CAR_Public/100826.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 168

                             Headlines

AMEDISYS INC: Faces Four Securities Class Suits in Louisiana
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Faces 2nd Class Action Suit Filed by Shareholders
AOL INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement in "Hallissey"
AOL INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Two Claims in Ramkissoon
BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Awaits New Scheduling Order in Oklahoma Suit

BOK FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Regarding Overdraft Fees
CALIFORNIA: Court Certifies Lawsuit Vs. DFG as Class Action
CELERA CORP: Defends Washtenaw County Employees' Suit
CELERA CORP: Court Approves $11 Million Settlement Agreement
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Oklahoma Is Pending

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Awaits Approval of Settlement Agreement
CLEAR CHANNEL: Seeks Hearing Date for Reconsideration Motion
CLECO CORP: Subsidiary Faces Second Suit in Louisiana
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 15
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Bank of America Settles Data Theft Suits

DJO FINANCE: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Drug Pump Product
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Agrees to Settle FLSA-Violations Suit
EQT CORP: Virginia Attorney General Intervenes in Class Action
GENZYME CORP: Moves to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint in Mass.
GOOGLE INC: 8 Proposed Class Actions Consolidated in California

HECKMAN CORP: Faces Two Securities Class Actions in Del. & Calif.
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Consolidated Complaint in Calif.
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit Over Early Termination Fees
KROGER CO: Accused in Virginia Suit of Not Paying Overtime
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Oct. 6

LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Action in Texas
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: No Class Certified in Suit Against LLI
MARSH & MCLENNAN: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of RICO Claims
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: M&I Bank Faces Class Action in Florida
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Face Subprime-related Lawsuits

NORTEL NETWORKS: Judge Cuts Milberg's Request for Additional Fees
OLD REPUBLIC: Several Title Insurance Lawsuits Still Pending
OZ MINERALS: Slater & Gordon Files Class Action Claim in NSW Court
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Awaits Ruling on "Gobel" Remand Motion
PHI INC: Motion to Dismiss Superior Offshore's Suit Pending

POPULAR INC: Court Dismisses Some Claims in Consolidated Suit
POPULAR INC: Pushes for Dismissal of ERISA Class Suit v. Unit
RADIAN GROUP: Court Dismisses ERISA Violation Suit in Pennsylvania
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
SIGNALIFE INC: Court Denies Motion to Enforce PSLRA Stay

STERLING FINANCIAL: Continues Defense of Securities Suit in Wash.
STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Outcome of Two ERISA Violation Suits
STERLING FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Shareholder Class Suit in Wash.
STEVEN MADDEN: Awaits Resolution of "Tahvilian" Suit in Calif.
STIFEL FINANCIAL: Obtains Dismissal of ARS-Related Suit in Mo.

TARGET CORP: Sued for Wrongful Death of Shopper Mary Ann Verdugo
TEXAS: Plaintiffs in "Morrow" Suit Seek Class Certification
TELEFLORA LLC: Sued in Ind. Over Unauthorized Use of Websites
VERISK ANALYTICS: Unable to Resolve Dispute with Hanover
VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed

VERISK ANALYTICS: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Taylor"
VERISK ANALYTICS: iiX Unit Continues to Defend "Cook" Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: Interthinx Continues to Defend "Gluzman" Suit
WHITE TIGER: Recalls 7,000 Folding Wooden Chairs

                             *********

AMEDISYS INC: Faces Four Securities Class Suits in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc., disclosed in its August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010, that it is facing four putative securities
class action complaints in Louisiana.

On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana on behalf of all persons who purchased Amedisys
securities between February 23, 2010 and May 13, 2010 against the
Company and certain of its senior executives alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of
its senior executives made false or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material facts, about its business,
financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly
relating to its policies and practices regarding home therapy
visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system
and the related alleged impact on its business, financial
condition, operations and prospects. The complaint seeks a
determination that the action may be maintained as a class action,
an award of unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified
relief. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of
this complaint.

Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010. Those actions make
allegations similar those included in the June 7, 2010 complaint,
except that each purports to assert claims on behalf of a
different putative class of purchasers of Amedisys securities.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Faces 2nd Class Action Suit Filed by Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports American Public Education is facing a
second class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of shareholders.

New York law firm Bernstein Liebhard said it sued the Charles
Town-based company Monday in U.S. District Court in Martinsburg.
The lawsuit is the second filed on behalf of American Public
Education shareholders in August.

American Public operates online, for-profit universities primarily
for military personnel.

The new lawsuit accuses the company of using improper tactics to
lure students to enroll to prop up financial results, among other
things. The earlier lawsuit filed by an Oklahoma law firm likewise
accuses American Public of making misrepresentations to investors.

An American Public spokesman did not immediately return a call
seeking comment.


AOL INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement in "Hallissey"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gave
its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving the
matter Hallissey et al. v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., et al.,
according to AOL Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On May 24, 1999, two former AOL Community Leader volunteers
brought a putative class action, Hallissey et al. v. America
Online, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York State law.  The plaintiffs alleged that, in serving
as AOL Community Leader volunteers, they were acting as employees
rather than volunteers for purposes of the FLSA and New York State
law and are entitled to minimum wages.

In 2001, four of the named plaintiffs in the Hallissey case filed
a related lawsuit alleging retaliation as a result of filing the
FLSA suit in Williams, et al. v. America Online, Inc., et al.  A
related case was filed by several of the Hallissey plaintiffs in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the retaliation provisions of the FLSA.
Also in 2001, two related class actions were filed in state courts
in New Jersey (Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County Law
Division) and Ohio (Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County,
Ohio), alleging violations of the FLSA and/or the respective state
laws.  These cases were removed to federal court and subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York for consolidated pretrial proceedings with Hallissey.

On January 17, 2002, AOL Community Leader volunteers filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Hallissey et al. v. AOL Time Warner, Inc.,
et al., against AOL LLC alleging ERISA violations and an
entitlement to pension, welfare and/or other employee benefits
subject to ERISA.  In March 2003, plaintiffs filed and served a
second amended complaint, adding as defendants the AOL Time Warner
Administrative Committee and the AOL Administrative Committee.

The parties to all of the Community Leader-related lawsuits have
agreed to settle the lawsuits on terms that did not result in a
material incremental expense or material payment by the company in
2009.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
Feb. 2, 2010.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on May 20,
2010.

AOL Inc. is a global web services company with an extensive suite
of brands and offerings and a substantial worldwide audience.
AOL's business spans online content, products and services that
the company offers to consumers, publishers and advertisers.  AOL
is focused on attracting and engaging consumers and providing
valuable online advertising services on both AOL's owned and
operated properties and third-party websites.  In addition, AOL
operates one of the largest internet subscription access services
in the United States, which serves as a valuable distribution
channel for AOL's consumer offerings.


AOL INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Two Claims in Ramkissoon
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has denied AOL LLC's motion to dismiss the claims under the
California False Advertising Law and the California Unfair
Competition Law, according to AOL Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Sept. 22, 2006, Salvadore Ramkissoon and two unnamed plaintiffs
filed a putative class action against AOL LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California based on AOL LLC's
public posting of AOL LLC member search queries in late July 2006.

Among other things, the complaint alleges violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California statutes
relating to privacy, data protection and false advertising.  The
complaint seeks class certification and damages, as well as
injunctive relief that would oblige AOL LLC to alter its search
query retention practices.

In February 2007, the District Court dismissed the action without
prejudice.  The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the
Ninth Circuit.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit held that AOL LLC's Terms of
Service violated California public policy as to any California
plaintiffs in the putative class, as it did not allow for them to
fully exercise their rights.  The Ninth Circuit reversed and
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

On April 24, 2009, AOL LLC filed a motion to stay discovery as
well as a motion to implement the Ninth Circuit's mandate; the
former motion was denied on June 22, 2009.  AOL LLC filed its
answer on June 29, 2009.

On July 6, 2009, the District Court found that the plaintiffs'
claims for unjust enrichment and public disclosure of private
facts were subject to the forum selection clause in the Terms of
Service and thus could not be pursued in that court.

On Oct. 27, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and two additional named individuals filed a motion
to intervene as plaintiffs in the matter.  Also on October 27, AOL
filed its reply brief with regards to its 12(c) Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.

On Feb. 2, 2010, the Court issued an Order granting AOL's motion
to implement the mandate of the Ninth Circuit.  In its Order, the
court dismissed named plaintiff Ramkissoon, as he is not a
California resident.  In addition, the court dismissed the
remaining claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
as well as the claims for unjust enrichment and public disclosure
of private facts.

The Court also dismissed without prejudice both the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as well as AOL's 12(c) motion.
Subsequent to the court's order, AOL filed a modified 12(c) motion
on Feb. 24, 2010.

Briefing on the 12(c) motion has been completed and a hearing is
currently scheduled for June 22, 2010.

On March 2, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel withdrew a motion seeking to
have two additional class representatives intervene in this
action.  On March 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Writ of
Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit challenging the District Court's
recent ruling.

On April 13, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a stay of
all proceedings until November 2010.  AOL's opposition to the stay
motion is due May 18, 2010, the plaintiff's reply is due May 25,
2010 and the hearing was scheduled for June 8, 2010.

On June 17, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs' Writ of
Mandamus, holding that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate why
they cannot seek a final judgment in this matter and then pursue
an appeal of the relevant matters thereafter.

The District Court then cancelled the hearing on all pending
motions, which had been rescheduled for June 22, 2010.  On
June 23, 2010, the District Court ruled on AOL's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims, as well as plaintiffs' motion to stay
discovery.

The Court dismissed one of the claims (California Consumer Records
Act) and denied plaintiffs the ability to refile, and dismissed a
second claim (California Consumers Legal Remedies Act) without
prejudice.  The Court also denied AOL's motion to dismiss the
claims under the California False Advertising Law and the
California Unfair Competition Law.  The Court also denied
plaintiffs' motion to stay discovery.

The case is Ramkissoon v. AOL LLC, Case No. 06-cv-05866 (N.D.
Calif.) (Armstrong, J.).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
          C. Oliver Burt, III, Esq.
          Marc J. Greenspon, Esq.
          Daniel A. Bushell, Esq.
          BERMAN DeVALERIO
          4280 Professional Center Drive, Suite 350
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 835-9400
          E-Mail: mdominguez@bermandevalerio.com
                  cburt@bermandevalerio.com
                  mgreenspon@bermandevalerio.com
                  dbushell@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
          BERMAN DeVALERIO
          425 California Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2205
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-Mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Richard R. Wiebe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE
          425 California Street, Suite 2025
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: wiebe@pacbell.net

               - and -

          James K. Green, Esq.
          JAMES K. GREEN, P.A.
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 659-2029
          E-mail: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net

AOL LLC is represented by:

          Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew G. Horne, Esq.
          David S. Flugman, Esq.
          Adam Fotiades, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: jserino@kirkland.com
                  ahorne@kirkand.com
                  dflugman@kirkland.com
                  afotiades@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1400
          E-mail: edeeley@kirkland.com

AOL Inc. is a global web services company with an extensive suite
of brands and offerings and a substantial worldwide audience.
AOL's business spans online content, products and services that
the company offers to consumers, publishers and advertisers.  AOL
is focused on attracting and engaging consumers and providing
valuable online advertising services on both AOL's owned and
operated properties and third-party websites.  In addition, AOL
operates one of the largest internet subscription access services
in the United States, which serves as a valuable distribution
channel for AOL's consumer offerings.


BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Awaits New Scheduling Order in Oklahoma Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BlueKnight Energy Partners, L.P., said on a Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2010, it is awaiting a new
scheduling order in a consolidated class action in Oklahoma.

Between July 21, 2008 and September 4, 2008, these class action
complaints were filed:

   1. Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed July 21,
      2008).  The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on
      August 26, 2008;

   2. Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of Oklahoma
      (filed July 22, 2008);

   3. Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o Charles D.
      Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-cv-6598, in the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed July 25,
      2008);

   4. Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
      Civil Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the United States District
      Court for the Southern District of New York (filed August
      8, 2008);

   5. Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
      Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the United States District
      Court for the Southern District of New York (filed August
      25, 2008); and

   6. William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et
      al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the United States
      District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed
      September 4, 2008).

Pursuant to a motion filed with the MDL Panel, the Maurer case has
been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and
consolidated with the Carson case.  The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman
cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held in
the Carson case on October 17, 2008.  At that hearing, the court
granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for
pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now
pending as In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-425-GKF-PJC. The court entered an order
on October 27, 2008, granting the motion of Harvest Fund Advisors
LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated litigation.
On January 23, 2009, the court entered a Scheduling Order
providing, among other things, that the lead plaintiff may file a
consolidated amended complaint within 70 days of the date of the
order, and that defendants may answer or otherwise respond within
60 days of the date of the filing of a consolidated amended
complaint.  On January 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion
to modify the stay of discovery provided for under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The court granted Plaintiff's
motion, and the Company and certain other defendants filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals that was denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
May 4, 2009.  In that complaint, filed as a putative class action
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's units from July 17,
2007 to July 17, 2008, lead plaintiff asserts claims under the
federal securities laws against the Company, its general partner,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, certain
underwriters in its initial and secondary public offerings, and
certain entities who were investors in SemCorp and their
individual representatives who served on SemCorp's management
committee. Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges
that the Company's financial condition throughout the class period
was dependent upon speculative commodities trading by SemCorp and
its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and that
defendants negligently and intentionally failed to disclose this
speculative trading in its public filings during the class period.
The amended complaint further alleges there were other material
omissions and misrepresentations contained in the Company's
filings during the class period.  The amended complaint alleges
claims for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 for damages and rescission with respect to
all persons who purchased the Company's units in the initial and
secondary offerings, and also asserts claims under section 10b,
Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934. The amended complaint seeks certification as a class
action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory
and rescissory damages for class members, pre-judgment interest,
costs of court, and attorneys' fees.

On July 22, 2009, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaint.  The lead plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 1,
2009.  On October 8, 2009, the defendants filed a reply in support
of their motion to dismiss.  The lead plaintiff filed a
supplemental opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on
October 29, 2009.

On April 30, 2010, the court dismissed all claims against Brent
Cooper (SemCorp's former treasurer) and dismissed the Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against W. Anderson Bishop (a former
member of the Board) and Brian F. Billings (a former member of the
Board).  The court denied the remainder of the motions to dismiss,
including the motion to dismiss that the Partnership filed.  Under
the operative scheduling order, the remaining defendants filed
their answers on June 21, 2010.  The Partnership expects the case
to proceed under a new scheduling order to be issued by the court.

                      About BlueKnight Energy

Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., formerly SemGroup Energy
Partners, L.P., -- http://www.bkep.com/-- owns, operates and
develops a portfolio of midstream energy assets.  The company
provides integrated terminalling, storage, processing, gathering
and transportation services for companies engaged in the
production, distribution and marketing of crude oil and liquid
asphalt cement.  It manages its operations through three
operating segments: crude oil terminalling and storage services,
crude oil gathering and transportation services and asphalt
services.  The company owns and operates two pipeline systems,
the Mid-Continent system and the Longview system, that gather
crude oil purchased by the Private Company and its other
customers and transports it to refiners, to common carrier
pipelines for ultimate delivery to refiners or to terminalling
and storage facilities owned by the company and others.


BOK FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Regarding Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Winslow, Tulsa World staff writer, reports a lawsuit filed
against BOK Financial Corp. and Bank of Oklahoma alleges that the
bank manipulates the order of its customers' electronic debit
transactions to maximize overdraft fees.

The action, filed last week in Tulsa County District Court, lists
Susan Eaton as the lead plaintiff and seeks certification as a
class action.

The complaint alleges that BOK reorders electronic debit
transactions from the highest dollar amount to lowest dollar
amount, which depletes customers' available funds as quickly as
possible and maximizes the number of overdraft fees. According to
the lawsuit, the bank did not adequately disclose in its account
agreement that it posts transactions from the highest to lowest
dollar amount. The lawsuit further alleges that "BOK's practices
ensure that smaller charges will result in multiple overdraft
fees."

As an example, ". . . transactions made by the plaintiff on or
before April 17, 2010, were improperly reordered from high to low,
causing two separate overdraft fees. BOK's improper high-to-low
reordering of those transactions doubled the total number of
overdraft fees," the suit states.

According to the lawsuit, the bank allegedly was charging
overdraft fees when the customer had not overdrawn her checking
account, charging overdraft fees on overdraft fees, and charging
overdraft fees when BOK did not have to pay out more funds than
were in the customer's checking account.

Jesse Boudiette, BOK Financial's corporate communications
director, denied wrongdoing by the bank.

"This is an opportunistic lawsuit" he wrote in an e-mailed
comment. "It was filed on the heels of a trial court judgment
against a national bank in California under different
circumstances, and it is not reflective of our policies which we
are confident are entirely appropriate."

The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution and "injunctive relief,"
and says that BOK violated the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.
The amount of damages would be "determined at trial," the
complaint says.

Patrick Stueve, Esq., at Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP in Kansas City,
Mo., and among those listed as attorneys for plaintiffs, noted
that his firm also is pursuing claims on behalf of customers of
Missouri-based Commerce Bank and UMB Bank, which also have
operations in Oklahoma.

"The level of frustration of consumers with respect to overdraft
fees has grown over the years. And, obviously, with the ability to
do debit transactions, the number of these fees being imposed is
. . . hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars in overdraft
fees," Mr. Stueve said.

Another plaintiff attorney is Mark Waller of Sneed Lang Herrold PC
in Tulsa. "This is a widespread practice that seems to be
occurring with most banks, so that it's not uncommon for this to
happen," Mr. Waller said.

The lawsuit involves transactions that occurred before new federal
rules took effect this summer that give debit and ATM card users
overdraft options for accounts.

In the past, some banks automatically enrolled customers in
standard overdraft plans without offering other options. Under the
new rules, however, banks must get permission from customers
before they can apply their standard overdraft plans and charge
overdraft fees for point-of-sale debit card purchases or ATM
transactions.

The rules took effect for new accounts opened on or after July 1,
and on Aug. 15 for existing accounts.

Now, bank customers who do not opt in -- or agree to their bank's
standard overdraft practices -- will not be charged overdraft fees
on debit card and ATM transactions.

Instead, these transactions could be declined if a customer does
not have enough money in the account.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Telephone: 816-714-7110 (Direct)
                816-298-9847 (Main)
     Facsimile: 816-714-7101
     E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

          - and -

     Mark A. Waller, Esq.
     SNEED LANG HERROLD PC
     1700 Williams Center Tower I
     One West Third Street
     Tulsa, OK 74103-3552
     Telephone: (918) 588-1313
     Facsimile: (918) 588-1314


CALIFORNIA: Court Certifies Lawsuit Vs. DFG as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diana Jorgenson, Portola editor for Plumas County News, reports
more than a year ago, citizens in eastern Plumas County filed a
class action suit against the Department of Fish and Game
regarding economic impacts from the agency's second poisoning of
Lake Davis. Last week, Judge Janet Hilde, Superior Court of Plumas
County, handed down a ruling to certify the petitioners as a
class.

It is the first of several hurdles which the litigants and DFG
must jump before the case can conclude.

"We think this decision is very favorable," said Steve Gross,
attorney for the city of Portola, and co-counsel for the class
action suit.

David Diepenbrock and G. David Robertson, co-counsel, appeared at
a June 30 hearing on the case, requesting class action
certification.

The court took the case under submission and Judge Hilde granted
their motion and certified the class in a 22-page ruling Aug. 12.

"Judge Hilde did a very good job in her ruling, very thorough,"
said Mr. Gross. "She took pains to cover all the arguments, which
should make it less susceptible to appeal."

B.J. Pearson, who spearheaded the formation of the class action
lawsuit, was equally pleased. "It's a big step forward."

The city of Portola, which is one of the plaintiffs, has included
the new legal development on tonight's agenda for city council.
Mr. Gross will be on hand and the subject will be up for
discussion.


CELERA CORP: Defends Washtenaw County Employees' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Celera Corp. defends the purported class action captioned
Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Celera
Corporation filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, 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 26, 2010.

The suit was filed on June 14, 2010, alleging that from April 24,
2008 through July 22, 2009, Celera and certain of its directors
and current and former officers made false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial results.

The action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class
of purchasers of the Company's stock during this period, as well
as an award to plaintiff of their costs and attorneys' fees.

Celera Corp. -- http://www.celera.com/-- is a healthcare business
focusing on the integration of genetic testing into routine
clinical care through a combination of products and services
incorporating proprietary discoveries. Berkeley HeartLab, a
subsidiary of Celera, offers services to predict cardiovascular
disease risk and improve patient management. Celera also
commercializes a wide range of molecular diagnostic products
through Abbott and has licensed other relevant diagnostic
technologies developed to provide personalized disease management
in cancer.


CELERA CORP: Court Approves $11 Million Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has
approved the stipulation and agreement of settlement entered by
the parties in a consolidated class-action complaint against
Applied Biosystems, Inc., nka Life Technologies, captioned In re
PE Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:00-CV-705,
according to Celera Corp.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 26, 2010.

Applied Biosystems and some of its officers are defendants in a
lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Celera stock in its
follow-on public offering of Celera stock completed on March 6,
2000.  In the offering, Applied Biosystems sold an aggregate of
approximately 4.4 million shares of Celera stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share.  The lawsuit, which was
commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May
2000, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
Aug. 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading
because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition of
the Human Genome Project and two of its supporters, the
governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to providing patent
protection to Celera's genomic-based products.

Although neither Celera nor Applied Biosystems ever sought, or
intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence
data, the complaint also alleges that Applied Biosystems did not
adequately disclose the risk that it would not be able to patent
this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court
deems proper.  On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as
a class action.

In November 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut issued an order to the parties to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed.  A hearing on this matter was held
in April 2009 at which the Court directed the parties to explore a
potential settlement of the matter.

On March 16, 2010, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement.  The Settlement Agreement provides for a
settlement in the aggregate amount of $11,000,000, which amount
will be funded entirely by Life Technologies Corporation's (as
successor to PE Corporation) insurance carrier.  Under the terms
of the company's separation agreement with Life Technologies, the
company agreed to indemnify Life Technologies for liabilities
resulting from the class action lawsuit to the extent not covered
by Life Technologies' insurance.

On July 15, 2010, a fairness hearing was held and the settlement
was approved by the Court.

Celera Corp. -- http://www.celera.com/-- is a healthcare business
focusing on the integration of genetic testing into routine
clinical care through a combination of products and services
incorporating proprietary discoveries. Berkeley HeartLab, a
subsidiary of Celera, offers services to predict cardiovascular
disease risk and improve patient management. Celera also
commercializes a wide range of molecular diagnostic products
through Abbott and has licensed other relevant diagnostic
technologies developed to provide personalized disease management
in cancer.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Oklahoma Is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation's motion to dismiss an amended
complaint in a putative class action 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 February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the company's July 2008 common stock
offering.

The District Court approved the selection of a United Food and
Commercial Workers pension fund as the lead plaintiff, and the
firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP to serve as lead
counsel in the putative securities class action lawsuit over
alleged omissions in financial information for Chesapeake Energy.

Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009,
alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission.

The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009.  The company has
filed a motion to dismiss which has been fully briefed.

Based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Chesapeake Energy Corporation
(NYSE: CHK) -- http://www.chkenergy.com/-- produces natural gas
in the U.S.  The company's operations are focused on exploratory
and developmental drilling and corporate and property acquisitions
in the Mid-Continent, Fort Worth Barnett Shale, Fayetteville
Shale, Permian Basin, Delaware Basin, South Texas, Texas Gulf
Coast, Ark-La-Tex and Appalachian Basin regions of the United
States.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Awaits Approval of Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated continues to await approval from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, of a
settlement agreement resolving two suits resulting from its
planned acquisition of Youbet.com, Inc., according to the
company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

During November 2009, the company announced that it had entered
into a merger agreement with Youbet under which it plans to
acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Youbet in a
transaction valued at approximately $137.0 million.

                  Los Angeles Litigation

On Nov. 17, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit, Wayne Witkowski
v. Youbet.com, Inc., et al., was filed in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles, California against Youbet, various of its
directors, the company and the company's wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Tomahawk Merger Corp. (Merger Sub) and Tomahawk
Merger LLC (Merger LLC).

Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were also filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Court, two of which name Youbet and its
directors as defendants and three of which also name the company
as a defendant.  All six lawsuits are putative class actions
brought on behalf of Youbet's stockholders.  Plaintiffs in the Los
Angeles litigation have since moved to consolidate the Los Angeles
litigation, to file a single consolidated complaint and to appoint
lead counsel.  That motion was granted on Jan. 22, 2010.

The complaints in the Los Angeles litigation all allege that
Youbet's directors have breached their fiduciary duties,
including alleged duties of loyalty, due care and candor, in
connection with the proposed merger transaction.  In that regard,
the various complaints include, among other things:

     -- allegations that the proposed transaction is the result
        of an inadequate sales process which has not been
        designed to maximize stockholder value;

     -- that the consideration to be received by Youbet
        shareholders is unfair and inadequate;

     -- that the merger agreement includes inappropriate "no
        solicitation," "matching rights," no standstill waiver,
        and termination fee provisions;

     -- that the combined effect of these provisions, together
        with Youbet's waiver of the Youbet stockholder rights
        agreement with respect to the company and the entry of
        voting agreements by defendants and certain others
        pursuant to which they have agreed to vote in favor of
        the proposed merger, is to "lock up" the proposed merger
        transaction, foreclose potential alternative bidders and
        illegally restrain Youbet's ability to solicit or engage
        in negotiations with a third party;

     -- that various defendants acted for their own benefit in
        approving the proposed merger, including for the purpose
        of obtaining positions or pursuing opportunities at the
        company; and

     -- that material information has not been provided in
        connection with the proposed transaction and was not
        provided at the time that Youbet submitted the Youbet
        stockholder rights agreement to a stockholder vote.

Those lawsuits which name the company or its affiliates as
defendants also allege that the company has aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Youbet's directors.  Youbet
is also alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by its directors.  Among the relief sought by the
complaints is an enjoining of the proposed merger transaction, or
unspecified damages if the transaction is consummated, together
with payment of attorneys' fees and costs.

                           Balch Action

On Dec. 23, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit, Raymond Balch
v. Youbet.com, Inc., et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Youbet, various of its directors, the company,
Merger Sub and Merger LLC.

The initial Balch complaint contained allegations similar to those
made in the Los Angeles litigation, including a claim that the
company aided and abetted alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
Youbet's directors.  On Jan. 8, 2010, an amended complaint was
filed in Balch, adding a claim against Youbet's directors for an
alleged breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure, and adding
allegations that the draft Registration Statement filed by the
company with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the proposed merger transaction omits material information
and is materially misleading in various respects.  Among the
relief sought by the Balch amended complaint is an enjoining of
the proposed merger transaction, or unspecified damages if the
transaction is consummated, together with payment of attorneys'
fees and costs.

                    Memorandum of Understanding

On March 2, 2010, Youbet, Youbet's directors, the Company, Merger
Sub, and Merger LLC entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Litigation and the
plaintiffs in the Balch  litigation reflecting an agreement in
principle to settle the cases based on, among other things,
defendants' agreement to include in an amended registration
statement certain additional disclosures relating to the sale of
Youbet.  The memorandum of understanding provides that the
settlement is subject to customary conditions including the
completion of appropriate settlement documentation and completion
of confirmatory discovery.  Pursuant to the memorandum of
understanding, an amended registration statement was filed
containing the additional agreed disclosures.

On or about July 14, 2010, the parties to the Los Angeles
Litigation and the Balch litigation entered into a settlement
agreement consistent with the terms of the memorandum of
understanding.  The settlement agreement provides, among other
things, for a certification of a class for settlement purposes,
dismissal with prejudice of the Los Angeles Litigation and the
Balch litigation, releases by class members and payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the court.  The
settlement agreement is subject to court approval.

In both the memorandum of understanding and the settlement
agreement, Youbet, Youbet's directors, the company, Merger Sub,
and Merger LLC each deny that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts alleged in the complaints, and expressly
maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied with any
and all of their legal duties.  Although Youbet, Youbet's
directors, the Company, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC believe the
lawsuits are without merit, they entered into the memorandum of
understanding to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation.

On July 14, 2010, plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Litigation filed
the settlement agreement with the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, together with a request for preliminary
approval of the settlement and of a proposed class notice and for
the scheduling of a hearing date for final approval of the
settlement.  On July 23, 2010, a hearing regarding preliminary
approval of the settlement was held by the court presiding over
the Los Angeles Litigation.  A further hearing on preliminary
approval was scheduled for Aug. 19, 2010, with any revised
preliminary approval papers to be filed by Aug. 19, 2010.

If the settlement is consummated, the Los Angeles Litigation and
the Balch litigation will each be dismissed with prejudice and the
defendants and other released persons will receive from or on
behalf of all of Youbet's non-affiliated public stockholders who
held Youbet common stock at any time from Nov. 10, 2009 through
the date of the consummation of the merger a release of, among
other things, all claims relating to the sale of Youbet, the
merger agreement and the transactions contemplated therein,
disclosures made relating to the sale of Youbet, and any
compensation or other payments made to the defendants in
connection with the sale of Youbet.  The release does not apply to
the right of any Youbet stockholder or former Youbet stockholder
who has taken the steps required by Delaware law to seek appraisal
of his or her Youbet shares from pursuing an appraisal in
accordance with Delaware law.  Plaintiffs will also receive a
release from the defendants with respect to all claims arising out
of, relating to, or in connection with the institution,
prosecution, assertion or resolution of the lawsuits.

Churchill Downs Incorporated --
http://www.ChurchillDownsIncorporated.com/-- headquartered in
Louisville, Ky., owns and operates four world renowned
Thoroughbred racing facilities: Arlington Park in Illinois, Calder
Casino and Race Course in Florida, Churchill Downs Race Track in
Kentucky and Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots in Louisiana.  CDI
operates slot and gaming operations in Louisiana and Florida.
Churchill Downs tracks are host to North America's most
prestigious races, including the Arlington Million, the Kentucky
Derby, the Kentucky Oaks, the Louisiana Derby and the Princess
Rooney, along with hosting the Breeders' Cup World Championships
for a record seventh time on Nov. 5-6, 2010.  Churchill Downs also
owns off-track betting facilities, TwinSpires.com and other
advance-deposit wagering channels, television production,
telecommunications and racing service companies such as BRIS and a
50-percent interest in the national cable and satellite network,
HorseRacing TV, which supports Churchill Downs' network of
simulcasting and racing operations.  Churchill Downs'
Entertainment Group produces the HullabaLOU Music Festival at
Churchill Downs which premieres on July 23-25, 2010.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Seeks Hearing Date for Reconsideration Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., wants a district court in
California to set a hearing date for argument on their motion for
reconsideration of a class certification order, the company
disclosed in a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Clear Channel is a co-defendant with Live Nation (which was spun
off as an independent company in December 2005) in 22 putative
class actions filed beginning in May 2006 by different named
plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country.
These actions generally allege that the defendants monopolized or
attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock concerts" in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs claim that
they paid higher ticket prices for defendants' "rock concerts" as
a result of defendants' conduct. They seek damages in an
undetermined amount.

On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the
Central District of California. On March 2, 2007, plaintiffs
filed motions for class certification in five "template" cases
involving five regional markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York,
Chicago and Denver. Defendants opposed that motion and, on
October 22, 2007, the district court issued its decision
certifying the class for each regional market. On February 20,
2008, defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Class
Certification Order, which is still pending. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Approval of the Class Notice Plan on September 25,
2009, but the Court denied the Motion as premature and ordered
the entire case stayed until the 9th Circuit issues its en banc
opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007), a
case that may change the standard for granting class
certification in the 9th Circuit.

On April 26, 2010, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion adopting a
new class certification standard which will require district
courts to resolve Rule 23 factual disputes that overlap with the
merits of the case. In response, Defendants asked the court to
set a hearing date for argument on their Motion for
Reconsideration of the Class Certification Order.

In the Master Separation and Distribution Agreement between Clear
Channel and Live Nation that was entered into in connection with
Clear Channel's spin-off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live
Nation agreed, among other things, to assume responsibility for
legal actions existing at the time of, or initiated after, the
spin-off in which Clear Channel is a defendant if those actions
relate in any material respect to the business of Live Nation.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify
Clear Channel with respect to all liabilities assumed by Live
Nation, including those pertaining to the claims in the class
action.

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. -- http://www.clearchannel.com/
-- is a diversified media company with three primary business
segments: radio broadcasting, outdoor advertising and live
entertainment.  Clear Channel Communications is the operating
subsidiary of San Antonio, Texas-based CC Media Holdings, Inc.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 15
-------------------------------------------------------
To: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Countrywide
Financial Corporation ("Countrywide") common stock, call options,
6.25% Subordinated Notes Due 5/16/2016, Series A and B Medium-Term
Notes, certain Series L and M Medium-Term Notes, and Countrywide
Capital V 7% Capital Securities, or who sold Countrywide put
options, between March 12, 2004 and March 7, 2008, inclusive.

You are hereby notified, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held before the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer,
United States District Judge, on November 15, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. in
Courtroom 12 of the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring
Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, for the purpose of
determining, among other things, (i) whether the proposed
Settlement of this Action for $624 million in cash is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether,
thereafter, this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as
against the Defendants as set forth in the Amended Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated as of June 29, 2010; (iii) whether
the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and
reasonable and should be approved, and (iv) the reasonableness of
an application of Plaintiffs' counsel for the payment of
attorney's fees and expenses, with interest, incurred in
connection with this Action.  The Court has reserved the right to
reschedule the hearing from time to time without further notice.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Countrywide stock, bonds,
preferred securities, or call options, or if you sold Countrywide
put options between March 12, 2004 and March 7, 2008, your rights
may be affected by this Action and the settlement thereof.  If you
have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and
Proof of Claim form, you may obtain them free of charge at
http://www.CountrywideSecuritiesClassAction.com/or
http://www.labaton.com/; by sending an e-mail to
info@CountrywideSecuritiesClassAction.com; by calling the claims
administrator toll-free at 877-465-4142; or by writing to
Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o Rust
Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2284, Faribault, MN 55021-2419.  You
may also contact Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel directly: Joel H.
Bernstein, Esq., Labaton Sucharow LLP, 140 Broadway, New York, NY
10005, 866-389-6343.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no
later than February 14, 2011 establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you will be bound
by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you
submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the
Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice,
by no later than October 18, 2010.  Any objections to the
Settlement, Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses
must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Notice, no later than October 18, 2010.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS
NOTICE.

DATED: August 2, 2010

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONTACT:

     Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     Telephone: +1-866-389-6343


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Bank of America Settles Data Theft Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. Scott Reckard, writing for the Los Angeles Times, reports
settling the biggest reported case of data theft by a financial
insider, Bank of America Corp. will provide free credit
monitoring, identity theft insurance and reimbursement for losses
to as many as 17 million consumers who dealt with its Countrywide
Financial mortgage unit.

The agreement was approved Monday by a federal judge in Kentucky.
Bank of America, which acquired Countrywide in 2008, denied all
allegations of wrongdoing, saying it had settled only to "avoid
the additional expense and uncertainty of further litigation."

The accord settles more than 30 lawsuits, including nationwide
class actions, filed after the August 2008 arrest of Rene L.
Rebollo Jr. of Pasadena, who worked for Countrywide's subprime
division, Full Spectrum Lending.  Federal authorities said at the
time that he downloaded customer files, including Social Security
numbers, from the company's computers onto thumb drives and sold
the information to employees of other mortgage lenders for use as
sales leads.

Mr. Rebollo has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud,
unauthorized access to the computer of a financial institution,
illegal use of confidential information, and disclosing Social
Security numbers. His trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 19 before
U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder in Los Angeles.  He is
free on bond.

In the aftermath of Mr. Rebollo's arrest, Bank of America offered
free credit monitoring to 2.5 million customers of Countrywide,
bank spokeswoman Shirley Norton said.

Under the terms of the settlement, those customers and roughly 15
million additional Countrywide borrowers and mortgage applicants
will be offered credit monitoring, identity theft insurance and
reimbursement for losses of up to $50,000.

Ms. Norton said she didn't know how many people had reported
actual financial breaches stemming from the data theft or how much
the settlement would cost the bank. The company already is
reviewing some claims, she said, adding that there was "no real
way to tell until we have the final tally."

Claims may be made by anyone who provided private information to
Countrywide before July 1, 2008, or who had a mortgage that was
serviced by Countrywide before that date.

Details are available at http://www.CWdataclaims.com/or by
calling (866) 940-3612. The earliest date that claims can be filed
is Sept. 7.

The Countrywide incident is one of 34 publicly reported data
breaches since 2005 involving insiders at financial institutions,
according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego.

The largest previously reported case, involving information about
8.5 million customers of a Fidelity National Information Services
subsidiary, occurred in July 2007.

"This blows that one completely out of the water," said Rainey
Reitman, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit group. All the other
cases combined of data breaches by financial insiders involved
information on about 11 million people, she said.

Joanne McNabb, chief of the California Office of Privacy
Protection, said anyone notified about the data breach should take
it seriously. A primer on what to do is available at the state
agency's Web site, http://www.privacy.ca.gov/ Click on "Identity
Theft" and then on the red-letter "Security Breach First Steps."

The Countrywide case is disconcerting because it wasn't the result
of accident or oversight, Ms. McNabb said.

"It's not like things leaked out," she said. "They were snatched."


DJO FINANCE: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Drug Pump Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC disclosed in its August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010, that it is named as one of several defendants
in approximately 100 product liability cases, including a lawsuit
in Canada seeking class action status, related to a disposable
drug infusion pump product manufactured by two third party
manufacturers that the company distributed through its Bracing and
Supports segment.

DJO Finance said it discontinued the sale of the products in the
second quarter of 2009.  These cases have been brought against the
manufacturers and certain distributors of these pumps, and in some
cases, the manufacturers of the anesthetics used in these pumps.
All of these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with
certain anesthetics in certain shoulder surgeries over prolonged
periods have resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs. DJO
Finance has sought indemnity and tendered the defense of these
cases to the two manufacturers who supplied these pumps to the
company, to its products liability carriers and to its products
liability carriers. Although both manufacturers have rejected DJO
Finance tenders of indemnity, the company is in discussions with
both to reach a resolution of the indemnity issue. The products
liability carriers for both manufacturers have accepted coverage
for DJO Finance's defense of these claims.  The base policy for
one of the manufacturers has been exhausted and the excess
liability carriers for that manufacturer are not obligated to
provide a defense until a $5 million self-insured retention has
been paid and DJO Finance's underlying insurance has been
exhausted.  DJO Finance said its products liability carrier has
accepted coverage of these cases, subject to a reservation of the
right to deny coverage for customary matters, including punitive
damages and off-label promotion. The lawsuits allege damages
ranging from unspecified amounts to claims between $1.0 million
and $10.0 million. These cases are in varying stages from initial
pleading and discovery to pre-trial preparation.  DJO Finance said
it could be exposed to material liabilities if its insurance
coverage is not available or inadequate and the resources of the
two manufacturers, including their respective products liability
insurance policies, are unavailable or insufficient to pay the
defense costs and settlements or judgments in these cases.

                         About DJO Finance

Based in Vista, Calif., DJO Finance LLC provides high-quality,
orthopedic devices, with a broad range of products used for
rehabilitation, pain management and physical therapy. It also
develops, manufactures and distributes a broad range of surgical
reconstructive implant products.


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Agrees to Settle FLSA-Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dynamics Research Corp. has agreed with the plaintiff on the
principle terms of settlement resolving a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
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 June 28, 2005, a class action employee suit was filed alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain provisions
of Massachusetts General Laws.  The plaintiff's claim was for $8
million.

On April 10, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered an order granting in part the company's
motion to dismiss the suit and to compel compliance with the
company's mandatory dispute resolution program, directing that
the parties arbitrate the claims, and striking the class action
waiver which was part of the dispute resolution program.

In the arbitration, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or
for Summary Disposition.  The motion was denied and the parties
exchanged discovery documents.

In July 2010, the company and the plaintiff agreed upon principle
terms of settlement, the cost of which was accrued on the balance
sheet as of June 30, 2010 and negatively impacted diluted earnings
per share by $0.03 in the second quarter of 2010.

Dynamics Research Corporation -- http://www.drc.com/-- is a
provider of engineering, technical, information technology and
management consulting services and solutions to federal and state
governments.  The company operates in two business segments:
Systems and Services, and Metrigraphics.


EQT CORP: Virginia Attorney General Intervenes in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gilbert, writing for the Bristol Herald Courier, reports
Virginia's attorney general is coming to the defense of a
provision of the Virginia Gas and Oil Act, which faces an attack
in a federal lawsuit against the second largest natural gas
producer in the state.

The lawsuit, seeking class-action status, accuses Pittsburgh-based
EQT Corp. of exploiting a provision of the 1990 law to profit from
gas belonging to Southwest Virginia property owners. It also names
as defendants the owners of coal in drilling units where the
plaintiff has surface and gas rights. EQT has moved to dismiss the
lawsuit.

In a motion filed Thursday last week, Ken Cuccinelli asked to
intervene "for the limited purpose of defending the
constitutionality" of a subsection of the Gas and Oil Act, citing
his obligation to defend all Virginia statutes, regulations and
policies. The motion was filed by two attorneys in the Office of
the Attorney General, and approved the same day by the U.S.
District Court judge presiding over the case.

In the motion, attorneys Stephen McCullough and Stephen Hall say
they will defend the provision of the Gas and Oil Act that
requires energy companies to pay royalties into escrow accounts
whenever the companies produce a gas whose ownership is disputed.

The dispute over coalbed methane gas, and the statutory framework
for paying royalties from its production, are a central part of
the lawsuit. But that's not where the plaintiffs allege
constitutional violations.

Robert Adair, a retired coal mine inspector in Dickenson County,
represents a proposed class of plaintiffs who did not agree to
lease their coalbed methane rights, but whose rights were "deemed
leased" by the Virginia Gas and Oil Board.

The board unilaterally approved leases "subject to a final legal
determination of ownership" of the gas. Mr. Adair's lawyers argue
that the leases become void upon the resolution of ownership, and
that EQT must pay class members all proceeds from the gas minus
operating expenses.

EQT maintains that the board's orders do not fall away upon the
resolution of ownership. If the court agrees with that position,
the plaintiffs assert, then the law allows a "taking of
plaintiff's property rights for private purposes under state
authority," violating both the United States and Virginia
constitutions.

Mr. Cuccinelli has been alert to the controversy since taking
office in January.

"We are aware of, monitoring, and continue to assess the
situation," a spokesman for the Office of the Attorney General
wrote in an e-mail Monday.

Virginia's attorney general has defended the Gas and Oil Act in
the recent past.

In spring 2009, state Delegate Bud Phillips questioned then-
Attorney General William C. Mims about the constitutionality of
the Gas and Oil Board's practice of leasing the mineral rights of
an individual who makes no election about how to receive
royalties.

In an advisory opinion, Mr. Mims wrote that such leases fell
within the state's exercise of police powers.

Even when such action diminishes property values, Mr. Mims wrote,
"an owner has no right to compensation for legislation which, in
the judgment of the legislature, was of greater value to the
public."

Last December, a Tazewell lawyer brought suit on behalf of a Texas
resident in Tazewell Circuit Court, alleging that the Gas and Oil
Act deprived his client of due process and failed to ensure just
compensation. The lawsuit was withdrawn two weeks later, before
the attorney general's office responded.

In an amended complaint against EQT filed in late July, lawyers
for Mr. Adair and the class argue that allowing EQT to pocket
seven-eighths of the proceeds from producing coalbed methane does
not "advance any legitimate state interest."

Expanding on that claim, the lawyers contend that involuntarily
leasing the plaintiff's mineral rights "effect a taking of private
property from the unleased mineral owner and the transfer of that
private property to another private person." More than a simple
taking for private purposes, the complaint states that such lease
provisions are also unconstitutional "because they are premised on
compensation that is inadequate and unjust."


GENZYME CORP: Moves to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts is 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.

In July 2009 and August 2009, two purported securities class
action lawsuits were filed against Genzyme and its President and
Chief Executive Officer.  The lawsuits were filed on behalf of
those who purchased the company's common stock during the period
from June 26, 2008, through July 21, 2009, and allege violations
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Each of the lawsuits is premised upon allegations that the company
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions by
failing to disclose instances of viral contamination at two of the
company's manufacturing facilities and the company's receipt of a
list of inspection observations from the FDA related to one of the
facilities, which detailed observations of practices that the FDA
considered to be deviations from GMP.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and reimbursement of costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees.  In November 2009, the lawsuits were
consolidated in In Re Genzyme Corp. Securities Litigation and a
lead plaintiff was appointed.  In March 2010, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint that extended the class period
from October 24, 2007 through November 13, 2009.

In June 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action. If the action is not dismissed, the Company intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Genzyme Corporation is a biotechnology company. Genzyme operates
in four segments: Genetic Diseases, Cardiometabolic and Renal,
Biosurgery and Hematologic Oncology.  The company is headquartered
in Cambridge, Mass.


GOOGLE INC: 8 Proposed Class Actions Consolidated in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Wired.com, reports whether Google is
liable for damages for secretly intercepting data on open Wi-Fi
routers across the United States is to be aired out in a Silicon
Valley federal court.

Eight proposed class actions from across the country that seek
unspecified monetary damages from Google were consolidated [last]
week and transferred to U.S. District Judge James Ware in San
Jose, California. Another five cases are likely to join.

The lawsuits allege that Google violated federal and state privacy
laws in collecting fragments of data from unencrypted wireless
networks as its fleet of camera-equipped cars moseyed through
neighborhoods snapping pictures for its Street View program.

The consolidation decision by the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation is likely to spark a legal frenzy by
attorneys involved in the cases, as they jockey to win over Judge
Ware and garner lead counsel status. That would give those lawyers
intense media attention, as well as the biggest share in legal
fees from a verdict or settlement.

Still, acquiring lead counsel status, a title given to lawyers
whom the judge believes can best represent the interests of class
members, comes with a huge risk as well.

The deep-pocketed Google maintains that it did nothing wrong, and
is likely to put up a fierce and costly defense. Google, in
response to government inquiries and lawsuits, claims it is lawful
to use packet-sniffing tools readily available on the internet to
spy on and download payload data from others using the same open
Wi-Fi access point.

So far, government regulators are not sure whether Google
committed any legal wrongdoing. Connecticut Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal announced in June that as many as 30 attorneys
general were examining the lawfulness of Google's actions. Several
other countries are probing the issue as well.

Mountain View, California-based Google called the inadvertent
three-year-long collection "a mistake" and said it was the result
of a programming error -- code written for an early experimental
project wound up in the Street View code, and Google says it did
not realize the error until May, when German privacy authorities
began questioning what data Google's cameras were collecting.

The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation said it chose Silicon Valley
because "Google is headquartered there, and most relevant
documents and witnesses are likely located there." The panel also
said many of the lawyers in the case "support centralization"
there.

Judge Ware, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, has not set an
initial hearing date.


HECKMAN CORP: Faces Two Securities Class Actions in Del. & Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heckman Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that it is facing two securities class action lawsuits
in Delaware and California.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of shareholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010 against the Company and various directors and officers
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
The Class Action alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with the acquisition of China Water.

The Company responded to the Class Action by filing a motion to
transfer and consolidate the Delaware action to California. The
motion to transfer is presently pending for decision, after which
the Company intends to file a motion to dismiss.

On May 21, 2010, Westfield Retirement Board, also purporting to
act on behalf of shareholders, filed a virtually identical class
action lawsuit in the United States District for the Central
District of California. On July 26, 2010, Westfield filed a
request to voluntarily dismiss that case.

                   About Heckmann Corporation

Heckmann Corporation -- http://www.heckmanncorp.com/-- was
created to buy and build companies in the water sector. On
January 30, 2010, the Company completed its 50-mile water
disposal pipeline in the Haynesville Shale which can treat and
dispose up to 100,000 barrels of water per day. The completion of
the pipeline makes the Company one of the largest handlers of
produced water in North America. On February 9, 2010, the Company
announced its joint venture with Energy Transfer to provide
turnkey transportation and treatment solutions for complicated
water flows in the Marcellus and Haynesville oil and natural gas
fields. In October of 2008, the Company acquired China Water &
Drinks, Inc., and now operates eight bottled water facilities in
the People's Republic of China with Coca Cola as its largest
customer. The Company also makes strategic minority interest
investments, such as its recent investment in Underground
Solutions, Inc., an exclusive supplier of Fusible PVC(TM) pipe
products, and China Bottles, Inc., a bottle equipment
manufacturing company in China.


HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Consolidated Complaint in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc., is continues to defend a consolidated
complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On May 18, 2009, the company and its subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC, received notice of a complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by two
California subscribers to the HughesNet service.

The plaintiffs complain about the speed of the HughesNet service,
the Fair Access Policy, early termination fees and certain terms
and conditions of the HughesNet subscriber agreement.  The
plaintiffs seek to pursue their claims as a class action on behalf
of other California subscribers.

On June 4, 2009, the company and HNS received notice of a similar
complaint filed by another HughesNet subscriber in the Superior
Court of San Diego County, California.  The plaintiff in this case
also seeks to pursue his claims as a class action on behalf of
other California subscribers.

Both cases have been consolidated into a single case in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

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.

Hughes Communications, Inc. -- http://www.hughes.com/-- is the
100% owner of Hughes Network Systems, LLC.  Hughes is the
global leader in providing broadband satellite networks and
services for enterprises, governments, small businesses, and
consumers.  HughesNet(R) encompasses all broadband solutions and
managed services from Hughes, bridging the best of satellite and
terrestrial technologies.  Its broadband satellite products are
based on global standards approved by the TIA, ETSI, and ITU
standards organizations, including IPoS/DVB-S2, RSM-A, and GMR-1.
To date, Hughes has shipped more than 2.2 million systems to
customers in over 100 countries.  Headquartered outside
Washington, DC, in Germantown, Maryland, USA, Hughes maintains
sales and support offices worldwide.


HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit Over Early Termination Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc., defends a complaint relating to its
early termination fees under the subscriber agreement, 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. 18, 2009, the company and its subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC, received notice of a complaint filed in the Cook
County, Illinois, Circuit Court by a former subscriber to the
HughesNet service.

The complaint seeks a declaration allowing the former subscriber
to file a class arbitration challenging early termination fees
under the subscriber agreement.

Hughes Communications, Inc. -- http://www.hughes.com/-- is the
100% owner of Hughes Network Systems, LLC.  Hughes is the
global leader in providing broadband satellite networks and
services for enterprises, governments, small businesses, and
consumers.  HughesNet(R) encompasses all broadband solutions and
managed services from Hughes, bridging the best of satellite and
terrestrial technologies.  Its broadband satellite products are
based on global standards approved by the TIA, ETSI, and ITU
standards organizations, including IPoS/DVB-S2, RSM-A, and GMR-1.
To date, Hughes has shipped more than 2.2 million systems to
customers in over 100 countries.  Headquartered outside
Washington, DC, in Germantown, Maryland, USA, Hughes maintains
sales and support offices worldwide.


KROGER CO: Accused in Virginia Suit of Not Paying Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kroger stiffs workers for
overtime, a class action claims in Richmond, Va., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Gillum, et al. v. The Kroger Co., Case
No. 10-cv-00585 (E.D. Va.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/23/Kroger.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Allen Schreiber, Esq.
          Joanna L. Suyes, Esq.
          MARKS & HARRISON, P.C.
          1500 Forest Ave.
          Richmond, VA 23229
          Telephone: 804-282-0999
          E-mail: aschreiber@marksandharrison.com
                  jsuyes@marksandharrison.com


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Oct. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court will consider final approval on
October 6, 2010, of settlements entered into by Landry's
Restaurants, Inc., to resolve a purported class action and
derivative lawsuit filed by the Louisiana Municipal Police
Employee's Retirement System, 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 February 5, 2009, a purported class action and derivative
lawsuit entitled Louisiana Municipal Police Employee's Retirement
System on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
shareholders of Landry's Restaurant's, Inc., and derivatively on
behalf of nominal defendant Landry's Restaurant's, Inc., was
brought against all members of the Company's Board of Directors,
Fertitta Holdings, Inc., and Fertitta Acquisition Co. in the Court
at Chancery of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit originally
alleged, among other things, a breach of a fiduciary duty by the
directors for renegotiating the 2008 merger agreement with the
Fertitta entities, allowing Mr. Fertitta to acquire shares of
stock in the Company and gain majority control thereof, and
terminating the 2008 merger agreement without requiring payment of
the reverse termination fee. The suit seeks consummation of the
merger buyout at $21.00 a share or damages representing the
difference between $21.00 per share and the price at which class
members sold their stock in the open market, or damages for
allowing Mr. Fertitta to acquire control of the Company without
paying a control premium, or alternatively requiring payment of
the reverse termination fee or damages for the devaluation of the
Company's stock.

On January 29, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint also
naming Fertitta Group, Inc., and Fertitta Merger Co. as defendants
and has further alleged that Mr. Fertitta's latest proposal to
acquire all of the Company's outstanding stock on November 3, 2009
was unfair and that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
entering into a 2009 merger agreement at $14.75. Also, the amended
complaint alleges that the Board approved an excessive golden
parachute for Mr. Fertitta (albeit over seven years ago) and
requests that the Court invalidate same. In addition, plaintiff
asserts that there has been inadequate disclosure in the Company's
preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC in connection with
the $14.75 merger transaction. In connection with the amended
complaint, plaintiff also seeks an injunction of the $14.75
transaction unless curative disclosures are made, appointment of a
Trustee to conduct a sale of the Company to maximize shareholder
value, and the imposition of a constructive trust on shares
acquired by Mr. Fertitta after June 2008 to be voted in favor of a
transaction that provides the highest offer to the Company's
shareholders.  The Company believes that the new claims asserted
in the amended complaint are also without merit and intend to
vigorously contest them as well. On May 21, 2010, plaintiff again
amended its complaint substantively reasserting the same
allegations.

On May 23, 2010, the parties reached a partial settlement in the
litigation and delivered a Memorandum of Understanding for Partial
Settlement to the Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Chancery Count.
On June 22, 2010, following negotiations, the parties to the
Delaware Litigation memorialized the terms of the May 23, 2010
Memorandum of Understanding for Partial Settlement of the Delaware
Litigation. The May Settlement will settle and release certain
claims that were asserted or could have been asserted against
defendants in connection with Counts IV through VIII of the
amended complaint. On the same day, the parties submitted the May
Settlement to the Delaware Chancery Court. Plaintiff's counsel
will request an award of $8 million in attorneys fees, and costs,
if approved by the Delaware Chancery Court, as part of the
settlement of the Delaware Litigation. If approved, the attorneys
fees and cost award will be paid by the Company.

The parties to the Delaware Litigation agreed to mediate the
claims remaining in the Delaware Litigation and not resolved by
the May Settlement. On July 7, 2010, the parties to the Delaware
Litigation and their counsel engaged in a mediation conducted by a
retired federal judge, which resulted in the parties reaching an
agreement in principle to settle the remaining claims asserted
against defendants in the complaint. The parties executed a term
sheet on July 14, 2010, agreeing to settle the remaining claims
for $14.5 million, to be paid primarily by defendants insurance
carriers.

On July 23, 2010, the parties memorialized the term sheet and
executed a Stipulation of Settlement which would settle and
release all remaining claims asserted or that could have been
asserted against defendants in the amended complaint that will not
be settled and released pursuant to the May Settlement, including
the claims asserted against defendants in Counts I, II, III and IX
of the amended complaint. On July 23, 2010, the parties submitted
the July Settlement to the Delaware Chancery Court and requested
that the Delaware Chancery Court enter a scheduling order for
notice and hearing for final approval of the May and July
Settlements.

On July 26, 2010 the Delaware Chancery Court entered a scheduling
order setting the May and July Settlements for a hearing to
consider final approval on October 6, 2010.

The defendants in the Delaware Litigation have denied and
continued to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to all
claims, events and transactions complained of in the Delaware
Litigation. The defendants have settled the Delaware Litigation to
eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction
of further litigation.

Landry's Restaurants, Inc., owns and operates mostly casual dining
restaurants under the trade names Landry's Seafood House, Chart
House, The Crab House, Saltgrass Steak House, and Rainforest Cafe.
Landry's also owns and operates the Golden Nugget hotel and casino
in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Annual revenue is approximately $900
million.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc., disclosed in its August 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010, that a consolidated complaint
relating to the buyout offer of its Chairman Chief Executive
Officer, Tilman J. Fertitta, has been dismissed for lack of
prosecution.

On Nov. 3, 2009, the company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with a company wholly-owned by its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Tilman J. Fertitta.

                         Goldfein Action

Following Mr. Fertitta's proposal to acquire all of the company's
outstanding stock on Nov. 3, 2009, the class action lawsuit
styled Frederic Goldfein, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et al.
was filed in the District Court of Harris County, 164th Judicial
District.  The company is named in the Petition as a defendant
along with all of its directors.  Plaintiff has alleged that in
connection with the proposed merger transaction, defendants have
violated their fiduciary duties, duties of loyalty and good faith
and fair dealing and have placed an artificial lid on the price of
the company's stock by announcing a transaction at an inadequate
price.  Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transaction until the
Company adopts procedures and a process to obtain the highest
price for shareholders, or alternatively to rescind the
transaction.

                        Biancalana Action

Ralph Biancalana, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tilman J. Fertitta, et al., a putative
class action, was filed on Nov. 10, 2009 in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, 165th Judicial District, following Mr.
Fertitta's latest proposal to acquire all of the company's
outstanding stock.  The company is named in the Petition as a
defendant along with all of its directors.  Plaintiff has alleged,
among other things, that in connection with the proposed merger
transaction, the company's directors have knowingly and recklessly
violated their fiduciary duty of care, have violated their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor and independence,
and that the transaction contains an inadequate and unfair price.
Plaintiff also alleged that the company aided and abetted its
directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the transaction and the payment of a termination fee to Mr.
Fertitta.  Plaintiff also requests declarations from the Court
that the termination fee is unfair, and that the company's
directors have breached their fiduciary duties to its
shareholders.  Plaintiff seeds recovery of attorney's fees and
costs.

                          Caryer Action

On Nov. 17, 2009, Robert Caryer filed a class action petition in
the District Court of Harris County, 125th Judicial District.
The lawsuit is styled Robert Caryer, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc.,
Tilman J. Fertitta, Steve L. Scheinthal, Kenneth Brimmer, Michael
S. Chadwick, Joe Max Taylor and Richard H. Liem.  Plaintiff has
alleged that in connection with the proposed merger transaction,
defendants have violated their fiduciary duties, duties of loyalty
and good faith and fair dealing and have placed an artificial lid
on the price of the company's stock by announcing a transaction at
an inadequate price.  Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transaction
until the company adopt procedures and a process to obtain the
highest price for shareholders, or alternatively to rescind the
transaction.

                       Consolidated Action

On Jan. 15, 2010, the Goldfein, Biancalana and Caryer cases were
consolidated by Court order.

Plaintiffs allege in the consolidated petition that in connection
with the proposed merger transaction, defendants have violated
their fiduciary duties, duties of loyalty and good faith and fair
dealing and have placed an artificial lid on the price of the
company's stock by announcing a transaction at an inadequate
price.  Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the transaction until the
company adopt procedures and a process to obtain the highest
price for shareholders, or alternatively to rescind the
transaction.

In June 2010, the consolidated action was dismissed for lack of
prosecution.

Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/
-- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment
company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of
full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the
names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's Seafood
House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart House.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: No Class Certified in Suit Against LLI
----------------------------------------------------------
No class has been certified in a putative class action suit
against Lumber Liquidators, Inc., alleging failure to pay overtime
wages properly, according to Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.'s
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Sept. 3, 2009, a former store manager and a current assistant
store manager filed a putative class action suit against Lumber
Liquidators, Inc. (LLI), in the Superior Court of California in
and for the County of Alameda.

The Plaintiffs allege that with regard to certain groups of
current and former employees in LLI's California stores, LLI
violated California law by failing to calculate and pay overtime
wages properly, provide meal breaks, compensate for unused
vacation time, reimburse for certain expenses and maintain
required employment records.

The Plaintiffs also claim that LLI did not calculate and pay
overtime wages properly for certain of LLI's non-exempt employees,
both in and out of California, in violation of federal law.  In
their suit, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, certain
statutory penalties, costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief.

LLI removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

No class has been certified with regard to any of the alleged
causes of action.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.lumberliquidators.com/-- is the largest specialty
retailer of hardwood flooring in the United States.  With more
than 195 stores and 340 varieties of flooring, including solid and
engineered hardwood, bamboo, cork and laminate, and featuring
premier brands such as Bellawood (which features a 50-year
warranty), Dream Home, Schon, Virginia Mill Works, and Morning
Star, Lumber Liquidators has one of the most extensive selections
of prefinished and unfinished hardwood flooring in the industry.
Its hardwood line is made up of more than 25 domestic and exotic
wood species in both prefinished and unfinished brands of various
lengths and widths.  Flooring experts in every store provide
consumers with useful product information and answers to all of
their flooring questions.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of RICO Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of
nearly all claims in a monumental antitrust class action against
giants in the insurance industry, finding that the allegations may
reveal a "pernicious industry practice" but fail to prove an
"industry-wide conspiracy."

The Philadelphia-based federal appeals court, in a 200-page
ruling, found that the purchasers of commercial and employee
benefit insurance failed to prove the "massive conspiracies
throughout the insurance industry" put forth in their three
separate pleadings.  The appellate panel did however keep alive a
bid-rigging issue against one of the defendants.

While claiming that the insurance companies made millions in
"inflated profits" by "stifling competitive business," the
plaintiffs could not show the "existence of a horizontal
agreement" required to prove per se Sherman Act violations, the
circuit ruled.

The "plaintiffs have failed to plead facts plausibly supporting
their allegations of horizontal conspiracies to unreasonably
restrain trade, notwithstanding their conclusory assertions of
agreement," Judge Anthony Scirica wrote.  "This does not mean that
defendants' alleged treatment of insurance purchasers was
praiseworthy -- or even lawful -- but that it fails to plead a per
se violation" of the Sherman Act.

Judge Scirica continued: "Plaintiffs have pled facts showing that
brokers deceptively steered their clients to preferred insurer-
partners in order to obtain contingent commission payments from
those partners, but this in itself is insufficient to plausibly
imply a horizontal conspiracy."

The two consolidated class actions came after the New York State
Attorney General filed a civil complaint against insurance broker
Marsh & McLennan in 2004, alleging  that Marsh had solicited
rigged bids and received commissions in exchange for "steering its
clients to a select group of insurers," according to the ruling.

After allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaints three
times, the district court dismissed their Sherman Act and RICO
claims because they "lacked the requisite factual specificity."

The plaintiffs appealed, but the three-judge panel agreed with the
lower court on most of the claims.

The panel however refused to uphold the district court's dismissal
of the bid-rigging claims against Marsh & McLennan.  The company
is accused of providing insurers with "sham bids" in order to
steer business to other partners.

"In the Marsh-centered commercial conspiracy, plaintiffs provide
detailed allegations of bid rigging by the insurer-partners,"
Judge Scirica wrote.  "Bid rigging -- or more specifically, as
alleged in this case, bid rotation -- is quintessentially
collusive behavior subject to per se condemnation" under the
Sherman Act.

A copy of the Opinion in In re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, No. 07-4046, and in In re: Employee Benefit Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 08-1455 & 08-1777 (3rd Cir),
is available at:

     http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/074046p.pdf

The Appellants are represented by:

          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          1717 Arch St., Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036

               - and -

          Charlene P. Ford, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          2001 Pennsylvaniark Place North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203

Appellees, American International Group, Inc.; American
International Specialty Lines Insurance Company; Lexington
Insurance Company; AIG Casualty Company f/k/a Birmingham Fire
Insurance Company of Pennsylvania; American Home Assurance
Company; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
Pa.; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Louisiana; American
International Insurance Company; The Insurance Company of the
State of Pennsylvania; AIU Insurance Company; Commerce and
Industry Insurance Company; New Hampshire Insurance Company; The
Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company; Illinois
National Insurance Co.; AIG Life Holdings (US), Inc. f/k/a
American General Corporation; AIG Excess Liability Insurance
Company Ltd. f/k/a Staff Excess Liability Company, Ltd.; AIG
Life Insurance Company and The United States Life Insurance
Company in the City of NewYork are represented by:

          Daniel J. Leffell, Esq.
          Andrew C. Finch, Esq.
          David J. Friar, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          2001 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, D.C. 20006

Appellees, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.; Hartford
Fire Insurance Co.; Twin City Fire Insurance Co.; Pacific
Insurance Co., Ltd.; Nutmeg Insurance Co.; The Hartford Fidelity &
Bonding Co.; Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company;
Hartford Life Group Insurance Company and Hartford Life Insurance
Company are represented by:

          Seth P. Waxman, Esq.
          William J. Kolasky, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20006

               - and -

          Paul A. Engelmayer, Esq.
          Robert W. Trenchard, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          399 Park Ave., 30th Floor
          New York, New York 10022

               - and -

          Andrea J. Robinson, Esq.
          John J. Butts, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109

Appellees, Aon Corporation; Aon Broker Services, Inc.; Aon Risk
Services Companies, Inc.; Aon Risk Services, Inc. U.S.;
Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Maryland; Aon Risk Services,
Inc. of Louisiana; Aon Risk Services of Texas, Inc.; Aon
Risk Services, Inc. of Michigan; Aon Group, Inc.; Aon
Services Group, Inc.; Aon Re, Inc.; Affinity Insurance
Services, Inc.; Aon Re Global, Inc. and Aon Consulting, Inc. are
represented by:

          Donald A. Robinson, Esq.
          Leda Dunn Wettre, Esq.
          ROBINSON WETTRE & MILLER LLC
          One Newark Center, 19th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102

               - and -

          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          Leslie M. Smith, Esq.
          Daniel E. Laytin, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Larsen, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle St., Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60654

Appellees, ACE Limited; ACE INA Holdings, Inc.; ACE USA, Inc.;
ACE American Insurance Co.; Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance
Co.; Illinois Union Insurance Co.; Indemnity Insurance Co. of
North America; ACE Group Holdings, Inc.; ACE US Holdings, Inc.;
Westchester Fire Insurance Company; INA Corporation; INA Financial
Corporation; INA Holdings Corporation; ACE Property & Casualty
Insurance Co. and Pacific Employers Insurance Co. are represented
by:

          Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
          Marc D. Haefner, Esq.
          CONNELL FOLEY LLP
          85 Livingston Ave.
          Roseland, NJ 07068

               - and -

          H. Lee Godfrey, Esq.
          Neal S. Manne, Esq.
          Johnny Carter, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096

               - and -

          Jeremy S. Brandon, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          901 Main St., Suite 5100
          Dallas, TX 75202-3775

Appellees, American Re Corporation; American Re-Insurance
Company; Munich-American Risk Partners and American Alternative
Insurance Corporation are represented by:

          Eamon O'Kelly, Esq.
          Johns F. Collins, Esq.
          DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019

               - and -

          David J. Grais, Esq.
          GRAIS & ELLSWORTH LLP
          70 East 55th St.
          New York, NY 10022

Appellees, AXIS Specialty Insurance Company; AXIS Surplus
Insurance Company and AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. are represented
by:

          Michael L. Weiner, Esq.
          Paul M. Eckles, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036

Appellees, CNA Financial Corp.; The Continental Insurance Co.;
Continental Casualty Co. and American Casualty Co. of Reading, PA
are represented by:

          Michael L. Mccluggage, esquire
          Beth L. Fancsali, Esq.
          WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON LLP
          225 West Wacker Dr., Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60606

Appellees, Chicago Insurance Co.; Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company and National Surety Corp. are represented by:

          Lazar P. Raynal, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          227 West Monroe St., Suite 5200
          Chicago, IL 60606

Appellees, The Chubb Corporation; Federal Insurance Company;
Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. and Vigilant Insurance Company are
represented by:

          Peter R. Bisio, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th St., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004

Appellees, Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. and United States Fire
Insurance Company are represented by:

          Louis G. Corsi, Esq.
          LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD P.C.
          120 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10271-0079

Appellees, Greenwich Insurance Company; Indian Harbor Insurance
Company; XL Capital Ltd.; X.L. America, Inc. and XL Insurance
America, Inc. are represented by:

          John L. Thurman, Esq.
          FARRELL & THURMAN PC
          172 Tamarack Circle
          Skillman, NJ 08558

               - and -

          Robert A. Alessi, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          Eighty Pine St.
          New York, NY 10005-1702

Appellees, Wells Fargo & Co. and Acordia, Inc. are represented by:

          Alan L. Kildow, Esq.
          Sonya R. Braunschweig, Esq.
          Jarod M. Bona, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP
          90 South Seventh St., Suite 5100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402

Appellee, Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Company, is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Wilan, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          1900 K St., N.W., Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20006

               - and -

          John J. Gibbons, Esq.
          Michael R. Griffinger, Esq.
          GIBBONS P.C.
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102

Appellees, Willis Group Holdings Limited; Willis Group Limited;
Willis North America, Inc.; Willis of New York, Inc. and Willis of
Michigan, Inc. are represented by:

          Richard C. Pepperman II, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad St.
          New York, NY 10004

Appellees, Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc.; Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co.; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.; Wausau
Underwriters Insurance Co.; Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau;
Wausau Business Insurance Co. and Wausau General Insurance Co. are
represented by:

          Kevin J. Fee, Esq.
          KORNSTEIN VEISZ WEXLER & POLLARD LLP
          757 Third Ave., 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10017

               - and -

          Brian E. Robison, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          Trammell Crow Center
          2001 Ross Ave., Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201

Appellees, The Travelers Companies, Inc.; St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Company; Gulf Insurance Company; St. Paul Mercury
Insurance Company; Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of
America; The Travelers Indemnity Company; Athena Assurance Company
and Travelers Property Casualty Corp. are represented by:

          Michael J. Garvey, Esq.
          Paul C. Curnin, Esq.
          David Elbaum, Esq.
          Bryce L. Friedman, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10017

Appellee, Munich Reinsurance, is represented by:

          Henry Weisburg, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10022

Appellees, Life Insurance Company of North America and Connecticut
General Life Insurance Company are represented by:

          Michael M. Maddigan, Esq.
          Paul B. Salvaty, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope St., 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

Appellees, Life Insurance Company of North America and Connecticut
General Life Insurance Company are represented by:

          Samuel P. Moulthrop, Esq.
          RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND & PERRETTI LLP
          Headquarters Plaza
          One Speedwell Ave.
          Morristown, NJ 07962

Appellees, MetLife, Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company;
Paragon Life Insurance Company; General American Life Insurance
Company; New England Life Insurance Company; Citicorp Life
Insurance Company; Travelers Life and Annuity Company; Travelers
Insurance Company and Reinsurance Group of America, Inc. are
represented by:

         James W. Carbin, Esq.
         DUANE MORRIS LLP
         744 Broad St., Suite 1200
         Newark, NJ 07102

Appellees, MetLife, Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and
Paragon Life Insurance Company are represented by:

          Edward G. Biester III, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Pollack, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

Appellees, Prudential Financial, Inc. and The Prudential Insurance
Company of America are represented by:

          Douglas S. Eakeley, Esq.
          John R. Middleton, Esq.
          Matthew Savare, Esq.
          Scott L. Walker, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC
          65 Livingston Ave.
          Roseland, NJ 07068

Appellees, The Unum Group Corporation; Unum Life Insurance
Company of America and Provident Life and Accident Insurance
Company are represented by:

          Patrick W. Shea, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
          75 East 55th St.
          New York, NY 10022

               - and -

          Steven P. Del Mauro, Esq.
          MCELROY DEUTSCH MULVANEY & CARPENTER LLP
          Three Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry St.
          Newark, NJ 07102

Appellees, Universal Life Resources; ULR Insurance Services Inc.;
Benefits Commerce and Douglas P. Cox are represented by:

          Stephen P. Younger, Esq.
          Laura J. Wood, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036

USI Holdings Corporation; USI Consulting Group, Inc.;
USI Services Corporation f/k/a USI Insurance Services
Corp. are represented by:

          Rachel L. Gerstein, Esq.
          Robert H. Pees, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          One Bryant Park
          New York, NY 10036

Amicus Curiae-Appellants at 07-4046, National Association of
Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT) are represented by:

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Dr., Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095

Amicus Curiae-Appellants at 07-4046, United Policyholders are
represented by:

          Eugene R. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C.
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: M&I Bank Faces Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation said on its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2010, that its wholly owned
subsidiary, M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, was named a defendant in a
putative class action in Florida.

In June 2010, M&I Bank was named as a defendant in a putative
class action alleging that its posting of debit card transactions
(1) is a breach of the implied obligation of good faith and fair
dealing, (2) is a breach of the Wisconsin Consumer Act, (3) is
unconscionable, (4) constitutes conversion, and (5) unjustly
enriches the Corporation.  The plaintiff alleges that the daily
low to high postings of debit card entries, rather than
chronological postings, results in excessive overdraft fees.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class for all of the
claims except that involving the Wisconsin Consumer Act, for which
it seeks to represent a class of Wisconsin customers of M&I Bank.
The lawsuit, while initially filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, has been transferred for
pretrial purposes in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the
Southern District of Florida, in which numerous other putative
class actions against financial institutions asserting similar
claims are pending.  The consolidation in the MDL is for pre-trial
discovery and motion proceedings.

M&I Corporation said that at this early stage of the lawsuit, it
is not possible for management of the Corporation to assess the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any potential loss at this time.

M&I Bank intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

                      About Marshall & Ilsley

Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (NYSE: MI) --
http://www.micorp.com/-- is a diversified financial services
corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis., with $56.6 billion
in assets. Founded in 1847, M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank is the
largest Wisconsin-based bank, with 192 offices throughout the
state. In addition, M&I has 53 locations throughout Arizona; 33
offices in Indianapolis and nearby communities; 36 offices along
Florida's west coast and in central Florida; 15 offices in Kansas
City and nearby communities; 26 offices in metropolitan
Minneapolis/St. Paul, and one in Duluth, Minn.; and one office in
Las Vegas, Nev. M&I's Southwest Bank subsidiary has 17 offices in
the greater St. Louis area. M&I also provides trust and
investment management, equipment leasing, mortgage banking,
asset-based lending, financial planning, investments, and
insurance services from offices throughout the country.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Face Subprime-related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley remains a named defendant in several putative
class-action suits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the U.S.
Securities Act related to the company's role as a member of the
syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage
pass-through certificates for certain entities that have been
exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses, 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.

These putative class-action suits include those related to:

       -- New Century Financial Corp., pending with the U.S.
          District Court for the Central District of California;

       -- Countrywide Financial Corp. and its affiliates, one
          consolidated lawsuit is pending with the U.S. District
          Court for the Central District of California and two
          other lawsuits are pending with the Superior Court of
          the State of California in Los Angeles;

       -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., pending with the U.S.
          District Court for the Southern District of New York;

       -- Wachovia Corp., pending with the U.S. District Court
          for the Eastern District of New York;

       -- Washington Mutual, Inc., pending with the U.S. States
          District Court for the Western District of Washington;
          and

       -- Fifth Third Bancorp, pending with the U.S. District
          Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Class Action
          Reporter, July 28, 2008).

On April 30, 2010, the lead plaintiffs in In Re Washington Mutual,
Inc. Securities Litigation, pending in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, filed a motion for
class certification, which defendants are opposing.

On June 5, 2010, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint filed by the lead plaintiffs on April 23, 2010
in In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation,
pending in the District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On June 21, 2010, the court presiding over In re IndyMac Mortgage-
Backed Securities Litigation, pending in the SDNY, granted in part
and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated class action complaint.

Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global
financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of
clients and customers, including corporations, governments,
financial institutions and individuals.  Morgan Stanley's
business segments include Institutional Securities, Global
Wealth Management Group and Asset Management.  The company
conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New
York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S.
and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other
world financial centers.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Judge Cuts Milberg's Request for Additional Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for the New York Law Journal, reports a
federal judge has slashed what he called an "unusual" request for
additional fees by Milberg for a 2006 settlement of a securities
class action against Nortel Networks Corp.

Milberg, along with its Canadian co-counsel and the settlement's
claims administrator, asked for $2.77 million in fees and expenses
not included in their 2007 fee applications. Southern District of
New York Judge Richard M. Berman, citing the "very substantial"
$38 million in fees and expenses already awarded to Milberg and
Koskie Minsky, based in Toronto, approved only 41% of the request.

The settlement stemmed from lawsuits filed in 2001 over an
accounting scandal at Nortel, a Canadian-based manufacturer of
telecommunications equipment.

A spokeswoman for Milberg said lead partner Sanford P. Dumain,
Esq., was not available for comment.  Murray Gold, Esq., a partner
at Koskie Minsky, did not return a request for comment.

Judge Berman's decision in In re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-cv-01855, is the latest development in
attempts to recover fees for participation in the $2.4 billion
settlement. Judge Berman in 2007 rejected a request by Milberg for
8.5% of the settlement, or about $101 million, and instead set
fees at 3%.

Milberg, which represented an Ontario public employee pension
fund, appealed the award, which it deemed insufficient. But the
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Berman's award in
2008.

Milberg most recently requested an award for what it said was
nearly $1.8 million in fees and expenses for work done from
September 2006 through June 2010 after the firm filed its initial
fee request. Koskie Minsky meanwhile sought CN$377,136
(US$359,672) in fees and expenses. The claims administrator, The
Garden City Group, sought $656,700.

But Judge Berman concluded that additional fees to the firms
should be reduced or denied because their time sheets did not
substantiate additional payments and because a significant portion
of the fees were covered by the $34 million already awarded.

Judge Berman also chastised Milberg and Koskie for improper
staffing or inadequate documentation on the work it had done since
September 2006. In particular, the judge noted that 97.2% of the
time invoiced was billed to six partners for matters including
downloading documents from the Web, updating spreadsheets and
sending copies of documents to other lawyers on the case.
Milberg's partners alone billed $425 to $725 an hour.

"It is clear that a significant portion of the work done by senior
attorneys could have been performed by more junior attorneys or
paralegals at lower billing rates," Judge Berman said.

He also took issue with hours billed by paralegals, about 41% of
the total bill with rates of $225 to $400 at Milberg. Judge Berman
said the time entries for the paralegals "are too imprecise and
vague for meaningful review much less reimbursement," including
for items described as "project work" and "further legal
research."

In addition, about half the fees the firms sought from September
2006 to May 2008 were for tasks typically necessary to resolving a
class action, Judge Berman said. That was covered by the original
award, which "was not designed or intended as a simple
'installment payment,'" he said.

But Judge Berman said he recognized Milberg had to devote time to
deal with unanticipated post-settlement issues, including
reviewing disputed proof-of-claim files at the court's direction.
As a result, Judge Berman said the other half of the fees in that
period were compensable.

In terms of expenses, Judge Berman took issue with the
classification of $389,400 paid to another Canadian law firm,
Fraser Milner Casgrain, which was hired to handle a separate fee
dispute. Judge Berman said no showing was made as to how Fraser
Milner improved the settlement and Milberg did not provide the
Canadian firm's time sheets.

Judge Berman also cut the amount Garden City would receive to just
over $558,000, calling one-third of the fees and expenses
insupportable. Garden City had already been awarded more than
$10.8 million.

Mr. Dumain can be reached at:

     Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
     New York, New York 10119
     Telephone: 212.594.5300 or 800.320.5081
     Facsimile: 212.868.1229
     E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com

Mr. Gold can be reached at:

     Murray Gold, Esq.,
     KOSKIE MINSKY LLP
     20 Queen Street West, Suite 900, Box 52
     Toronto, Ontario M5H 3R3
     Telephone: 416-595-2085
     Facsimile: 416-204-2873


OLD REPUBLIC: Several Title Insurance Lawsuits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., a principal title
insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp., still
faces several purported class-action suits over title insurance
in state and federal courts in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Texas.

The plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules filed by
ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance
regulators, ORNTIC was required, but failed, to give consumers
reissue and refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions.

The actions seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

In none of the actions against ORNTIC has a class yet been
certified, according to Old Republic International Corp.'s
Aug. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.


OZ MINERALS: Slater & Gordon Files Class Action Claim in NSW Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Kelly at Dow Jones Newswires reports OZ Minerals Ltd.
(OZL.AU) said Tuesday that a class action claim has been filed
against the miner related to the sufficiency and accuracy of its
disclosures to the market during part of 2008.

The claim has been filed in the New South Wales Supreme Court by
law firm Slater & Gordon.

It is being brought by investors who acquired shares in the
company between Feb. 29 and Dec. 1 in 2008 and is similar to
another claim brought against OZ Minerals last year by law firm
Maurice Blackburn, OZ Minerals said.

"OZ Minerals refutes these allegations and will vigorously defend
the proceedings," the company said in a statement.

Maurice Blackburn alleged that OZ Minerals provided inadequate
disclosure about its debt position.


PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Awaits Ruling on "Gobel" Remand Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Development Corporation is awaiting a ruling on a motion
to remand the royalty owner class action, Gobel, et al., v.
Petroleum Development Corporation, Case No. 09-C-40 in U. S.
District Court, Northern District of West Virginia, filed on
January 27, 2009, to state court, the company related in a Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

David W. Gobel, individually and as representative of the class
of all similarly situated individuals and entities, filed the
Royalty Owner Class Action on January 27, 2009, alleging that the
Company failed to properly pay royalties.  The allegations state
that the Company improperly deducted certain charges and costs
before applying the royalty percentage.  Punitive damages are
requested in addition to breach of contract, tort, and fraud
allegations.

The stay in effect as of December 31, 2009, lapsed in February
2010.

The parties to the Action have filed briefs on Gobel's Motion to
Remand to state court.  The Company is awaiting a ruling from the
court on that motion.

Petroleum Development Corporation, headquartered in Denver,
Colorado, is a natural gas oriented exploration and production
company.


PHI INC: Motion to Dismiss Superior Offshore's Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
PHI Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter Superior Offshore
International Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., ERA Helicopters, LLC,
Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group Inc., ERA Aviation, Inc., and PHI,
Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00438, remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The suit names the company as a defendant along with Bristow Group
Inc., ERA Helicopters, LLC, Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group Inc.,
and ERA Aviation, Inc.

This purported class action was filed on June 12, 2009, on behalf
of a class defined to include all direct purchasers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico from the defendants at
any time from Jan. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2005.

The suit alleges that the defendants acted jointly to fix,
maintain, or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services
during the above time frame in violation of the federal antitrust
laws.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified treble damages, injunctive
relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants' motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 4, 2009, is pending.

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.

PHI Inc. -- http://www.phihelico.com/-- provides helicopter
transportation services in the Gulf of Mexico.  It also provides
helicopter services to the oil and gas industry internationally,
and to non-oil and gas customers, such as health care providers
and United States governmental agencies, such as the National
Science Foundation. It also provides air medical transportation
for hospitals and emergency service agencies, where it operates as
an independent provider of medical services.  PHI also provides
helicopter maintenance and repair services to certain customers.
At Dec. 31, 2009, the company owned or operated approximately 255
aircraft domestically and internationally.  PHI operates in three
segments: Oil and Gas, Air Medical and Technical Services.


POPULAR INC: Court Dismisses Some Claims in Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain claims in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Popular, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico have been dismissed, according to a Form
10-Q filed by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al.
(consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) filed a
consolidated class action complaint which includes as defendants
the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred
Stock. The consolidated action purports to be on behalf of
purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24, 2008 and
February 19, 2009 and alleges that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a
series of allegedly false or misleading statements or omitting to
disclose material facts necessary to make statements made by the
Corporation not false and misleading.  The consolidated action
also alleges that the defendants violated Section 11, Section
12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act by making allegedly
untrue statements and/or omitting to disclose material facts
necessary to make statements made by the Corporation not false
and misleading in connection with the May 2008 offering of Series
B Preferred Stock. The consolidated securities class action
complaint seeks class certification, an award of compensatory
damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
fees.

On January 11, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint.

On August 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico granted the motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter
defendants on statute of limitations grounds.  The Court also
dismissed the Section 11 claim brought against Popular's directors
on statute of limitations grounds and the Section 12(a)(2) claim
brought against Popular because plaintiffs lacked standing.  The
Court declined to dismiss the claims brought against Popular and
certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements with the requisite
state of mind.

Headquartered in Puerto Rico, Popular Inc. (Nasdaq: BPOP) --
http://www.popular.com/-- is a full service financial
institution with operations in Puerto Rico, the United States,
the Caribbean and Latin America.  With over 300 branches and
offices, the company offers retail and commercial banking
services through its franchise, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
well as auto and equipment leasing and financing, mortgage
loans, consumer lending, investment banking, broker/dealer and
insurance services through specialized subsidiaries.  In the
United States, the company has established a community banking
franchise providing a broad range of financial services and
products to the communities it serves.


POPULAR INC: Pushes for Dismissal of ERISA Class Suit v. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., is contesting a recommendation by a magistrate
judge that its motion to dismiss a class action alleging ERISA
violations be denied, according to a Form 10-Q filed by the
company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the case, In re Popular, Inc.
ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated cases of Walsh v.
Popular, Inc. et al.; Montanez v. Popular, Inc., et al.; and
Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.), filed a consolidated class
action complaint. The consolidated complaint purports to be on
behalf of employees participating in the Popular, Inc., U.S.A.
401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the Popular, Inc., Puerto
Rico Savings and Investment Plan from January 24, 2008, to the
date of the Complaint to recover losses pursuant to Sections 409
and 502(a)(2) of the ERISA against Popular, certain directors,
officers and members of plan committees, each of whom is alleged
to be a plan fiduciary. The consolidated complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their alleged fiduciary obligations by,
among other things, failing to eliminate Popular stock as an
investment alternative in the plans. The complaint seeks to
recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable relief,
including injunctive relief and a constructive trust, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 21, 2009, and in compliance with a scheduling order
issued by the Court, Popular and the individual defendants
submitted an answer to the amended complaint. Shortly thereafter,
on December 31, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint or,
in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings.

On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation in which he recommended that the motion to dismiss
be denied except with respect to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, as
to which he recommended that the motion be granted.

On May 19, 2010, Popular filed objections to the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation.  On June 21, 2010, plaintiffs
filed a response to these objections.  On July 9, 2010, with leave
of the Court, Popular filed a reply to plaintiffs' response.

Headquartered in Puerto Rico, Popular Inc. (Nasdaq: BPOP) --
http://www.popular.com/-- is a full service financial
institution with operations in Puerto Rico, the United States,
the Caribbean and Latin America.  With over 300 branches and
offices, the company offers retail and commercial banking
services through its franchise, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
well as auto and equipment leasing and financing, mortgage
loans, consumer lending, investment banking, broker/dealer and
insurance services through specialized subsidiaries.  In the
United States, the company has established a community banking
franchise providing a broad range of financial services and
products to the communities it serves.


RADIAN GROUP: Court Dismisses ERISA Violation Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted Radian Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Securities Act, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In April 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Radian Group, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of
the company's board of directors and individual defendants in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Securities Act as it relates to the company's Savings
Incentive Plan.  The named plaintiff is a former employee of the
company.

On July 25, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
case, which was granted on July 16, 2009, dismissing the
complaint without prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 17, 2009.
On May 26, 2010, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Radian Group Inc. -- http://www.radian.biz/-- headquartered in
Philadelphia, provides private mortgage insurance and related
risk mitigation products and services to mortgage lenders
nationwide through its principal operating subsidiary, Radian
Guaranty Inc.  These services help promote and preserve
homeownership opportunities for homebuyers, while protecting
lenders from default-related losses on residential first
mortgages and facilitating the sale of low-downpayment mortgages
in the secondary market.


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Repros Therapeutics, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action complaint which alleges that
it made certain misleading statements related to its Proellex(R)
drug, the Company said in an August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On August 7, 2009, R.M. Berry filed a putative class action
lawsuit naming the Company, Joseph Podolski, Paul Lammers, and
Louis Ploth, Jr., as defendants.  The lawsuit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division.  The lawsuit is styled R.M. Berry, on Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. Repros Therapeutics,
Inc., Joseph Podolski, Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr.  Among
other claims, the lawsuit contends that the defendants
misrepresented the side effects of the drug related to liver
function, and the risk that these side effects could cause a
suspension of clinical trials of Proellex(R).  The lawsuit seeks
to establish a class of shareholders allegedly harmed by the
misleading statements, and asserts causes of action under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 14, 2009, a lawsuit making similar allegations and
naming the same defendants was also filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  This suit is
styled Josephine Medina, Individually and On Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Repros Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski,
Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr.

On September 25, 2009, a lawsuit also making allegations similar
to those in the Berry action, and naming the same defendants, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.  That lawsuit is styled Shane Simpson, Paul
Frank and Clayton Scobie, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others
Similarly Situated v. Repros Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski,
Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr.

The lawsuits have now been consolidated, and lead plaintiffs
appointed.

On January 27, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint styled In re Repros Therapeutics, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 09 Civ. 2530 (VDG).  The
lawsuit names Repros Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski, Paul
Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr. as defendants.  The allegations in
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint are substantially the
same as those contained in the prior complaints, and focus on the
claim that the defendants deliberately withheld information
concerning the negative side-effects of Proellex(R) related to
liver function.  Plaintiffs seek to establish a class action for
all persons who "purchased or otherwise acquired Repros common
stock between July 1, 2009, and August 2, 2009."  No discovery
has yet occurred in the matter.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on March 15, 2010.  Briefing has been completed
on that motion, but the court has not yet ruled on it.

Repros Therapeutics Inc. -- http://www.reprosrx.com/-- is a
development-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development of oral small molecule drugs for unmet medical needs.


SIGNALIFE INC: Court Denies Motion to Enforce PSLRA Stay
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald of the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina denied a motion to
enforce the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 stay
in the lawsuits filed by Robert A. Latham and Darryl K. Roth
against Signalife, Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are putative class members in consolidated actions
involving alleged violations of federal securities laws and
regulations.  The defendants are a medical device corporation and
certain employees, officers, and board members of that
corporation.  For their consolidated class action complaint, the
plaintiffs have alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants Kevin F. Pickard, Robert C. Scherne and Budimir S.
Drakulic filed a motion to enforce the PSLRA stay. Defendants
Pamela M. Bunes, Lowell R. Harmison, and Signalife, Inc. have
filed motions to join in the motion to enforce the stay. The
motions were referred by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell.

The moving defendants argue that the PSLRA requires that discovery
be stayed until the court has decided a defendant motion to
dismiss or the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, whichever is
later. Having carefully considered the briefs, exhibits, and oral
arguments of the parties, the court denies the motion.

Judge McDonald said the purpose of the statutory stay has been
served, and discovery should proceed as to defendants Signalife,
Inc., Harmison, Matthews, Scherne, Pickard, and Bunes. The
complaint in the case was filed nearly two years ago. "The court
[had] found the plaintiffs' complaint is legally sufficient as to
defendants Signalife, Inc., Harmison, Matthews, Scherne, Pickard,
and Bunes. There is no indication the plaintiffs need to or intend
to use discovery to replead any of their claims."

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100820997


STERLING FINANCIAL: Continues Defense of Securities Suit in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation remains a defendant in a putative
securities class action complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 Dec. 11, 2009, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and former
officers.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements
concerning the company's business and financial results.  The
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the extent of
Sterling's delinquent commercial real estate, construction and
land loans, properly record losses for impaired loans, properly
reserve for loan losses, and properly account for the company's
goodwill and deferred tax assets.

The complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to
Jan. 13, 2009, damages of an unspecified amount and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank
holding company. Its principal operating subsidiaries are
Sterling Savings Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the principal operating subsidiary of
Sterling Savings Bank was INTERVEST-Mortgage Investment Company
(INTERVEST).  The main focus of Golf Savings Bank, a Washington
State-chartered savings bank, is the origination and sale of
residential mortgage loans.  The company's revenues are derived
primarily from interest earned on loans and mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), fees and service charges, and mortgage banking
operations (MBO).


STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Outcome of Two ERISA Violation Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation continues to face two putative
class action complaints alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 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 Jan. 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  The complaints allege that defendants
violated sections 404 and 405 of the ERISA, by breaching their
fiduciary duties to participants in the Sterling Savings Bank
Employee Savings and Investment Plan and Trust.

The complaints allege that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties from July 23, 2008 to the date the complaints were filed
by investing Plan assets in Sterling's securities when defendants
knew or should have known that the price of Sterling's securities
were inflated because Sterling had failed to disclose the extent
of Sterling's delinquent commercial real estate, construction and
land loans, properly record losses for impaired loans, properly
reserve for loan losses, and properly account for our goodwill
and deferred tax assets.

The complaints seek damages of an unspecified amount and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank
holding company. Its principal operating subsidiaries are
Sterling Savings Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the principal operating subsidiary of
Sterling Savings Bank was INTERVEST-Mortgage Investment Company
(INTERVEST).  The main focus of Golf Savings Bank, a Washington
State-chartered savings bank, is the origination and sale of
residential mortgage loans.  The company's revenues are derived
primarily from interest earned on loans and mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), fees and service charges, and mortgage banking
operations (MBO).


STERLING FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Shareholder Class Suit in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation remains a defendant in a
shareholder derivative class action filed in the Superior Court
for Spokane County, Washington, 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 February 10, 2010, the shareholder derivative action was filed
in the Superior Court, allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit
of Sterling, against certain of its current and former officers
and directors.

On August 2, 2010, an amended complaint was filed alleging, among
other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets,
and unjust enrichment.  The amended complaint names Sterling as a
nominal defendant.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, disgorgement of profits, equitable and injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants failed to
prevent Sterling from issuing improper financial statements,
maintain a sufficient allowance for loan and lease losses, and
establish effective credit risk management and oversight
mechanisms regarding Sterling's construction loans, losses and
reserves recorded for impaired loans, and accounting for goodwill
and deferred tax assets.  Because the complaint is derivative in
nature, it does not seek monetary damages from Sterling.

However, Sterling may be required throughout the pendency of the
action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the
individual defendants and to incur other financial obligations,
which could have a material adverse effect on its business,
results of operations and financial condition.  The amount of that
material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated.

Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank
holding company. Its principal operating subsidiaries are
Sterling Savings Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the principal operating subsidiary of
Sterling Savings Bank was INTERVEST-Mortgage Investment Company
(INTERVEST).  The main focus of Golf Savings Bank, a Washington
State-chartered savings bank, is the origination and sale of
residential mortgage loans.  The company's revenues are derived
primarily from interest earned on loans and mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), fees and service charges, and mortgage banking
operations (MBO).


STEVEN MADDEN: Awaits Resolution of "Tahvilian" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Madden, Ltd., faces a class action lawsuit in California,
alleging violations of California labor 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 24, 2009, a class action lawsuit, Shahrzad Tahvilian, et
al., v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc., and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case
No. BC 414217, was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, against the Company and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Steven Madden Retail, Inc.  The complaint, which seeks
unspecified damages, alleges violations of California labor laws,
including, among other things, that the Company failed to provide
mandated meal breaks to its employees and failed to provide
overtime pay as required.  The Company filed an answer in the
litigation denying all allegations stated in the complaint.

In March 2010, the parties submitted the claim to private
mediation and a resolution has been delayed until August 2010
pending further discovery.  The Company, with the advice of legal
counsel, has evaluated the liability in this case and believes
that it is not likely to exceed $1,000,000.

Steven Madden, Ltd. designs, sources, markets and sells footwear
for women, men and children. The Company also designs, sources,
markets and retails name brand and private label fashion handbags
and accessories, through its Accessories Division. The Company
distributes products, through its retail stores, its e-commerce
Website, department and specialty stores throughout the United
States and through distribution arrangements in Asia, Canada,
Europe, Central and South America, Australia and Africa. It
operates in five segments: Wholesale Footwear, Wholesale
Accessories, Retail, First Cost and Licensing.


STIFEL FINANCIAL: Obtains Dismissal of ARS-Related Suit in Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit over Stifel Financial Corp.'s auction rate securities in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
been dismissed, according to the company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-
Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company was named in a civil lawsuit filed on Aug. 8, 2008,
seeking class action status for investors who purchased and
continue to hold ARS offered for sale between June 11, 2003 and
Feb. 13, 2008, the date when most auctions began to fail and the
auction market froze, which alleges misrepresentation about the
investment characteristics of ARS and the auction markets.

The company discloses that approximately 97% of the Eligible ARS
investors have agreed to participate in the ARS repurchase offer.

On July 2, 2010, the ARS class action lawsuit was dismissed and
the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Award Attorneys' Fees
and Costs.  The company is, in conjunction with other industry
participants, actively seeking a solution to ARS' illiquidity.

Stifel Financial Corp. -- http://www.stifel.com/-- is a
financial service holding company.  It provides securities
related financial services to approximately 1.0 million client
accounts of customers throughout the United States and Europe.
The Company operates in three segments: Global Wealth Management,
Capital Markets and Other.  Its subsidiaries include Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (Stifel Nicolaus), a full
service retail and institutional brokerage and investment banking
firm; Century Securities Associates, Inc. (CSA), an independent
contractor broker-dealer firm; Stifel Nicolaus Limited (SN Ltd),
and Stifel Bank & Trust (Stifel Bank).


TARGET CORP: Sued for Wrongful Death of Shopper Mary Ann Verdugo
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Verdugo, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. BC443981
(Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. August 17, 2010), bring
claims against the discount retailer for the wrongful death of her
daughter Mary Ann Verdugo, resulting from Target's failure to
provide life-saving first aid when her daughter suddenly lost
consciousness and suffered cardiac arrest (leading to her sudden
death within a few minutes) while shopping at Target's department
store in Pico River, California on August 31, 2008.  Ms. Verdugo
says that Target should have automated external defribrillators
(AEDs) on hand in emergency situations (such as cardiac arrests)
for the protection of their customers.  Ms. Verdugo states that
the availability of AEDs and trained store personnel could have
prevented the death of her daughter.

Ms. Verdugo also bring claims against Target for survival action
(for dependent adult) under the provisions of the Elder Abuse
Adult Civil Protection Act; and unfair and fraudulent business
practices under the Business & Professions Code.

Ms. Verdugo is the mother, successor and statutory heir of Mary
Ann Verdugo, who was a dependent adult with developmental
disabilities and mental and verbal limitations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Eisenstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID G. EISENSTEIN, P.C.
          4027 Aidan Circle
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (760) 730-7900
          E-mail: eisenlegal@aol.com


TEXAS: Plaintiffs in "Morrow" Suit Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Alice Robbins, writing for the Texas Lawyer, reports
plaintiffs in a civil rights suit against five officials in Shelby
County, Texas, including the district attorney, have raised new
allegations about the use of money seized from nonwhite motorists
driving through the East Texas town of Tenaha.

On Aug. 16, the eight plaintiffs in Morrow, et al. v. Washington,
et al. filed a motion for class certification in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District in Marshall, Texas.

In their motion, the plaintiffs allege that while one defendant
claims "God 'ordained' him to patrol Highway 59" around Tenaha,
"other evidence suggests Defendants were actually motivated by
money."

The plaintiffs filed the suit July 24, 2008. In their third
amended complaint, filed Feb. 17, they allege the defendants "have
developed an illegal 'stop and seize' practice of targeting,
stopping, detaining, searching, and often seizing property from
nonwhite motorists who traveled in, through, or near Tenaha." They
further allege that the defendants' actions have no legitimate law
enforcement purpose and violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition
against unreasonable search and seizure and the 14th Amendment
equal protection clause to the U.S. Constitution "made actionable
by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983."

The defendants -- District Attorney Lynda K. Russell of the 123rd
Judicial District in Shelby County, former Shelby County DA
investigator Danny Green, Tenaha Deputy City Marshal Barry
Washington, Tenaha Mayor George Bowers and Shelby County Precinct
4 Constable Randy Whatley -- deny that anything about the
interdiction program is illegal, according to the plaintiffs'
class certification motion. In their answers, all the defendants
deny the allegations and claim they have immunity from suit.

The plaintiffs allege in their motion that the city of Tenaha and
the Shelby County Precinct 4 constable's office began an
interdiction program within a month after Mr. Washington's arrival
in Tenaha in November 2006.

Mr. Washington, a former Texas Department of Public Safety
trooper, explained in his May 3 deposition, which is attached to
the class certification motion, that he came to Tenaha after a
bright light came through the ceiling in his bedroom: "And it's
like I'm in a trance. And God tells me, 'Go to Tenaha, Texas.' And
I get up the next day, and I laugh until I find out that God may
be serious, so I end up in Tenaha."

As alleged in the plaintiff's class certification motion, Messrs.
Washington and Bowers testified in their depositions that one of
Mr. Washington's early interdiction stops that netted the city of
Tenaha $20,000 started getting them excited about an interdiction
program and Mr. Washington testified that a subsequent stop that
netted $600,000 "is what really got local law enforcement excited
about the interdiction program."

                         USE OF FUNDS

According to the class certification motion, Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure Article 59.06(c)(1), (2) and (3) restrict use
of seized and forfeited monies to official purposes of a district
attorney's office or, with regard to other law enforcement
agencies, for law enforcement purposes.

But, as alleged in the plaintiff's motion, the Shelby County
auditor has identified " 'questionable expenditures' " that DA
Russell has made from her forfeiture fund. Those include $22,000
for campaign materials, festivals, parades, personalized Frisbees,
glitter pencils, holiday decorations and costumes; more than
$3,600 for food; more than $40,000 in donations to a children's
advocacy center; more than $47,000 for equipment for other
agencies; more than $2,000 for flowers, gifts, memberships, dues
and events; and $320 for late fees on Ms. Russell's credit cards.

The plaintiffs also allege the auditor testified in deposition
that Ms. Russell spent more than $50,000 "in so-called 'salary'
expenses, including $30,000 to Defendant Washington." Auditor
Tracey Strong did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

In response to two calls for comment, Debbra Johnson, a secretary
in the DA's office, says Ms. Russell's attorney has advised her
not to talk to the news media. Ramey & Flock partner Tom Henson of
Tyler, Texas, Ms. Russell's attorney, says Ms. Russell opposes the
class certification motion, but he declines further comment.

In the class certification motion, the plaintiffs allege that Mr.
Whatley, the Precinct 4 constable, decided how to use the
forfeiture monies "without constraint imposed by any other
person," and bought a building; four pickup trucks, which were
available for his personal use; and a golf cart dressed up with
"lights, a siren and a radio."

Chad Rook of Flowers Davis in Tyler, the attorney for Mr. Whatley
and Mr. Green, did not return two telephone calls seeking comment.

Mr. Bowers, Tenaha's mayor, testified in his deposition that the
city used a significant portion of its proceeds from the
interdiction program to buy a building, only a fourth of which is
used for law enforcement, according to the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Robert Alderman Jr., a member of the Zelesky Law Firm in Lufkin,
Texas, who represents Messrs. Bowers and Washington, says his
clients oppose the motion for class certification, but he also
declines further comment.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of people who are or appear
to be members of racial or ethnic minority groups, and those in
their company, who will be traveling through Tenaha or were
traveling through Tenaha any time after October 2006 and were
subject to the defendants' interdiction program.

The plaintiffs are asking U.S. District Judge T. John Ward of the
Eastern District to declare unconstitutional the defendants'
alleged practices "targeting apparent members of racial or ethnic
minority groups" for searches and seizures resulting in
forfeitures and to permanently prohibit those practices. They also
seek equitable restitution and compensatory and punitive damages.

Tim Garrigan, Esq., a partner at Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter in
Nacogdoches who represents the Morrow plaintiffs, says it is
questionable whether the plaintiffs can recover any money, other
than "monetary relief that can be called equitable."

In 1998's Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2) precludes class certification of suits seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of individual class
members.

The plaintiffs "mention" in their motion for class certification
that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' April 26 decision in
Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. "conflicts with the Fifth
Circuit's treatment of damages in a (b)(2) class" and "is
considered by some likely to be reviewed by the [U.S.] Supreme
Court."

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Tim Garrigan, Esq.,
     STUCKEY, GARRIGAN & CASTETTER
     2803 North St # C
     Nacogdoches, TX 75965
     Telephone: 936-560-6020

Defendants Bowers and Washington are represented by:

     Robert Alderman Jr., Esq.
     ZELESKY LAW FIRM
     1616 South Chestnut
     Lufkin, TX 75901
     Telephone: 936-632-3381
     Facsimile: 936-632-6545
     E-mail: balderman@zeleskey.com

Defendants Whatley and Green are represented by:

     Chad C. Rook, Esq.
     FLOWERS DAVIS PLLC
     1021 ESE Loop 323 Suite 200
     Tyler, Texas 75701
     Telephone: (903) 534-8063
     Facsimile: (903) 534-1650
     E-mail: ccr@tyler.net

Defendant Russell is represented by:

     Tom Henson, Esq.
     RAMEY & FLOCK PC
     100 East Ferguson, Suite 500
     Tyler, Texas 75702
     Telephone: 903-705-1992
     Facsimile: 903-705-2413
     E-mail: thenson@rameyflock.com


TELEFLORA LLC: Sued in Ind. Over Unauthorized Use of Websites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that in a RICO
class action, a member of the Teleflora network claims that the
largest mail-order flower service in the country hijacked its web
link to snatch customers.  Perfect Flowers says it refused
Teleflora's offer to create a Web site for it, since it already
had a website up and running.  And it claims Teleflora played the
same trick on "other retail florists [who] did not authorize
Teleflora to direct Internet users away from their websites to
unauthorized websites."

Perfect Flowers claims that it ran its own Web site, "Flowers By
Valerie," and when it signed a contract to receive referrals from
Teleflora, it did not authorize the giant chain to operate a
website on its behalf.

"Perfect Flowers receives 100 percent of all retail sales obtained
through this [its own] website," the complaint states.  Its own
website "did not require the use of the Teleflora national
network."

Teleflora owns and operates the directory Web site --
Findaflorist.com -- with links to member florists.

But Perfect Flowers says "the operation of and inclusion of
Perfect Flowers and Flowers by Valerie is not included in the
contract between Teleflora and Perfect Flowers."

Under the contract, "Perfect Flowers agreed to become a member
florist and Teleflora agreed to refer to Perfect Flowers orders by
other member florists for delivery at 73 percent of the order or
sale price," according to the complaint.

Perfect Flowers claims that Teleflora "owned and operated a
website which purported to be a website for Flowers By Valerie and
could be accessed independently or by a hypertext link from
Findaflorist.com."

But Perfect Flowers claims that it never authorized Teleflora to
direct Internet browsers "to an unauthorized website for Flowers
By Valerie."

Perfect Flowers adds that it "did not authorize Teleflora to
collect and keep any of the funds from orders and sales obtained
from the unauthorized website for Perfect Flowers and Flowers By
Valerie."

In some cases, it says, "Teleflora did not inform Perfect Flowers
when someone ordered from the unauthorized website for Flowers By
Valerie owned and operated by Teleflora.  Hence Perfect Flowers
would not receive any customer information for future advertising
or other business purposes."

Perfect Flowers says Teleflora refused its request for an
accounting of the money Teleflora made from the unauthorized
website.

It seeks an accounting, compensation and class damages.  Perfect
Flowers filed the class action in Marion County Court, then
removed it to Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Perfect Flowers, Inc. v. Teleflora LLC,
Case No. 10-cv-01031 (Ind. Super. Ct., Marion Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/23/Flowers.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Poore, Esq.
          Christopher K. Starkey, Esq.
          One N. Pennsylvania St., Suite 700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317-635-1020


VERISK ANALYTICS: Unable to Resolve Dispute with Hanover
--------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., and the Hanover Insurance Group were
unable to resolve the dispute over reimbursement pursuant to a
License Agreement between the companies.  The reimbursement arose
out of the settlement agreement in the matter Hensley, et al. v.
Computer Sciences Corporation et al., 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 a putative nationwide class action complaint, filed
in February 2005, in Miller County, Arkansas state court.
Defendants include numerous insurance companies and providers of
software products used by insurers in paying claims.  The company
is among the named defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that certain software products, including the
company's Claims Outcome Advisor product and a competing software
product sold by Computer Sciences Corporation, improperly
estimated the amount to be paid by insurers to their policyholders
in connection with claims for bodily injuries.

The company entered into settlement agreements with plaintiffs
asserting claims relating to the use of Claims Outcome Advisor by
defendants Hanover Insurance Group, Progressive Car Insurance and
Liberty Mutual Insurance Group.  Each of these settlements was
granted final approval by the court and together the settlements
resolve the claims asserted in this case against the Company with
respect to the above insurance companies, who settled the claims
against them as well.  A provision was made in 2006 for this
proceeding and the total amount the company paid in 2008 with
respect to these settlements was less than $2 million.  A fourth
defendant, The Automobile Club of California, which is alleged to
have used Claims Outcome Advisor, was dismissed from the action.
On Aug. 18, 2008, pursuant to the agreement of the parties the
Court ordered that the claims against the company be dismissed
with prejudice.

Subsequently, Hanover Insurance Group made a demand for
reimbursement, pursuant to an indemnification provision contained
in a Dec. 30, 2004, License Agreement between Hanover and the
company, of its settlement and defense costs in the Hensley class
action.

Specifically, Hanover demanded $2,536,000 including $600,000 in
attorneys' fees and expenses.  The company disputes that Hanover
is entitled to any reimbursement pursuant to the License
Agreement.  In July 2010, after the company and Hanover were
unable to resolve the dispute in mediation, Hanover served a
summons and complaint seeking indemnity and contribution from the
company.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action captioned Mornay v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
et al., remains administratively closed pending completion of the
appraisal process.

The suit was filed against the company and Travelers Insurance
Company in November 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

The complaint alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract,
negligence, bad faith, and fraud. As in Schafer, the court
dismissed the antitrust claim as to both defendants and dismissed
all claims against the company other than fraud.

Judge Duval stayed all proceedings in the case pending an
appraisal of the lead plaintiff's insurance claim.  The matter has
been re-assigned to Judge Barbier, who on Sept. 11, 2009 issued an
order administratively closing the matter pending completion of
the appraisal process.

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.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Taylor"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal of the suit entitled Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom
Corporation, et al., according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In March 2007, the company's subsidiary, Insurance Information
Exchange (iiX), as well as other information providers and
insurers in the State of Texas, were served with a summons and
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas alleging violations of the Driver
Privacy Protection Act.

Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals whose personal information is
contained in any motor vehicle record maintained by the State of
Texas and who have not provided express consent to the State of
Texas for the distribution of their personal information for
purposes not enumerated by the DPPA and whose personal information
has been knowingly obtained and used by the defendants.  The class
complaint alleges that the defendants knowingly obtained personal
information for a purpose not authorized by the DPPA and seeks
liquidated damages in the amount of $3,000 for each instance of a
violation of the DPPA, punitive damages and the destruction of any
illegally obtained personal information.

The Court granted iiX's motion to dismiss the complaint based on
failure to state a claim and for lack of standing.  Oral arguments
on the plaintiffs' appeal of that dismissal were held on Nov. 4,
2009.  The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court affirmed
the District Court's dismissal of the complaint on July 14, 2010.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: iiX Unit Continues to Defend "Cook" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary, Insurance Information
Exchange (iiX), is defending a suit captioned Janice Cook, et al.
v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, 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 2010, iiX, as well as other information providers in the
State of Missouri were served with a summons and class action
complaint alleging violations of the Driver Privacy Protection
Act.

Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals whose personal information is
contained in any motor vehicle record maintained by the State of
Missouri and who have not provided express consent to the State of
Missouri for the distribution of their personal information for
purposes not enumerated by the DPPA and whose personal information
has been knowingly obtained and used by the defendants.  The class
complaint alleges that the defendants knowingly obtained personal
information for a purpose not authorized by the DPPA and seeks
liquidated damages in the amount of $3,000 for each instance of a
violation of the DDPA, punitive damages and the destruction of any
illegally obtained personal information.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Interthinx Continues to Defend "Gluzman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary, Interthinx, Inc., continues
to defend a putative class action entitled Renata Gluzman v.
Interthinx, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was served to Interthinx in September 2009.  The
plaintiff, a former Interthinx employee, filed the class action on
Aug. 13, 2009, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles on behalf of all Interthinx information
technology employees for unpaid overtime and missed meals and rest
breaks, as well as various related claims claiming that the
information technology employees were misclassified as exempt
employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits
that would have been received if they were properly classified as
non-exempt employees.

The pleadings include, among other things, a violation of Business
and Professions Code 17200 for unfair business practices which
allows plaintiffs to include as class members all information
technology employees employed at Interthinx for four years prior
to the date of filing the complaint.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the
various statutes, restitution, interest, costs and attorney fees.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


WHITE TIGER: Recalls 7,000 Folding Wooden Chairs
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
White Tiger Traders Co. Ltd, of Taiwan, announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,000 folding wooden chairs.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The wooden frame of the chairs can break, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

White Tiger received three reports of chairs breaking, resulting
in minor injuries including back and shoulder pain, sprains and
contusions.

This recall involves wooden folding chairs.  The chairs were sold
individually and as part of a three-piece set that included one
table and two chairs.  "HD Outdoor" is printed on the chair's
packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10322.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Kroger, Fred Meyer, Ralph's, Fry's, Smith's, Dillon's, Gerbes,
City Market, and Baker's stores nationwide from February 2009
through December 2009 individually for about $50 and as part of
the set that sold for about $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
return them to the store where purchased for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Kroger at (800) 632-6900 between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or visit the firm's website
at http://www.kroger.com/

                           *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *