed March 14, 2006).

The McDermott, Barnett, Farrell, Forbes and Gromek cases, which
allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the 401(k) plan, have
been consolidated into a single proceeding.

In May 2009, the Company agreed to settle the 401(k) class action
litigation for $4.5 million, to be paid out of the Company's
insurance policies.  The settlement is subject to final
documentation and approval of the court.

Diebold, Incorporated -- http://www.diebold.com/-- is a global
leader in providing integrated self-service delivery and security
systems and services.  Diebold employs more than 16,000 associates
with representation in nearly 90 countries worldwide and is
headquartered in Canton, Ohio, USA.


DIEBOLD INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
A complaint has been filed against Diebold, Incorporated, in Ohio
Court for violations of federal securities laws, according to the
company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against the Company, certain current and former officers, and
the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana Police Employees
Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-1461).  The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and fees and expenses
related to the lawsuit.  The complaint generally relates to the
matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC on
June 2, 2010.

On June 2, 2010, the SEC filed materials in U.S. District Court
finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the
investigation conducted by the Division of Enforcement of the SEC.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Company has consented,
without admitting or denying civil securities fraud charges, to a
judgment requiring payment of a civil penalty of $25 million and
an injunction against committing or causing any violations or
future violations of certain specified provisions of the federal
securities laws.  The Company paid the penalty to the SEC in June
2010.

Diebold, Incorporated -- http://www.diebold.com/-- is a global
leader in providing integrated self-service delivery and security
systems and services.  Diebold employs more than 16,000 associates
with representation in nearly 90 countries worldwide and is
headquartered in Canton, Ohio, USA.


FEDEX GROUND: Faces Class Action Suit by Drivers in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transport Topics News reports more than 30 current and former
FedEx Ground drivers brought a class-action lawsuit against the
company last week in a federal court in Massachusetts, alleging
that they were misclassified as independent contractors.

Plaintiffs alleged in court papers that they were denied health
and pension benefits, among others, because of FedEx Ground's
"unlawful misclassification of drivers as independent contractors
instead of employees."

FedEx maintains that its drivers are properly classified as
independent contractors.

"This attorney has filed complaints with virtually identical
allegations multiple times," FedEx Ground spokesman Maury Lane
told Transport Topics Thursday. "Only the names have been
changed."

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday last week in the U.S. District Court
for Massachusetts, is the latest brought against FedEx Ground by
drivers who say the company treated them as employees and not as
contractors. Similar litigation is still pending in other
districts.

FedEx Ground is a unit of FedEx Corp., ranked No. 2 on the
Transport Topics 100 listing of U.S. and Canadian for-hire
carriers.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Taylor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling
dismissing the matter Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access
Company et al., according to Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.  The Biometric suit was filed against the company's Certegy
Check Services, Inc., subsidiary.

A putative class action lawsuit styled Richard Fresco, et al. v.
Automotive Directions, Inc. et al., was filed against eFunds
Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the company, and seven
other non-related parties in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida during the second quarter of 2003.

The complaint alleged that eFunds purchased motor vehicle records
that were used for marketing and other purposes that are not
permitted under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.  The
plaintiffs sought statutory damages, plus costs, attorney's fees
and injunctive relief.  eFunds and five of the other seven
defendants settled the case with the plaintiffs.
That settlement was approved by the court over the objection of a
group of Texas drivers and motor vehicle record holders.  The
Fresco plaintiffs moved to amend the court's order approving the
settlement in order to seek a greater attorneys' fee award and to
recover supplemental costs.

In the meantime, the objectors filed two class action complaints
styled Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company et al.
and Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom et al. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas during the first quarter
of 2007 alleging similar violations of the DPPA.

The Acxiom action was filed against the company's ChexSystems,
Inc. subsidiary, while the Biometric suit was filed against the
company's Certegy Check Services, Inc. subsidiary.  The judge
recused himself in the Biometric action against Certegy because he
was a potential member of the class.  The lawsuit was then
assigned to a new judge and Certegy filed a motion to dismiss.
The district court granted Certegy's motion to dismiss with
prejudice in the third quarter of 2008.

The Biometric plaintiffs appealed and after several extensions,
arguments on appeal were heard on Nov. 4, 2009.

In the Acxiom case, ChexSystems filed a motion to dismiss or in
the alternative, stay the action against it based upon the earlier
settlement, and the court granted the motion to stay pending
resolution of the Florida case.  The court dismissed the
ChexSystems lawsuit with prejudice against the remaining
defendants in the third quarter of 2008.  The Acxiom plaintiffs
moved the court to amend the dismissal to exclude defendants that
were parties to the Florida settlement, and that motion was
granted.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, the court in the ChexSystems case
dismissed with prejudice all claims of the plaintiffs who were not
also plaintiffs in the Florida case, against ChexSystems and the
other defendants.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal order,
but excluded ChexSystems and the other settling defendants from
the appeal.

The Florida case was dismissed without prejudice during the fourth
quarter of 2009.

After final resolution of the Florida case, the parties in the
Acxiom case stipulated to a dismissal of ChexSystems and the other
defendants from this action, and the court issued its final order
of dismissal without prejudice. The time for appeals in the Acxiom
case has now expired.

In the Biometric case, on July 14, 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed the district court's order of dismissal with
prejudice.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. --
http://www.fisglobal.com/-- delivers banking and payments
technologies to more than 14,000 financial institutions and
businesses in over 100 countries worldwide.  FIS provides
financial institution core processing, and card issuer and
transaction processing services, including the NYCE(R) Network.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Wants Sanctions Imposed on Searcy Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., has filed a motion
for sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel in the matter
Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds Corporation.  The sanction requested is
based on plaintiff's alleged false statements that were filed in
support of the motion for class certification, 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.

This is a nationwide putative class action that was originally
filed against eFunds and its affiliate Deposit Payment Protection
Services, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois during the first quarter of 2008.

The complaint seeks damages for an alleged willful violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with the operation of
the Shared Check Authorization Network.  Plaintiff's principal
allegation is that consumers did not receive appropriate
disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of the FCRA because the
disclosures did not include:

     (i) all information in the consumer's file at the time of
         the request;

    (ii) the source of the information in the consumer's file;
         and/or

   (iii) the names of any persons who requested information
         related to the consumer's check writing history during
         the prior year.

The company answered the complaint and is vigorously defending the
matter.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification which was granted
with respect to two subclasses during the first quarter of 2010.
The motion was denied with respect to all other subclasses.

The company filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion was
granted and the two subclasses were decertified. The plaintiff
also filed motions to amend her complaint to add two additional
plaintiffs to the lawsuit.  The court granted the motions.
Discovery regarding the new plaintiffs is ongoing.

During the second quarter of 2010, the company filed a motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiff and a motion for sanctions
against the plaintiff and her counsel based on plaintiff's alleged
false statements that were filed in support of the motion for
class certification.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. --
http://www.fisglobal.com/-- delivers banking and payments
technologies to more than 14,000 financial institutions and
businesses in over 100 countries worldwide.  FIS provides
financial institution core processing, and card issuer and
transaction processing services, including the NYCE(R) Network.


FIFTH THIRD: Antitrust Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust class action to which Fifth Third Bancorp
is a defendant remains in the pre-trial phase, 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.

During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable
and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also
subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa.

Accordingly, prior to the sale of Class B shares during 2009, the
Bancorp recorded a litigation reserve of $243 million to account
for its potential exposure in this and related litigation.

The Bancorp also recorded its proportional share of $199 million
of the Visa escrow account funded with proceeds from the Visa IPO
along with several subsequent fundings.  Upon the Bancorp's sale
of Visa, Inc. Class B shares during 2009, and the recognition of
the total return swap that transfers conversion risk of the Class
B shares back to the Bancorp, the Bancorp reversed the remaining
net litigation reserve related to the Bancorp's exposure through
Visa.

In addition, the Bancorp has remaining reserves related to the
litigation of $26 million and $22 million as of June 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, respectively.

Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp
operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers,
including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside
select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines
in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri.  The
Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial
Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors
and Fifth Third Processing Solutions.


FIFTH THIRD: Consolidated Securities Complaint Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action complaint asserted against
Fifth Third Bancorp and its chief executive officer 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.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Bancorp and its
CEO, among other parties.  The five cases have been consolidated,
and are currently pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.

The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws related
to disclosures made by the Bancorp in press releases and filings
with the SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital,
credit losses and related matters, and seeking unquantified
damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who either
purchased the Bancorp's securities, or acquired the Bancorp's
securities pursuant to the acquisition of First Charter
Corporation.

Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp
operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers,
including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside
select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines
in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri.  The
Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial
Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors
and Fifth Third Processing Solutions.


FIRST DATA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Overcharging Merchants
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that First Data Corp. overcharges
retailers through predatory, fraudulent and illegal business
practices, the merchants claim in a class action in San Mateo
County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Madanat v. First Data Corporation, et
al., Case No. 497691 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/CreditCardCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ali Abtahi, Esq.
          Idene Saam, Esq.
          ABTAHI LAW FIRM
          1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 204
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Telephone: 650-341-1300
          E-mail: aabtahi@abtahilaw.com
                  isaam@abtahilaw.com


GILEAD SCIENCES: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Set Nov. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final court approval of Gilead Sciences, Inc.'s $8.25 million
settlement of a securities class action lawsuit will be considered
on Nov. 5, 2010, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

Since November 2003, the company has been defending a class action
securities lawsuit purportedly brought on behalf of a class made
up of all purchasers of our stock between July 14 and October 28,
2003.  The lawsuit names Gilead and six current and former
executives of Gilead as defendants.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, by making certain
alleged false and misleading statements.

On May 12, 2006, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California executed orders dismissing in its
entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended
complaint.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.

On August 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded
the case to the District Court.

On February 6, 2009, the company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, requesting
that the court review the judgment of the court of appeals.  In
April 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

On February 13, 2009, the company filed a further motion to
dismiss the fourth consolidated amended complaint on alternative
grounds.  On June 3, 2009, the District Court granted in part and
denied in part our motion to dismiss and gave plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint.

On July 10, 2009, plaintiffs filed a fifth consolidated amended
complaint.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the fifth
consolidated amended complaint, which the District Court heard on
October 9, 2009.  In an order dated October 13, 2009, the Court
granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss.  On
November 16, 2009, we filed an answer to the fifth consolidated
amended complaint.

In March 2010, the company agreed to settle the dispute.  Under
the terms of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss
the action and release all claims against Gilead and each of the
individual defendants.  In exchange, the company agreed to pay
$8.25 million to the class members.  The proposed settlement
amount will be paid in full by our insurance carriers.  Further,
Gilead and the individual defendants continue to deny that they
committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability and/or
violation of law.

On July 7, 2010, the District Court issued an order granting
preliminary approval to the settlement.  The District Court will
hold a hearing on November 5, 2010 to determine whether to grant
final approval of the settlement.

Gilead Sciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapeutics
for the treatment of life-threatening infectious diseases. The
Company is headquartered in Foster City, Calif.


HAWAII: State Sup. Ct. Won't Hear Appeal on Teachers' Back Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Kaya, writing for The Honolulu Star-Advertiser, reports
that the Hawaii Supreme Court will not take up the state's appeal
of a ruling that requires the Department of Education to give
substitute teachers millions of dollars in back pay.

That means the case will go back to Circuit Court, where the state
and substitute teachers will work out an agreement over how much
the substitutes are owed.

An attorney for the substitutes said August 17 that back pay for
about 10,000 teachers affected by the decision could top $30
million.

"Every day the state delayed paying this debt, it hurt the
teachers," said attorney Paul Alston.  "We're glad that we're now
going to be going back to the Circuit Court to have the amount of
damages calculated."

The Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled in October that the state
underpaid thousands of Hawaii substitute teachers between 2000 and
2005.  The Supreme Court's action means that the Intermediate
Court decision stands, and the case will be returned to Circuit
Court to decide how much the teachers are owed.

The case stems from a 2002 complaint from Maui substitute teacher
David Garner, who claimed that the DOE violated a 1996 state law
pegging pay for substitute teachers to rates for Class II teachers
-- full-time instructors who have bachelor's degrees but lack
advanced training.  Between 1996 and 2005, pay for substitute
teachers increased just 11%, compared with 40% for Class II
teachers.

The department, however, claimed that state guidelines for
substitute teacher salaries were unclear and that the teachers
were receiving the pay to which they were entitled.

Following a 2005 Circuit Court decision in the teachers' favor,
the DOE filed an appeal with the Intermediate Court of Appeals,
which agreed with the lower court.  Earlier this year the state
filed its final appeal with the Hawaii Supreme Court, which had
until Monday to decide whether it would hear the case.

"We're disappointed they chose not to hear it," said Deputy
Attorney General Dorothy Sellers.  "We are hoping for a fair and
speedy resolution."

Although substitute teachers claimed they were illegally underpaid
from 1996, Circuit Judge Karen Ahn ruled in 2005 that a statute of
limitations allowed plaintiffs to claim back pay for only the
period between November 2000 and June 2005, when the Legislature
changed the substitute salary guidelines.

Back pay will be calculated through a computerized analysis of the
department's payroll records during the relevant years to
determine the difference in the salaries of substitute and Class
II teachers.

According to Mr. Alston, the Supreme Court's decision will also
have some bearing on a separate but similar class-action lawsuit
brought by 15,000 part-time teachers because their salaries are
based on substitute teacher pay.  The lawsuit for the part-time
teachers has been put on hold by the Circuit Court pending the
resolution of the substitute teacher case.


HUNTINGON BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Appeal on Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit
against Huntington Banchares, Inc., have dismissed their appeal,
with prejudice, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio's dismissal order, according to the company's
August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010.

Between December 19, 2007 and February 1, 2008, two putative class
actions were filed in the Ohio District Court against Huntington
and certain of its current or former officers and directors
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Huntington securities
during the periods July 20, 2007 to November 16, 2007, or July 20,
2007 to January 10, 2008.

On June 5, 2008, the two cases were consolidated into a single
action.

On August 22, 2008, a consolidated complaint was filed asserting a
class period of July 19, 2007 through November 16, 2007, alleging
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly
false and/or misleading statements concerning Huntington's
financial results, prospects, and condition, relating, in
particular, to its transactions with Franklin Credit Management.

The action was dismissed on December 4, 2009, and the plaintiffs
thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Huntington Bancshares, Inc. -- https://www.huntington.com/ -- is
a multi-state diversified financial holding company.  Through its
subsidiaries, the company provides full-service commercial and
consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile
financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust
services, brokerage services, reinsurance of private mortgage
insurance, reinsurance of credit life and disability insurance,
retail and commercial insurance agency services, and other
financial products and services.  The company has three lines of
business: Regional Banking, Dealer Sales, and the Private
Financial and Capital Markets Group (PFCMG).  A fourth segment,
Treasury/Other, includes the company's treasury function.  The
company's only banking subsidiary is The Huntington National
Bank.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Consolidated ERISA Suit Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of a consolidated Employee Retirement Income
Security Act complaint has not been finalized or approved by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, according
to Huntington Bancshares Incorporated's Aug. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2010.

Between Feb. 20 and 29, 2008, three putative class-action
lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against the company, the Huntington
Bancshares Incorporated Pension Review Committee, the Huntington
Investment and Tax Savings Plan Administrative Committee, and
certain of the company's officers and directors purportedly on
behalf of participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan between
July 1, 2007, or July 20, 2007, and the present.

The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act relating to the
company's stock being offered as an investment alternative for
participants in the Plan.  They seek money damages and equitable
relief.

On May 13, 2008, the three cases were consolidated into a single
action.

On Aug. 4, 2008, a consolidated complaint was filed asserting a
class period of July 1, 2007 through the present, alleging
breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of the ERISA relating
to Huntington stock being offered as an investment alternative
for participants in the Plan and seeking money damages and
equitable relief.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice the consolidated lawsuit in its entirety, and the
plaintiffs thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  During the pendency of the
appeal, the parties to the appeal commenced settlement
discussions and have reached an agreement in principle to settle
this litigation on a classwide basis for $1,450,000, subject to
the drafting of definitive settlement documentation and court
approval.

The suit is "Riccio v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00165-GLF-TPK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Gregory L. Frost,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Mark D. Lewis, Esq.
          Kitrick & Lewis Co LPA
          515 E. Main Street, Suite 515
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-224-7711

               - and -

          Jeffrey Phillip Harris, Esq.
          Statman Harris & Eyrich
          441 Vine Street
          Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4704
          Phone: 513-621-2666

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants is:

          Walter C. Carlson, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-7000
          Fax: 312-853-7036

Huntington Bancshares, Inc. -- https://www.huntington.com/ -- is
a multi-state diversified financial holding company.  Through its
subsidiaries, the company provides full-service commercial and
consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile
financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust
services, brokerage services, reinsurance of private mortgage
insurance, reinsurance of credit life and disability insurance,
retail and commercial insurance agency services, and other
financial products and services.  The company has three lines of
business: Regional Banking, Dealer Sales, and the Private
Financial and Capital Markets Group (PFCMG).  A fourth segment,
Treasury/Other, includes the company's treasury function.  The
company's only banking subsidiary is The Huntington National
Bank.


ICX TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim ICx
Technologies is selling itself too cheaply to FLIR Systems, for
$7.55 a share, or $274 million, in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Sloan v. ICx Technologies, Inc., Case
No. 5743 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          Carmella Keener, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          E-mail: 302-656-4433

               - and -

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Marc Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          E-mail: 610-667-6200


J&J CHEMICAL: Trail Creek Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Shearer at OnlineAthens.com reports homeowners who live along
Trail Creek have sued J&J Chemical Co. over a chemical spill last
month that contaminated the stream.

Runoff from a July 28 fire at the plant off Olympic Drive polluted
Trail Creek for miles downstream after Athens-Clarke firefighters
pumped an estimated 740,000 gallons of water on the flames.

The runoff contained high levels of toxic formaldehyde and
paradichlorobenzene, along with perfume oils and a brilliant blue
dye that colored Trail Creek toilet-bowl blue all the way
downstream to its confluence with the North Oconee River in Dudley
Park near downtown Athens.

The chemicals poisoned more than 15,000 fish, along with turtles,
salamanders, insects and other life -- wiping out practically all
visible life in the creek, according to state Department of
Natural Resources scientists.

But the chemicals in Trail Creek also damaged property owners
whose land backs up to the creek, according to a class action
lawsuit filed in Athens-Clarke County Superior Court on Friday.

Annie Jewell Hunter and Margaret Irene Smith, neighbors on West
Carver Drive, say the spill has reduced the value of their
property, and that they have been denied the use and enjoyment of
their land, according to court papers.

Their lawsuit asks for unspecified monetary damages. The
plaintiffs also may ask the court to issue an injunction against
the company "to the extent possible that such relief will abate
the continuing nuisances and trespasses created and maintained by
the defendant," according to a complaint filed in court by Athens
lawyer Eric Krasle.  Mr. Krasle represents the property owners
along with lawyers John C. Bell Jr. of Atlanta and James A. Dunlap
Jr. of Atlanta.

More property owners plan to join the class action, Mr. Krasle
said.

Mr. Krasle filed a similar suit seven years ago when a petroleum
spill fouled another Clarke County stream -- Hunnicutt Creek,
which flows through Ben Burton Park. Three property owners
collected about $50,000 from the owner of a company where a
malicious worker pulled a plug on a tank, releasing as much as
4,000 gallons of petroleum waste into Hunnicutt Creek.

"I'd really like to see this be a deterrent to the future
pollution of the river and the creeks that feed it," said Mr.
Krasle, who lives on the Oconee River downstream from Trail Creek.

The property owners also hope to get access to records of how
state and local governments responded to the spill, and want a say
in what state officials require the company to do to clean up the
stream, Mr. Krasle said. Some people who live near the stream have
reported eye irritation and other health effects from the fumes
they say they still smell coming from the creek more than three
weeks after the fire.

Most of the toxic pollution has flowed downstream or evaporated,
but tests as recently as Monday last week revealed that some of
the formaldehyde and the benzene product remains in Trail Creek.


JACK KITZIS: Displaced Salisbury Tenants Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Angeljean Chiaramida, staff writer at The Daily News in
Newburyport, Massachusetts, reports that town officials and
displaced tenants from an uninhabitable Ocean Street apartment
building will work together to try to bring an irresponsible
landlord into compliance, though the landlord has indicated he let
the bank holding the mortgage take over the property.

Tenants are looking into filing class action civil suits against
landlord Jack Kitzis, of Chestnut Hill, a former real estate
broker whose license expired in July, according to state records.
Selectmen are looking to the legal system as well, searching for a
way to bring criminal charges against the landlord.

"The town needs to pursue legal action," Selectman Jerry Klima
said at a meeting of the two groups on August 16.  "The court has
powers to fine and put people in jail. This is a serious
situation."

Since December, the town has tried repeatedly to get the 14 Ocean
St. owner to fix scores of safety, health and building codes
violations at the five-unit building.

Citations were issued, repairs demanded, deadlines given, letters
sent and resent, calls made and remade, and fines imposed, but Mr.
Kitzis stalled, dragged his feet, and basically turned a deaf ear,
officials and tenants said.

On Aug. 5, conditions finally got so bad -- the exterior staircase
collapsing and a live electrical panel falling off the wall --
town inspectors had to turn off the electricity and tear down the
rotting stairs, making the building uninhabitable and forcing the
families to leave with little notice.

With Mr. Kitzis paying to house his displaced tenants only for a
day or two, the families are left hanging with no place to go,
they told selectmen.

"I never missed a rent check in 14 years. Why am I homeless?"
tenant Tina Whitney told selectmen.  "What's going to be done?
Who's going to relocate us? How many days does (Kitzis) have to
fix things? What's his responsibility? Where's Jack Kitzis?"

Ms. Whitney's frustrations were echoed by other 14 Ocean St.
displaced tenants, as well as those who still live in the abutting
Kitzis-owned building at 43 Railroad Ave.  Those tenants haven't
had hot water for a week because of a problem with the water
heater that hasn't been repaired.

Mr. Kitzis has not returned numerous calls from The Daily News.

According to town tax records, Mr. Kitzis bought both properties
in February 2008, paying $650,000 for each.  The town assesses the
Ocean Street property value at $316,200 and the Railroad Avenue
property at $319,600.

Town Manager Neil Harrington said Monday it now appears that Mr.
Kitzis may walk away from the Ocean Street property and leave it
to foreclosure.  Mr. Kitzis has told Salisbury Building Inspector
David Lovering that unless his insurance company pays for the
needed repairs, he will wash his hands of it, Mr. Harrington said.

"He'll walk away from the property, and he'll let the bank
(holding his mortgage) handle it," Mr. Harrington told the
tenants.  "The town is trying to find the bank involved to take
action.  (Kitzis) has simply been completely irresponsible."

If Mr. Kitzis sells the Ocean Street building through a short sale
or if the bank takes it over, Mr. Harrington is hoping the town
can get the new owner or the bank to make the repairs, which may
eventually get people back into their homes.

Until then, most of the displaced tenants can't come up with the
deposits and rents for other apartments since Mr. Kitzis still
hasn't given back any of their rents or security deposits.

The town will prepare the proper notification for state housing
agencies, who can help people find housing temporarily or
permanently when they've been officially displaced. And the town
will help people get back into their apartments to remove their
possessions, some of which police have caught burglars looting.

According to the state licensure board, Mr. Kitzis' real estate
broker's license expired in July.

It was an Ocean Street neighbor, Joseph O'Malley, who finally put
the blame issue in perspective on August 16.

"These are my neighbors, and they're fine neighbors," Mr. O'Malley
said. "There's no one to blame here except Jack Kitzis.  The town
is in a catch-22 position."


KINDER MORGAN: Concludes Discovery in "Going Private" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fact and expert discovery in two consolidated suits against Kinder
Morgan, Inc., in connection with its going private transaction has
been concluded, according to the company's August 10, 2010 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Beginning on May 29, 2006, the day after the proposal for the
company's Going Private transaction was announced, and in the
days following, eight putative Class Action lawsuits were filed
in Harris County (Houston), Texas and seven putative Class Action
lawsuits were filed in Shawnee County (Topeka), Kansas against,
among others, Kinder Morgan, Inc., its Board of Directors, the
Special Committee of the Board of Directors, and several
corporate officers.

                           Texas Actions

By order of the Harris County District Court dated June 26, 2006,
each of the eight Harris County cases were consolidated into the
Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al case, Cause No. 2006-
33011, in the 164th Judicial District Court, Harris County,
Texas, which challenges the proposed transaction as inadequate
and unfair to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s public stockholders.

On September 8, 2006, interim class counsel filed their
Consolidated Petition for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Aiding and
Abetting in which they alleged that Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Board
of Directors and certain members of senior management breached
their fiduciary duties and the Sponsor Investors aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering into
the merger agreement.  They sought, among other things, to enjoin
the merger, rescission of the merger agreement, disgorgement of
any improper profits received by the defendants, and attorneys'
fees. Defendants filed Answers to the Consolidated Petition on
October 9, 2006, denying the plaintiffs' substantive allegations
and denying that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

                          Kansas Actions

By order of the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas dated
June 26, 2006, each of the seven Kansas cases were consolidated
into the Consol. Case No. 06 C 801; In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation; in the District Court of Shawnee County,
Kansas, Division 12.  On August 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed
their Consolidated and Amended Class Action Petition in which
they alleged that Kinder Morgan's Board of Directors and certain
members of senior management breached their fiduciary duties and
the Sponsor Investors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty in entering into the merger agreement.  They
sought, among other things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the
merger agreement and any action taken to effect the acquisition
of Kinder Morgan and its assets by the buyout group, damages,
disgorgement of any improper profits received by the defendants,
and attorney's fees.

In late 2006, the Kansas and Texas Courts appointed the Honorable
Joseph T. Walsh to serve as Special Master in both consolidated
cases "to control all of the pretrial proceedings in both the
Kansas and Texas Class Actions arising out of the proposed
private offer to purchase the stock of the public shareholders of
Kinder Morgan, Inc."  On November 21, 2006, the plaintiffs in In
Re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation filed a Third
Amended Class Action Petition with Special Master Walsh.  This
Petition was later filed under seal with the Kansas District
Court on December 27, 2006.

Following extensive expedited discovery, the Plaintiffs in both
consolidated actions filed an application for a preliminary
injunction to prevent the holding of a special meeting of
shareholders for the purposes of voting on the proposed merger,
which was scheduled for December 19, 2006.

On December 18, 2006, Special Master Walsh issued a Report and
Recommendation concluding, among other things, that "plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate the probability of ultimate success on
the merits of their claims in this joint litigation."
Accordingly, the Special Master concluded that the plaintiffs
were "not entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the holding of
the special meeting of Kinder Morgan, Inc. shareholders scheduled
for December 19, 2006."

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in January 2008.

In August, September and October 2008, the Plaintiffs in both
consolidated cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the
claims against those Kinder Morgan, Inc. directors who did not
participate in the buyout (including the dismissal of the members
of the special committee of the board of directors), Kinder
Morgan, Inc. and Knight Acquisition, Inc.  In addition, on
November 19, 2008, by agreement of the parties, the Texas trial
court issued an order staying all proceedings in the Texas
actions until such time as a final judgment will be issued in the
Kansas actions.  The effect of this stay is that the consolidated
matters will proceed only in the Kansas trial court.

In February 2009, the parties submitted an agreed upon order
which has been entered by the Kansas trial court certifying a
class consisting of "All holders of Kinder Morgan, Inc. common
stock, during the period of August 28, 2006, through May 30,
2007, and their transferees, successors and assigns.  Excluded
from the class are defendants, members of their immediate
families or trusts for the benefit of defendants or their
immediate family members, and any majority-owned affiliates of
any defendant."

The parties agreed that the certification and definition of the
above class was subject to revision and without prejudice to
defendants' right to seek decertification of the class or
modification of the class definition.

The parties have concluded fact and expert discovery.  In July,
2010 all remaining defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment
in their favor on all remaining claims in the consolidated cases.
Plaintiffs are scheduled to respond to such motions in August
2010, and oral argument on such motions is scheduled for October
2010.

Kinder Morgan, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries,
is one of the largest energy transportation and storage companies
in North America.  Kinder Morgan, Inc. owns the general partner
and significant limited partner interests in Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P. (NYSE: KMP), one of the largest publicly traded
pipeline limited partnerships in the United States with an
enterprise value in excess of $20 billion.  The company operates
or owns an interest in more than 35,000 miles of pipelines that
transport products such as natural gas, gasoline, crude oil and
CO2, and over 170 terminals that store petroleum products and
chemicals and handle bulk materials like coal and petroleum coke.
The company has both regulated and non-regulated operations.


KKR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR Financial Holdings LLC's motion to dismiss an amended
complaint remains pending in 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.

On Aug. 7, 2008, the members of the company's board of directors
and certain of its current and former executive officers and the
company were named in a putative class action complaint filed by
Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On March 13, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which deleted as defendants the members of the company's board of
directors and named as defendants only the company's former chief
executive officer Saturnino S. Fanlo, former chief operating
officer David A. Netjes, current chief financial officer Jeffrey
B. Van Horn and the company.

The amended complaint alleges that our April 2, 2007, registration
statement and prospectus and the financial statements incorporated
therein contained material omissions in violation of Section 11 of
the Securities Act, regarding the risks and potential losses
associated with the company's real estate-related assets, the
company's ability to finance our real estate-related assets and
the adequacy of the company's loss reserves for its real estate-
related assets.

The amended complaint further alleges that, pursuant to Section 15
of the Securities Act, Messrs. Fanlo, Netjes and Van Horn each
have legal responsibility for the alleged Section 11 violation.
On April 27, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the
Securities Act.

Oral argument on the defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled
for July 7, 2010, but was postponed as the judge overseeing the
case took medical leave.  To date, oral argument has not been
rescheduled.

KKR Financial Holdings LLC is a publicly traded specialty finance
company with expertise in a range of asset classes.  KKR
Financial Holdings LLC is externally managed by KKR Financial
Advisors LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co. (Fixed Income) LLC, which is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P.  KKR Financial
Holdings LLC executes its core business strategy through majority-
owned subsidiaries.


LOJACK CORP: Continues Defense vs. Employee Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lojack Corporation continues to face state law claims for
compensation in a class action complaint filed in California,
according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2010.

The California District Court lawsuit was filed on April 5, 2006,
by an employee against LoJack alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California
Business & Professions Code, and seeking class action status.  The
plaintiff contended that the company improperly credited break
time and overtime pay and seeks unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief.

In September 2007, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's federal
law claims, which represented the largest part of the company's
potential exposure.  The plaintiff appealed the District Court's
decision and on Feb. 4, 2009, the case was argued before the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Aug. 21, 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
grant of summary judgment except as to the claim for compensation
for the required postliminary data transmission, which was
vacated.  The plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing to the
Ninth Circuit and on March 2, 2010 the Ninth Circuit rendered its
decision, affirming district court's grant of summary
judgment except as to (i) the claim for compensation for
commuting under state law and (ii) the required postliminary data
transmission, which were vacated.

                           State Claims

Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in federal court,
in November 2007, the plaintiff also filed state law claims in
California State Court.  In January 2008, the company removed the
state law claims to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The plaintiff filed a motion to remand
the case back to California State Court and that motion was
subsequently granted.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification and the company's
motion for summary judgment and opposition to class certification
were heard on April 16, 2009.  In June 2009, the California State
Court granted the plaintiff's claims for class certification with
respect to nine claims and denied certification with respect to
the five claims.  The company appealed the decision.

On March 26, 2010, the California State Appellate Court granted
the company's appeal in part, denying certification with respect
to six claims and affirming certification with respect to three
claims, including missed meals and rest breaks.

LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global
provider of technology products and services for the tracking and
recovery of stolen mobile assets.  LoJack's integration with law
enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide
a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles,
motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through
three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang.  Under the
domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of
products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles,
construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous
materials.  Through the international segment, its licensed
stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries
and territories worldwide.  Revenue from the Boomerang segment is
derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang
Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and
BoomerangXpress Units.  In April 2008, it acquired the assets of
LSC Locator Systems Corp.


LOJACK CORP: Seeks Removal of Lawsuit to California District Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was commenced on June 15, 2010, against LoJack
Corporation in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State
of California (Central District) alleging, amongst other claims,
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
California Business and Professions Code Section for unfair
competition and Section 17500 for false advertising, and breach of
implied warranty with respect to LoJack Early Warning for
motorcycles, and seeking class action status.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement,
punitive damages, interest and attorneys' fees, according to the
company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2010.

On July 29, 2010, LoJack Corporation filed a notice of removal
seeking to remove the case to the United States District Court for
the Central District Court of California.

LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global
provider of technology products and services for the tracking and
recovery of stolen mobile assets.  LoJack's integration with law
enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide
a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles,
motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through
three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang.  Under the
domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of
products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles,
construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous
materials.  Through the international segment, its licensed
stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries
and territories worldwide.  Revenue from the Boomerang segment is
derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang
Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and
BoomerangXpress Units.  In April 2008, it acquired the assets of
LSC Locator Systems Corp.


MASSEY ENERGY: Motion to Consolidate Two Suits Pending in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class actions have been commenced against Massey
Energy Corporation in connection with alleged violations of the
Federal securities laws pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, according to the
company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010.

On April 29, 2010, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System
filed a purported class action, alleging violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act by certain Massey officers and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by these same officers, as well as
certain current and former directors in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding Massey's safety record.
Macomb seeks (1) an award of damages to Macomb and the members of
the purported class, and (2) an award to Macomb of reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees.

On May 28, 2010, the Firefighters' Retirement System of Louisiana
brought a purported class action, alleging substantially similar
violations as Macomb, against the same defendants, as well as
another director and officer.  Firefighters seeks (1) an award of
damages to Firefighters and the members of the purported class,
and (2) an award to Firefighters of reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees.

On June 28, 2010, four purported class members -- the
Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust, the MEE Investor
Group, David Wagner and the Wayne County Employees' Retirement
System -- filed separate motions requesting that the court
consolidate the Macomb and Firefighters Actions, appoint each
purported class member as lead plaintiff and approve each
purported class member's choice of lead counsel.

The MEE Investor Group subsequently withdrew its motion.

The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System subsequently filed
notice stating that it supported the Massachusetts Pension
Reserves Investment Trust's motion, and the court thereafter
denied the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System's motion as
moot.  David Wagner's and the Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Trust's Motions for Consolidation are pending before
the court.

Massey Energy Company -- http://www.masseyenergyco.com/-- is a
coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and
Virginia.


MASSEY ENERGY: Units Still Awaiting Ruling on Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Company disclosed in its August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2010, that there has been no decision yet on
a motion for class certification relating to a consolidated class
action filed against its subsidiaries in West Virginia.

Since January 2003, an advocacy group and residents in Boone,
Kanawha, Mingo and Raleigh Counties, West Virginia, filed 17 suits
in the Circuit Courts of Kanawha and Mingo Counties, West
Virginia, against 12 of Massey Energy's subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs
alleged that defendants illegally transported coal in overloaded
trucks, causing damage to state roads, thereby interfering with
plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties and their right
to use the public roads. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and
compensatory and punitive damages.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia referred the
consolidated lawsuits, and similar lawsuits against other coal and
transportation companies not involving Massey Energy's
subsidiaries, to the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West
Virginia, to be handled by a mass litigation panel judge.
Plaintiffs filed motions requesting class certification.

On June 7, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their public
nuisance claims seeking monetary damages for road and bridge
repairs.  Plaintiffs also agreed to an order limiting any damages
for nuisance to two years prior to the filing of any suit.  A
motion to dismiss any remaining public nuisance claims was
resisted by plaintiffs and argued at hearings on December 14, 2007
and June 25, 2008.

No rulings on these matters have been made.  Defendants filed a
motion requesting that the mass litigation panel judge recommend
to the WV Supreme Court that the cases be sent back to the circuit
courts of origin for resolution.  That motion was verbally denied
as to those cases in which the Company's subsidiaries are
defendants, and a class certification hearing was held on
October 21, 2009.

As of August 9, 2010, no decision has been rendered by the Circuit
Court on the class certification issues.  No date has been set for
trial.  Massey Energy believes it has insurance coverage
applicable to these items and that they will be resolved without a
material adverse impact on its cash flows, results of operations
or financial condition.

Massey Energy Company -- http://www.masseyenergyco.com/-- is a
coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and
Virginia.


MASSEY ENERGY: Spartan Appeal Pending in 4th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Company disclosed in its August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2010, that there has been no development in
its subsidiary's appeal relating to an unfair labor practice
matter and related age discrimination class action.

In 2005, the United Mine Workers of America filed an unfair labor
practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging
that one of Massey Energy Company's subsidiaries, Spartan Mining
Company, discriminated on the basis of anti-union animus in its
employment offers.  The NLRB issued a complaint and an NLRB
Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended decision making
detailed findings that Spartan committed a number of unfair labor
practice violations and awarding, among other relief, back pay
damages to union discriminatees.

On September 30, 2009, the NLRB upheld the ALJ's recommended
decision.  Spartan has appealed the NLRB's decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Massey Energy said it has no insurance coverage applicable to this
unfair labor practice matter; however, its resolution is not
expected to have a material impact on its cash flows, results of
operations or financial condition.

Massey Energy Company -- http://www.masseyenergyco.com/-- is a
coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and
Virginia.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Agrees to Settle Suits Over Zicam Cold Remedy
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Matrixx Initiatives has agreed
to settle lawsuits over its Zicam cold remedy, the company said
Friday, which it withdrew from the market in June following a
safety warning from federal regulators.

In June, the Food and Drug Administration told consumers should
stop using Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel and related products
because they can permanently damage the sense of smell. Under the
proposed settlement, the company agreed to add potential side
effect warnings if the products return to the market. There are 18
class action lawsuits outstanding in federal courts.

The company would be required to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys
fees and costs for the litigation, as determined by the court.
Matrixx would also pay incentive awards to the named plaintiffs in
an aggregate amount not to exceed a total of $35,000 and be
responsible for the costs of providing notice of the settlement.

Matrixx, based in Phoenix, would acknowledge no wrongdoing as part
of the settlement.

The company said it will better be able to manage hundreds of
product liability claims for personal injuries that are still
pending.


MCAFEE INC: Being Sold to Intel for Too Little, Calif. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim McAfee is
selling itself too cheaply to Intel through "an unfair and self-
serving process," in Santa Clara County Court.  Intel on Thursday
said it would buy McAfee for $7.7 billion or $48 a share -- a 60
premium over the $29.93 at which McAfee closed Wednesday.

A copy of the Complaint in Greenberg v. McAfee, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1-10-CV-180413 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/McAfee.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B St., Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-525-3990

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Ave.
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: 201-567-7377


MEDQUIST INC: NJ Appellate Division Affirms "Kahn" Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Appellate Division has affirmed the Superior Court
of New Jersey's decision dismissing an amended class action
complaint filed by Alan R. Kahn against Medquist, Inc., and two of
its directors, 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 January 22, 2008, Alan R. Kahn, one of the company's
shareholders, filed a shareholder putative class action lawsuit
against the company, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., the
company's former majority shareholder, and four of the company's
former non-independent directors, Clement Revetti, Jr., Stephen H.
Rusckowski, Gregory M. Sebasky and Scott Weisenhoff.

The action, entitled Alan R. Kahn v. Stephen H. Rusckowski, et
al., Docket No. BUR-C-000007-08, was venued in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington County.  In the
action, plaintiff purports to bring the action on his own behalf
and on behalf of all current holders of our common stock.

The original complaint alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and due
care by purportedly agreeing to and initiating a process for the
company's sale or a change of control transaction which will
allegedly cause harm to plaintiff and members of the putative
class.  Plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified amount, plus
costs and interest, a judgment declaring that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and that any proposed transactions
regarding the company's sale or change of control are void, an
injunction preventing our sale or any change of control
transaction that is not entirely fair to the class, an order
directing us to appoint three independent directors to our board
of directors, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On June 12, 2008, plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint against the company, eight of its then current and
former directors, and Philips in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division.  In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleged
that the company's then current and former directors breached
their fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and
due care by not providing its public shareholders with the
opportunity to decide whether they wanted to participate in a
share purchase offer with non-party CBaySystems Holdings Ltd.
(CBaySystems Holdings) that would have allowed the public
shareholders to sell their shares of our common stock for an
amount above market price.  Plaintiff further alleged that
CBaySystems Holdings made the share purchase offer to Philips and
that Philips breached its fiduciary duties by accepting
CBaySystems Holdings' offer.

Based on these allegations, plaintiff sought declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief from all defendants.  Plaintiff
claimed that we were only named as a party to the litigation for
purposes of injunctive relief.

On July 14, 2008, the company moved to dismiss plaintiff's
amended class action complaint, arguing:

   (1) that plaintiff's amended class action complaint did not
       allege that the company engaged in any wrongdoing which
       supported a breach of fiduciary duty claim; and

   (2) that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is not legally
       cognizable against a corporation.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss
on July 21, 2008.

On November 21, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion and
the motions filed by the other defendants and dismissed
plaintiff's amended class action complaint with prejudice.  On
December 31, 2008, plaintiff filed an appeal of the trial court's
dismissal order with the New Jersey Appellate Division.
Thereafter, the parties briefed all the issues raised in
plaintiff's appeal.  In the company's opposition brief, it opposed
all the arguments plaintiff raised with respect to the dismissal
of the claims against it.

On September 24, 2009, the Appellate Division held oral argument
on plaintiff's appeal.

On July 1, 2010, the Appellate Division entered an Order and
Opinion that affirmed the dismissal of the claims against MedQuist
and two of the MedQuist director defendants, Mr. Edward Siegel and
Warren E. Pinckert II.  The Appellate Division reversed the
dismissal of the claims against the remaining defendants --
Philips and certain of the company's former directors -- and
remanded those claims back to the Chancery Division.

As a result of the Appellate Division's July 1, 2010 Order and
Opinion, the company is no longer a defendant in this matter.

MedQuist, Inc. -- http://www.medquist.com/-- is a leading
provider of medical transcription services, and a leader in
technology-enabled clinical documentation workflow. MedQuist's
enterprise solutions -- including mobile voice capture devices,
speech recognition, Web-based workflow platforms, and global
network of medical editors -- help healthcare facilities improve
patient care, increase physician satisfaction, and lower
operational costs.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion Opposing Plea to Amend Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corp.'s motion in opposition to a plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend a class action complaint remains pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
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.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff. The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 22,
2009.

Due in part to its length and structure, the company says it is
difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint
but it appears the allegations are that the company and its
officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about (i) loss development in the company's insurance
in force, and (ii) C-BASS, including its liquidity.

The company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted on
February 18, 2010.

On March 18, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.  Attached to the motion was a proposed Amended
Complaint.  The Amended Complaint alleges that the company and two
of its officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the
federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose
material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by
failing to properly account for our investment in C-BASS.  The
Amended Complaint also names two officers of C-BASS with respect
to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.  The
purported class period covered by the Complaint begins on February
6, 2007 and ends on
August 13, 2007.  The Amended Complaint seeks damages based on
purchases of the company's stock during this time period at prices
that were allegedly inflated as a result of the purported
violations of federal securities laws.

On April 12, 2010, the company filed a motion in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint.  With limited
exceptions, the company's bylaws provide that its officers are
entitled to indemnification from it for claims against them of the
type alleged in the Amended Complaint.

MGIC Investment Corporation (NYSE: MTG) -- http://mtg.mgic.com/
-- is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is the parent
company of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC).  It
offers mortgage insurance, and risk management products and
services to mortgage lenders as well as structured finance
services to investors.


MRV COMMS: Court to Consider Final OK of $10MM Settlement in Nov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc., settled securities class action lawsuits
filed in California for $10 million and a federal court will
consider final approval of the settlement in November, 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.

From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California and one
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  The five lawsuits filed in the
Central District of California were consolidated.  Claims are
asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The allegations set forth in
the complaints are based on facts disclosed in the company's press
release of June 5, 2008, which stated that the Company's financial
statements could not be relied on due to the Company's historical
stock option practices and related accounting.  The complaints
seek to recover from the defendants unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, to require the Company to undertake reforms to
corporate governance and internal control procedures, to obtain an
accounting of stock option grants found to be improper, to impose
a constructive trust over stock options and proceeds derived
therefrom, to disgorge from any of the defendants who received
allegedly improper stock options the profits obtained therefrom,
to rescind improperly priced options and to recover costs of suit,
including legal and other professional fees and other equitable
relief.

In April 2010, the parties to the securities class action lawsuits
filed a stipulation and agreement of settlement of $10 million
with the court which was preliminarily approved.  The settlement
amount was covered by the company's director and officer insurance
policies pending final approval by the court in November 2010.

The Company and plaintiffs in the federal and California state
derivative lawsuits have attended mediations but have not been
successful in reaching a settlement of these claims.  Motions to
dismiss the defendants in both the federal and state derivative
lawsuits are currently pending in those courts.

MRV Communications, Inc. -- http://www.mrv.com/-- is a supplier
of communications equipment and services to carriers, governments
and enterprise customers, worldwide.  The company is a supplier
of optical components, primarily through its wholly owned
subsidiaries: Source Photonics and Fiberxon. The company conducts
its business along three principal segments: the network
equipment group, the network integration group and the optical
components group.


NETCO INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit to Be Heard Friday
----------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports a
company facing a class action suit over allegedly overcharged
recording and courier charges is asking that the case be thrown
out.

Defendant Netco Inc. is also asking that a move for class
certification filed by lead plaintiffs Kerry and Sheila Tormino be
stayed.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack is set to hear the
dismissal plea Aug. 27 at 9 a.m.

The Torminos filed suit in 2004 alleging Netco is guilty of
violations of the state's consumer fraud statute, breach of
contract and other claims.

They claim that Netco overcharged them and other customers to
record mortgages and to send loan documents and payment by
courier.

They claim the defendant charged them $70 to record a mortgage,
for example, when it cost the company $26 to do so.

Netco then allegedly kept the difference.

The plaintiffs filed for class certification in June.  They ask
the court to approve a class of parties who went through the
defendant to conduct closings on real estate transactions.  That
issue is currently set for hearing in October.

The defendant, in its motion to dismiss the suit, argues that
Netco complied with the disclosure requirements set down in the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and that Netco did not
breach its contract with the Torminos or anyone else.

It also disputes the claims by the Torminos that it did anything
improper by retaining the fee difference.

The motion to dismiss was filed May 25.

Netco's motion to stay the class certification hearing is based on
both a prior stay in the case and its motion to dismiss it.

The Tormino case had been stayed pending the outcome of a St.
Clair County case, Frailey vs. Netco Inc. since 2004.

The stay was lifted in December of last year.

Netco argues that the court must first deal with its dismissal
motion before it can determine whether a class should be certified
in the case at all.

"If this Court grants Netco's motion, then neither this Court nor
the parties will be required to expend any additional time and
resources in addressing the plaintiff's motion for class
certification," the motion reads. "This is especially important
for Netco, whose resources have been severely reduced as a result
of the collapse of the real estate market."

Netco asked for the stay shortly after the plaintiffs moved for
class certification.

The Torminos are represented by Phillip Bock.

Netco is represented by Edward Bott.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder formerly oversaw the
case.

The case is Madison case number 04-L-238.


ORIENT PAPER: Rosen Firm Reminds Investors of Oct. 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the October 5, 2010, lead
plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit on behalf of
investors who purchased common stock of Orient Paper, Inc. during
the period between March 27, 2009 and July 22, 2010.

This class action includes all purchasers of Orient Paper stock
during the Class Period, including purchasers in the March 31,
2010 public offering from Roth Capital Partners LLC.

To join the Orient Paper class action, visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/, or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com  This e-mail address is being protected from
spambots.  You need JavaScript enabled to view it or
pkim@rosenlegal.com  This e-mail address is being protected from
spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it for information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts that the Company's revenues were materially
overstated and that the Company exaggerated the extent of its
business operations.  On June 28, 2010, an entity calling itself
Muddy Waters released a report containing facts indicating that
ONP has issued false financial statements and press releases.  The
report was followed by a series of back-and-forth accusations
between Muddy Waters and the Company.  Finally, on July 16, 2010,
Orient Paper announced that it would retain a law firm and a "Big
Four" accounting firm to conduct an investigation into the
troubling issues raised by Muddy Waters.  As a result of these
adverse disclosures, Orient Paper's share price dropped
substantially, damaging shareholders.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 5, 2010.  If you wish to join the litigation,
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq.
of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail
at lrosen@rosenlegal.com This e-mail address is being protected
from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or
pkim@rosenlegal.com This e-mail address is being protected from
spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .  The class
action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

The firm can be reached at:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
     350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
     New York, New York 10118
     Telephone: (212) 686-1060
                (917) 797-4425
     Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653
     Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Ninth Circuit Dismisses Paskowitz's Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on July 23, 2010, an
appeal of an order dismissing a purported shareholder action
asserted against Pacific Capital Bancorp in California, according
to the company's Aug. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On September 4, 2009, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed
a purported shareholder action in federal district court in Los
Angeles, against the Company and all of its directors, captioned
Laurence Paskowitz SEP IRA v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, et al., in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. CV 09-6449-ODW.

The complaint alleged that the Company's August 31, 2009 Proxy
Statement, with respect to the proposal for shareholder
authorization of a reverse stock split, contained certain
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
certain alleged risks of the reverse stock split.  The complaint
asserted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief based on
alleged proxy violations under the federal securities laws and
under unspecified California law.  The complaint also asserted a
purported class action claim, on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders of the Company, for monetary damages based on alleged
breach of an alleged fiduciary duty of full disclosure under
California law.

On September 9, 2009, plaintiff filed an ex parte application
seeking a temporary restraining order, as well as an expedited
hearing on a preliminary injunction motion, to prevent the Company
from conducting the planned shareholder vote on the reverse stock
split proposal set for September 29, 2009.  On September 11, 2009,
the defendants filed an opposition to the ex parte application.
On September 14, 2009 the Court denied plaintiff's application in
its entirety.  The scheduled shareholder vote took place on
September 29, 2009, and the reverse stock split proposal was
approved.

On October 8, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to
amend.  On October 19, 2009, plaintiff filed opposition papers,
and on October 26, 2009, defendants filed reply papers.  On
November 6, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  The plaintiff declined to amend the
complaint.

On December 6, 2009, the Court ordered Judgment be entered
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.  On December 31, 2009,
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.  Plaintiff decided to abandon
the appeal, and the parties stipulated to a dismissal.

By order dated July 23, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed the appeal.  The case is fully and finally concluded.

                   About Pacific Capital Bancorp

Pacific Capital Bancorp is the parent company of Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., a nationally chartered bank that operates 48 branches
under the local brand names of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First
National Bank of Central California, South Valley National Bank,
San Benito Bank and First Bank of San Luis Obispo.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Remains a Defendant in Securities Violation Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Companies remains a defendant in certain class
actions alleging violations of securities laws.

The company has been named as a defendant in various legal
actions, including complaints and litigation and arbitration
claims, arising from its business activities.  Such actions
include claims related to securities brokerage and investment
banking activities, and certain class actions that primarily
allege violations of securities laws and seek unspecified damages,
which could be substantial.

No additional information regarding the cases were disclosed 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.

Piper Jaffray Companies -- http://www.piperjaffray.com/-- is an
international investment bank and institutional securities firm,
serving the needs of corporations, private equity groups, public
entities, non-profit clients and institutional investors.  It
provides a set of products and services, including equity and debt
capital markets products, public finance services, financial
advisory services, equity and fixed income institutional
brokerage, equity and fixed income research, and asset management
services.  The company markets the investment banking and
institutional securities business under Piper Jaffray name.  It
markets the primary asset management business under the name of
FAMCO, which is derived from Fiduciary Asset Management, LLC.  The
company operates in four business segments: investment banking,
equity and fixed income institutional brokerage, asset management,
and other income.  In March 2010, the company acquired Advisory
Research, Inc., an asset management firm focused in equity
strategies.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Settlement Agreement Signed in Monroe Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the lawsuit captioned County of Monroe, Florida v.
Priceline.com, Inc. et al., have signed a settlement agreement
resolving the claims asserted by the remaining class members in
the action, 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. 12, 2009, the County filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  In addition to claims with respect to the application of
the Tourist Development Tax, the complaint also asserted claims
for conversion, unjust enrichment and injunctive relief.

On March 30, 2009, the Court dismissed the action because a
scheduling report had not been submitted to the Court.
Thereafter, on April 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed another
complaint making the same substantive allegations made in its
previous complaint.  On April 24, 2009, defendants moved to
dismiss.  The court granted in part, and denied in part,
defendants' motion to dismiss on Dec. 17, 2009 by dismissing the
plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief.

On Dec. 31, 2009, the defendants answered the amended complaint.

On Jan. 4, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.

Defendants filed an opposition to class certification on Jan. 14,
2010; and plaintiff's reply was filed on Jan. 22, 2010.

The court granted class certification on March 15, 2010.

The opt-out period expired on May 24, 2010.

As of the opt-out date, these counties opted-out of the Monroe
class action: Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Escambia,
Flagler, Gulf, Hillsborough, Lee, Leon, Manatee, Marion, Nassau,
Okaloosa, Orange, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, St. Johns,
Seminole, Volusia, Wakulla and Walton.

The parties each filed motions for summary judgment on May 21,
2010.

The parties to the lawsuit have signed a settlement agreement
resolving the claims asserted by the remaining class members in
the action.  As part of the agreement, the remaining class members
have agreed to not assert claims based on the tourist development
tax ordinances at issue in the action for a period of three years.
The parties provided the court with a proposed class settlement on
Aug. 2, 2010.

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: Continues to Defend Suit by Lawrence County
--------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Inc. continues to defend an amended complaint filed
by the County of Lawrence in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence
County, Pennsylvania, 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.

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 Sept. 9, 2009, the County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania styled County of Lawrence v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

On Nov. 17, 2009, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the federal
case, but subsequently filed another complaint, on Nov. 20, 2009,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania,
seeking declaratory and monetary damages relief, as well as
alleging violations of the Pennsylvania hotel occupancy tax code,
conversion and unjust enrichment.

The defendants' response to the complaint is due March 9, 2010.
Defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint on
March 9, 2010.

The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2010.

Defendants filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint
on April 15, 2010 and a brief in support on July 22, 2010.

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: Discovery in "Genesee" Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter County of Genesee, Mich., et al. v.
Hotels.com LP, et al., are still in the process of conducting
discovery.

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 Aug. 31, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.  On Sept. 21, 2009, defendants answered the
complaint.

No further updates were reported in 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.

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: Motion to Dismiss Pine Bluff's Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter Pine Bluff
Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, AR, et al.
v. Hotels.com, LP, et al., remains pending in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Arkansas, 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.

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 Sept. 30, 2009, plaintiffs served the complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 4,
2009.  On Jan. 19, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion
based on plaintiffs' failure to timely file an opposition.

The plaintiff thereafter filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on Jan. 22, 2010, and requested that the court reconsider
its dismissal of the action.

The court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider on Feb. 19,
2010, and the motion to dismiss is currently pending.

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: Parties in Nassau Suit Conducting Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter styled County of Nassau, New York v.
Hotels.com, LP, et al., are currently conducting discovery
specific to class certification issues.

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 Aug. 17, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint for the County of Nassau's failure to
exhaust its mandatory administrative procedures for tax
collection.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the County of Nassau filed a notice of appeal
of that order.

On Aug. 11, 2009, the Second Circuit vacated the lower court's
order dismissing the complaint, and remanded with instructions to
consider whether the complaint meets specified jurisdictional
requirements.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the Second Circuit denied the defendants'
petition for rehearing.

The parties are currently conducting discovery specific to class
certification issues.

No further updates were reported in 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.

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 of "Marshall" Plaintiffs Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the granting of summary judgment
in favor of priceline.com Inc., in the matter Marshall, et al. v.
priceline.com, Inc., 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.

On Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of Delaware for New Castle County
by Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated
consumers nationwide against the company.

The complaint alleged that the company violated the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Section 2511, et seq.,
relating to the company's disclosures and charges to customers to
cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances nationwide,
and service fees.  The company moved to dismiss the complaint on
April 21, 2005.

On June 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
asserts claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for
breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.  On Oct. 31, 2006, the court granted in part and denied
in part the company's motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed all
claims arising under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.  The court
also dismissed all claims for breach of contract and the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing that relate to our charges for
service fees.  The court denied the company's motion to dismiss
the breach of contract and implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing claims as they relate to the charges to consumers to cover
taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances.

On Feb. 1, 2008, two of the four plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their claims against the company.  On Feb. 29, 2008, the remaining
plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to assert
additional claims for breach of contract and the implied duty of
good faith and fair dealing alleging that the company included a
hidden fee within the room rate charge.  On Aug. 28, 2008, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on Sept. 12,
2008, and the company answered that complaint on Sept. 26, 2008.
The parties' summary judgment motions have been submitted and a
hearing was held in January 2009.

The court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, and
denied plaintiff's competing motion for summary judgment, on March
8, 2010.  Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on April 6, 2010.

The parties completed appellate briefing submissions to the
Delaware Supreme Court on July 12, 2010 and are awaiting an
argument date.

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: Motion to Dismiss "Chiste" Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Inc.'s motion to dismiss the suit styled Chiste, et
al. v. priceline.com Inc., et al., remains pending.

On December 11, 2008, a putative class action was filed by
plaintiff Matthew R. Chiste and two other individuals on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated
consumers nationwide against the company, Lowestfare.com, Inc. and
Travelweb, LLC.

The complaint alleges the defendants overcharge consumers by
collecting Hotel Occupancy and sales taxes over and above that
necessary to pay the actual taxes on the hotel room reserved by
the customer.  The complaint asserts claims for deceptive business
practices, declaratory and injunctive relief, conversion, breach
of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on March 6, 2009.
Briefing was completed on July 3, 2009.  The parties are awaiting
the court's decision.

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.

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.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Walsh Files Voluntary Dismissal of Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Walsh has filed a voluntary dismissal of a putative class
action lawsuit against Principal Life Insurance Company and
Princor Financial Services Corporation, 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 Aug. 28, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Patricia Walsh -- and another plaintiff, who subsequently withdrew
-- in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
against Principal Life and Princor Financial Services Corporation.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached alleged fiduciary
duties to participants in employer-sponsored 401(k) plans who were
retiring or leaving their respective plans, including providing
misleading information and failing to act solely in the interests
of the participants, resulting in alleged violations of ERISA.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied on March
24, 2010.

On July 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal with
prejudice.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/-- is
a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services.  PFG's United States and international
operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset
management.  In addition, it offers a range of individual and
group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and group
disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance.  PFG
primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an
array of retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the
needs of the business, the business owner and their employees.
PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset
Management, International Asset Management and Accumulation, and
Life and Health Insurance.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Defends Property Account Litigation in Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend the matter In
re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 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 Dec. 2, 2009 and Dec. 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise and
Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Global
Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC.

The lawsuits alleged the defendants failed to manage the Principal
U.S. Property Separate Account (PUSPSA) in the best interests of
investors, improperly imposed a withdrawal freeze on Sept. 26,
2008, and instituted a withdrawal queue to honor
withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became available.
Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute a breach of fiduciary
duties under ERISA.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class including all qualified ERISA
plans and the participants of those plans that invested in PUSPSA
between Sept. 26, 2008, and the present that have suffered losses
caused by the queue.

The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints
asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and are now
known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation.

On April 22, 2010, an order was entered granting the motion made
by the defendants for change of venue to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/--
provides retirement savings, investment and insurance products and
services.  PFG's United States and international operations
concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management.
In addition, it offers a range of individual and group life
insurance, group health insurance, individual and group disability
insurance and group dental and vision insurance.  PFG primarily
focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an array of
retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the
business, the business owner and their employees.  PGF has four
segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management,
International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and
Health Insurance.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Hurd" Suit in Southern Iowa
-------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., faces a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa, 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 July 1, 2010, Debra and Russell Hurd filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the company and Principal Life.

The complaint alleges the Defendants underpay out-of-network
health claims by using an allegedly flawed database to calculate
usual and customary charges.  Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of
"all participants and/or beneficiaries in group health plans in
the United States issued, insured or administered by [us] as to
which [we] have administered claims and/or paid or denied benefits
for out-of-network benefit claims."

The complaint alleges four causes of action, all based on
violations of ERISA.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/-- is
a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services.  PFG's United States and international
operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset
management.  In addition, it offers a range of individual and
group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and group
disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance.  PFG
primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an
array of retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the
needs of the business, the business owner and their employees.
PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset
Management, International Asset Management and Accumulation, and
Life and Health Insurance.


REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-actions lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on
behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions
Morgan Keegan Select Funds and shareholders of Regions Financial
Corp. remain pending.

Regions and certain of its affiliates have been named in class-
action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of
investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan
Select Funds and shareholders of Regions.  The Funds were formerly
managed by Morgan Asset Management, Inc.

Morgan Asset Management no longer manages these Funds, which were
transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management in 2008.
Certain of the funds have since been terminated by Hyperion.

The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that
the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts relating to the activities of the Funds.  No class
has been certified.

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.

Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a
financial holding company that operates throughout the South,
Midwest and Texas. The company provides traditional commercial,
retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial
services in the fields of investment banking, asset management,
trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other
specialty financing.


REGIONS FIN'L: S.D.N.Y. Ct. Dismisses Suit by Securities Buyers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
dismissed all claims against Regions Financial Corp. in a
purported class action suit, 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 April 2009, Regions, Regions Financing Trust III and certain of
Regions' current and former directors, were named in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the purchasers of trust
preferred securities offered by the Trust.  The complaint alleges
that defendants made statements in Regions' registration
statement, prospectus and year-end filings which were materially
false and misleading.

On May 10, 2010, the trial court dismissed all claims against all
defendants in this case.  However the plaintiffs have appealed the
decision.

Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a
financial holding company that operates throughout the South,
Midwest and Texas. The company provides traditional commercial,
retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial
services in the fields of investment banking, asset management,
trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other
specialty financing.


REGIONS FIN'L: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class-
action lawsuit challenging the manner in which non-sufficient
funds (NSF) and overdraft fees were charged and the policies
related to posting order, 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.

The suit was filed in September 2009 by customers of Regions Bank
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The case was transferred to multidistrict litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and in May
2010 an order to compel arbitration was denied.

No class has been certified.

Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a
financial holding company that operates throughout the South,
Midwest and Texas. The company provides traditional commercial,
retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial
services in the fields of investment banking, asset management,
trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other
specialty financing.


SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
glassBYTEs.com reports that two former and one current Safelite
Solutions customer service representatives have filed a class
action suit against the company and its parent company, Safelite,
alleging that the company failed to compensate them with overtime
pay when they worked more than 40 hours per week. According to
court documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Patrick W. Heaps, Joshua Pursley and Richard
Ruppert allege that the company requires its CSRs to start their
shifts each day by booting up their computer systems, but then
omit the time it takes the CSR to boot up the system from its
calculation of the hours the CSRs have worked each week. They also
allege that the company "fail[s] to maintain records of all the
hours so worked by those representatives."

Mr. Heaps worked as a CSR for Safelite Solutions from July 2008,
to July 2009, while Mr. Ruppert was employed by the company from
December 2007 to March 2010. Mr. Pursley has worked there since
April 2008. All three allege that though they regularly work (or
worked) more than 40 hours a week when the time spent booting up
their systems is (or was) included, they have not received
overtime pay for the additional time spent launching their
systems.

The three say that the process of "booting up" to which they refer
includes starting their computers, typing in their user names and
passwords, opening the relevant computer programs needed,
connecting to the main system and completing other administrative
tasks necessary to prepare to answer calls, according to the
August 13 complaint. The plaintiffs allege this process takes
approximately four minutes today currently, though at one time it
took up to six minutes, and that Safelite Solutions has
"substantially controlled the length of time booting up takes."

Likewise, Messrs. Heaps, Ruppert and Pursley claim that the
company "characterizes the start of a [CSR's] work shift as the
first minute the representative is fully booted up and ready to
receive calls, even though the [CSR] actually started the shift by
arriving at work and beginning the booting-up process."

They go on to allege that the company's security and computer
systems "could easily and accurately record the actual time CSRs
arrive for work and begin the process of booting up."

CSRs are paid hourly and thus, the employees argue not being paid
for overtime for this time violates the Fair Labor and Standards
Act and/or the Ohio Wage Act, according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs claim the class includes all current or former CSRs
employed during the past three years by Safelite Solutions "who,
when the time at the start of each scheduled shift they spent
booting up is included, worked more than 40 hours a week and were
compensated for such overtime work at an amount equaling less than
one and one-half times the CSR's regular rate of pay based on a
40-hour workweek."

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages "in an amount
equal to the difference between the time-and-a-half payments
required," liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and an injunction prohibiting
further alleged overtime violations.

Safelite spokesperson Jenny Cain says the company currently is
investigating the allegations.

"We're conducting an investigation and cannot comment at this
time," she told glassBYTEs.com and AGRR magazine.

A similar suit alleging overtime pay violations for CSRs was filed
recently against State Farm in a Missouri District court.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Reliant Subsidiary Defends Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Solta Medical Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Reliant
Technologies, LLC, defends a complaint in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court.

On Dec. 21, 2009, a complaint was filed by three former
stockholders of Reliant Technologies, Inc. against Reliant and
certain former officers and directors of Reliant in connection
with the company's acquisition of Reliant, which closed on Dec.
23, 2008.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of the former
common stockholders of Reliant.

As a result of the acquisition, a successor entity to Reliant,
Reliant Technologies, LLC, became the company's wholly-owned
subsidiary.

Two of the company's Board of Directors are among the defendants
named in the complaint, and one of the two is also the company's
Chief Technology Officer.  The principal claim, among others, is
that Reliant violated the California Corporations Code by failing
to obtain the vote from a majority of holders of Reliant's common
stock prior to the consummation of the acquisition.

The complaint also purports to challenge disclosures made by
Reliant in connection with its entry into the acquisition and
that the defendants failed to maximize the value of Reliant for
the benefits of Reliant's common stockholders.

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.

Solta Medical Inc., formerly Thermage, Inc. --
http://www.solta.com/-- is engaged in designing, developing,
manufacturing and marketing energy-based medical device systems
for aesthetic applications.  These systems are marketed under the
brand names Fraxel and Thermage and are Food & Drug Administration
cleared for dermatological procedures in the applications, which
include: Skin Tightening, the Thermage NXT system offers non-
invasive treatment options for skin tightening and contouring,
body shaping, and improvement in the appearance of cellulite; Skin
Rejuvenation, the Fraxel re:fine and Fraxel re:store systems offer
treatments for skin conditions such as fine lines and
pigmentation.  In March 2010, the company announced the completion
of its acquisition of Aesthera Corporation.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Inks Agreement to Settle TCPA-Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Solta Medical Inc., has reached an agreement in principle to
settle a class action complaint Aesthera Corp. alleging violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 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.

Solta Medical completed its acquisition of Aesthera on Feb. 26,
2010.

On Dec. 4, 2009, Aesthera was served with a class action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut alleging that Aesthera caused unsolicited fax
advertisements to be sent to the plaintiffs in violation of the
TCPA and Connecticut state law.  The complaint purports to be
filed on behalf of a class, and it alleges that Aesthera caused
unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent from Aug. 1, 2006
through the present.

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the TCPA and Connecticut
state law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and an
injunction to prevent any future violations.

In May 2010, the company reached agreement in principle to settle
the matter.  The Court stayed discovery until Nov. 1, 2010 so that
preliminary agreement of a class settlement could be submitted and
a fairness hearing held to determine whether final approval of the
settlement would be appropriate.

Solta Medical Inc., formerly Thermage, Inc. --
http://www.solta.com/-- is engaged in designing, developing,
manufacturing and marketing energy-based medical device systems
for aesthetic applications.  These systems are marketed under the
brand names Fraxel and Thermage and are Food & Drug Administration
cleared for dermatological procedures in the applications, which
include: Skin Tightening, the Thermage NXT system offers non-
invasive treatment options for skin tightening and contouring,
body shaping, and improvement in the appearance of cellulite; Skin
Rejuvenation, the Fraxel re:fine and Fraxel
re:store systems offer treatments for skin conditions such as fine
lines and pigmentation.  In March 2010, the company
announced the completion of its acquisition of Aesthera
Corporation.


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 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


SPRINT NEXTEL: Judge Permits Arbitration Between Firms Over Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports a
U.S. judge in Newark last Wednesday allowed an arbitration to
proceed between two Illinois firms over a portion of $5.775
million in legal fees approved as part of a class action
settlement.

Lakin Chapman of Wood River, Ill., claims it has a right to one-
third of the fees, or $1.925 million, as damages for breach of
contract by the Chicago firm of Freed & Weiss, class counsel in
Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 07-cv-5325.

The suit challenged the imposition of flat-rate, early-termination
fees on cell-phone contracts.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares denied Freed's motion to enjoin
the arbitration on the basis that it would essentially re-litigate
Linares's earlier decision approving the settlement and allocating
fees.

Judge Linares instead agreed with Lakin that the arbitration was
separate and based on Freed's alleged breach of an agreement
between the firms that settled litigation over who would handle
class lawsuits they had worked together on before their
relationship soured.

The agreement made Lakin the lead counsel in an early-termination
fee case against Sprint then pending in Illinois state court and
barred Freed from filing a similar lawsuit without its prior
approval.

Freed allegedly violated the deal when it filed Larson in New
Jersey.  The Illinois case and others against Sprint elsewhere
were extinguished by the Larson settlement.

Judge Linares approved the $17.5 million settlement on Jan. 15,
including a legal fee of $5.775 million, and he allocated the fees
among class counsel and about 20 other firms that had represented
objectors or handled state law cases in California and Florida
that predated Larson and allegedly paved the way for the
settlement.

Lakin was not included in the allocation because it did not apply
for fees and thus waived its right to share in them, argued Freed.
It accused Lakin of trying to relitigate the fee issue and the
propriety of the settlement.

Freed also pointed out that the $1.925 million Lakin is seeking as
contract damages -- one-third of the entire Larson fee -- is more
than the $906,540 in fees it wound up with after paying the costs
and the other lawyers.

Judge Linares saw the claim as a contractual one distinct from
Larson though implicating it because the filing of Larson was the
alleged breach and the Larson class fees were being used to
measure the contract damages.

Paul Weiss, Esq., of Freed declines comment. Local class counsel
James Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello
in Roseland, could not be reached. Bradley Lakin, Esq., of the
Lakin firm did not return a call.


STRYKER CORP: NY Securities Suit Transferred to Michigan Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Stryker Corporation
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
has been transferred to a Michigan 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.

The class action lawsuit was filed against the Company on
January 15, 2010, on behalf of those who purchased the Company's
common stock between January 25, 2007, and November 13, 2008,
inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In May 2010, the class action lawsuit was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
Southern Division.

The Company is evaluating the scope of the claim and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

Stryker Corporation -- http://www.stryker.com/-- is one of the
world's leading medical technology companies and is dedicated to
helping healthcare professionals perform their jobs more
efficiently while enhancing patient care.   The Company provides
innovative orthopaedic implants as well as state-of-the-art
medical and surgical equipment to help people lead more active
and more satisfying lives.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action filed against Synovus Financial
Corp. in Georgia relating to securities fraud 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 July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1 09-CV-1811) alleging, among other things, that Synovus and
the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock
price in violation of the federal securities laws.  This includes
purported exposure to Synovus' Sea Island lending relationship
and the impact of real estate values as a threat to Synovus'
credit, capital position, and business, and failure to adequately
and timely record losses for impaired loans.  The plaintiffs in
the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified
amount.

On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1 09-CV-3069), against certain current or former
directors and executive officers of Synovus.  The Federal
Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual
defendants violated their fiduciary duties based on
substantially the same facts as alleged in the Securities Class
Action.  The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an
unspecified amount and equitable and injunctive relief.

On December 1, 2009, the Court consolidated the Securities Class
Action and Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit for discovery
purposes, captioned In re Synovus Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-
JOF, holding that the two cases involve "common issues of law and
fact."

Synovus and the individual named defendants collectively intend
to vigorously defend themselves against the Securities Class
Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit allegations.

Synovus notes that there are significant uncertainties involved in
any potential class action and derivative litigation.  Based on
information that presently is available to it, Synovus' management
is unable to predict the outcome of the purported Securities Class
Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits and cannot currently
reasonably determine the probability of a material adverse result
or reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure, if any.
Although the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot be
ascertained at this time, based on information that presently is
available to it, Synovus' management presently does not believe
that the Securities Class Action or the Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuits, when resolved, will have a material adverse effect on
the company's consolidated financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- located in
Columbus, Georgia, is a diversified financial services company
and a registered bank holding company.  Synovus Financial
provides financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance, mortgage and leasing
services.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Charged With Usury and Conversion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Bank, a subsidiary bank of Synovus Financial Corp.,  was
recently named as a defendant in a purported putative class action
relating to the manner in which it charges overdraft fees to
customers.

The case entitled Griner et al. v. Synovus Bank, et al.  was filed
in Gwinnett County State Court on July 30, 2010, and asserts
claims for usury and conversion for alleged injuries suffered by
the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of
overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-
teller machine cards used to access customer accounts.

Synovus intends to vigorously pursue all available defenses to
these claims, 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.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- located in
Columbus, Georgia, is a diversified financial services company
and a registered bank holding company.  Synovus Financial
provides financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance, mortgage and leasing
services.


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


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Dentists' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation and two of its subsidiaries remain
as defendants in a complaint filed by the Puerto Rico Dentists
Association.

On Feb. 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association (Colegio de
Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint in the Court
of First Instance against 24 health plans operating in Puerto Rico
that offer dental health coverage.  The Corporation and two of its
subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc., were included as defendants.
The litigation purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
Puerto Rico dentists who are similarly situated; however, the
complaint does not include a single dentist as a class
representative nor a definition of the intended class.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render.  The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150 million.  In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.

There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits.

Two codefendant plans removed the case to federal court, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the
Corporation, opposed.  The federal District Court decided that it
lacked jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and
remanded the case to state court.  The removing defendants
petitioned to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Having accepted the appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an order in late October 2009 which found the lower
court's decision premature.  The Court of Appeals remanded the
case to the federal District Court and allowed limited discovery
to determine whether the case should be heard in federal court
pursuant to CAFA.

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.

Triple-S Management Corporation --
http://www.triplesmanagement.com/-- is an independent licensee of
the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.  It is the largest managed
care company in Puerto Rico, serving approximately 1.3 million
members.  Triple-S Management also has the exclusive right to use
the Blue Cross Blue Shield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  With more than 50 years of
experience in the industry, Triple-S Management offers a broad
portfolio of managed care and related products in the Commercial,
Medicare, and Reform markets under the Blue Cross Blue Shield
brand.  In addition to its managed care business, Triple-S
Management provides non-Blue Cross Blue Shield branded life and
property and casualty insurance in Puerto Rico.  The company is
the largest provider of life, accident, and health insurance and
the fourth largest provider of property and casualty insurance in
its market.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Ethridge Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc., has reached a settlement with the
attorneys for the class representative of a wage and hour lawsuit
captioned Ethridge v. Universal Health Services, et al., in June
2010.

The settlement will not materially affect Universal Health's
consolidated financial position or results of operations,
according to the company's Aug. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

The settlement is subject to court approval, which has not yet
occurred.

The company and one of its acute care facilities, Lancaster
Community Hospital, were named as defendants in the lawsuit in Los
Angeles County Superior Court in June 2008.  The lawsuit is a
purported class action lawsuit alleging that the hospital failed
to provide sufficient meal and break periods to certain employees.

Universal Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.uhsinc.com/-- is
engaged in owning and operating, through its subsidiaries,
acute-care hospitals, behavioral health centers, surgical
hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and radiation oncology
centers.


VERIZON: Sued for Not Providing Family Leave Benefits to Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon refused to give
employees legally required family leave, and fired them for asking
for it, California claims in a class action in Los Angeles
Superior Court.  The state estimates the class has 1,000 to 1,500
members.


VERMONT: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Overtime Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Free Press reports the Douglas administration has lost
its bid for dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed by 80 state
employees who claim they have been unlawfully denied the amount of
overtime pay they were due for working for than 40 hours a week.

U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions denied the state's
request to dismiss the case and ordered lawyers to proceed to the
next steps in the case.

The state employees, members of the Corrections, judiciary and
non-management supervisory bargaining units, argue that because
they have reached the upper end of the state's pay grades, they
are given straight time for extra hours instead of time and a
half. They want back pay going back three years.

The Douglas administration says the employees are salaried and
aren't covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act provision
for overtime. The federal law says its overtime provision doesn't
apply to "any employee employed in a bona fide executive,
administrative or professional capacity."

Sessions didn't decide the question raised by the case; rather, he
concluded there weren't grounds to dismiss it.


VULCAN MATERIALS: Subsidiary Defends Two Consolidated Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries,
Inc., remains a defendant in two consolidated complaints pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

A number of class action lawsuits were filed by several ready-
mixed concrete producers and construction companies against a
number of concrete and cement producers and importers in Florida.

There are now two consolidated complaints:

     (1) on behalf of direct independent ready-mixed concrete
         producers, and

     (2) on behalf of indirect users of ready-mixed concrete.

The defendants include Cemex Corp., Holcim (US) Inc., Lafarge
North America, Inc., Lehigh Cement Company, Oldcastle Materials,
Suwannee American Cement LLC, Titan America LLC, and Votorantim
Cimentos North America, Inc.

The complaints allege various violations under the federal
antitrust laws, including price fixing and market allocations.

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.

Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of
construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and
concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida.


VULCAN MATERIALS: Class Certification Hearing in Addair Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class certification hearing originally scheduled for August
2010, in the matter Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et
al., has been stayed, according to Vulcan Materials Company's
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company is a defendant in several cases involving
perchloroethylene (perc), which was a product manufactured by the
company's former Chemicals business.  Perc is a cleaning solvent
used in dry cleaning and other industrial applications.
The cases involve various allegations of groundwater
contamination, or exposure to perc allegedly resulting in personal
injury.

One such case is a purported class action case for medical
monitoring and personal injury damages pending in the Circuit
Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia.

The plaintiffs allege various personal injuries from exposure to
perc used in coal sink labs.

Discovery is now complete.

The class certification hearing scheduled for August 2010 has been
stayed.

Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of
construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and
concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida.


WHITNEY CANADA: Quebec Court Okays Class Action in Land-Fraud Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Mauro, writing for The Ottawa Citizen, reports a Quebec
Superior Court has given the green light to a class-action lawsuit
filed by more than 150 investors from across Canada who allege
they were defrauded millions of dollars in a real-estate
investment scheme.

The court will allow the petitioners to seek damages from real
estate training company Whitney Canada, Inc., and Desjardins
Financial Security Investments, Inc.

Pierre Sylvestre, the petitioners' lawyer, said his clients are
seeking $50,000 each for pain and suffering and the return of
their investments plus interest, for a total of $15 million.

Despite the lawsuit go-ahead, some involved with the case are
unhappy with the judge's decision to exclude five defendants
listed in the original petition -- B2B Trust, Lloyd's Canada,
Inc., Lloyd's Underwriters, Whitney Information Network, and
Gatineau notary Jean Lafreniere -- due to insufficient evidence
against them.

"It's good news that we get to go after them collectively," said
Silvio Gagnon, who alleges he and his wife lost a total of
$76,000. "But we feel the other firms should be included because
they robbed us too."

Mr. Sylvestre said his clients might appeal that part of the
decision.

The original petition also listed three local businessmen as
defendants. Francois Roy, Marc Jemus, and Robert Primeau have all
filed for bankruptcy and Mr. Sylvestre said his clients won't be
able to make claims against them until they are discharged by
bankruptcy court.

According to the complainants, investors in the alleged scam put
money into real-estate investments that were never actually made.

The main petitioner, David Brown, said he lost $65,000, but others
lost up to $700,000 and one elderly couple lost their farm.

                           *********

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  * * *