CAR_Public/100830.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 30, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 170

                             Headlines

3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Age Discrimination
AIR TRANSPORT: Plaintiffs' Second Plea to Amend Suit Pending
ALMOST FAMILY: Faces Securities Violation Suit in Kentucky
AMERICAN APPAREL: Abraham Fruchter Firm Files Securities Suit
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Suit

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Suit Against SAI in Texas Dismissed
AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motion to Certify Class in Suit vs. 012 Pending
AMPAL-AMERICAN: Pre-Trial Hearing in "Tariffs" Suit on Nov. 3
AMPAL-AMERICAN: Plaintiff to Litigate "Anti Spam" Violation Suit
AMPAL-AMERICAN: Certification Hearing vs. 012 Smile Set for Oct. 7

AMPAL-AMERICAN: Certification Hearing in "Web Traffic" Suit Set
AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends Suit Over Call Center Charge
AMPAL-AMERICAN: Defends Suit Over Higher Tariffs in Tel-Aviv
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused in Ill. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
BRISTOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Helicopter Services Lawsuit

CADENCE DESIGN: Securities Suit Stayed to Facilitate Mediation
CAMBREX CORP: Parties Appealing Awards in Generic APIs Lawsuit
COMBAT SURVIVAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida
DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: Being Sold for Too Little, Ill. Suit Claims
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Shareholders Ask Judge to Delay Hertz Merger

FEDEX GROUND: Judge Miller Rules Owner-Operators Are Not Employees
GATCO INC: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Holster" Suit
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Loses Appeal on Judgment for Liberty Insurance
MILESTONE AV: Recalls 131,000 Flat Screen Television Wall Mounts
MINNESOTA: Settles Gang Strike Force Suit for $3 Million

NORTHERN TRUST: Accused in Ill. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Multi-District Litigation
PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Agrees to Settle Two Merger-Related Suits
ROWAN COS: Disputes Claim of Former Subsidiary's Purchaser
SCANA CORP: Continues to Defend "Gressette/Rudd" Suit

SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fraud in New Mexico
SOUTHERN STAR: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in "Price" Suits
STERLING CHEMICALS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Order Pending
THEGLOBE.COM: Objectors' Brief on Settlement Appeal Due Oct. 6
TOYOTA MOTOR: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Garcia" Suit

TOYOTA MOTOR: Remains a Defendant in Orange County Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bondholder's Suit Dismissed in Federal Court
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bondholder's Suit Re-filed in Calif. State Court
UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Illinois
UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuit Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec

URS CORP: Subsidiary Faces New Orleans Levee Failure Litigation
WAL-MART STORES: Asks High Court to Stop Sex Discrimination Suit
WELLS REAL ESTATE: Court OKs Piedmont REIT Summary Judgment Plea
* Wage and Hour Litigation Tops Employment Class Action Claims

                             *********

3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Age Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alexander, writing for The Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota
Star Tribune, reports that a long-running age discrimination suit
against 3M Co. is back in Ramsey County District Court, and an
attorney is once again seeking to turn it into a class action on
behalf of as many as 5,000 3M employees.

The suit was originally filed in 2004 on behalf of six 3M
employees who alleged they were discriminated against based on age
during the tenure of CEO James McNerney Jr., which extended from
2001 to 2005.

After hearing arguments over class-action certification -- in
which plaintiffs and 3M attorneys presented anecdotal and
statistical evidence to refute the other's positions -- District
Judge Gregg Johnson took the case under advisement.  By law, he
must rule on the case within 90 days.

The suit, which has had an up-and-down history, was previously
certified as a class action by Johnson in 2008, but last year the
Minnesota Court of Appeals returned the case to the lower court
with instructions to review whether the "preponderance of the
evidence" justified making the case a class action.

During the Court of Appeals review, several Minnesota corporations
that filed a "friend of the court" brief that said age
discrimination suits could be burdensome to companies, and should
be given close scrutiny by courts before being certified as class
actions.

"Used improperly, the class action mechanism can also be a tool to
coerce defendants to settle lawsuits, regardless of liability or
the merits, rather than incur the burdensome costs of defense and
risk a massive verdict," said a group of companies that included
Cargill, Medtronic, Supervalu Inc. and Target Corp.

Now that the case is back in District Court, plaintiff's attorney
Steven Sprenger, Esq., of Sprenger Lang in Washington, D.C., said
he doesn't believe the Appeals Court action has made it more
difficult to sue for age discrimination in district court.

But 3M attorney Paul Klaas, Esq., of Dorsey & Whitney in
Minneapolis, said the Appeals Court had changed the rules for
certifying cases as class actions, making the decision facing
Johnson "different than the last time."

                  Complaints About Six Sigma

The suit alleges that 3M violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act
when Mr. McNerney instituted a new method of employee review and
promotion that the suit claimed discriminated against workers
older than 45.  The suit claimed older workers were given lower
performance ratings, shut out of leadership training, denied
promotions, given smaller pay increases and fewer stock options
and terminated in disproportionately higher numbers than younger
employees.

Mr. McNerney, who came to 3M from General Electric, instituted at
3M a quality and training program called Six Sigma that was aimed
at reducing service errors and product defects.  The employees'
suit alleges, in part, that the Six Sigma program at 3M tended to
promote younger workers over older ones.

Mr. McNerney left 3M in 2005 to become CEO of Boeing Co. While
3M's financial performance improved during his tenure, it's
unclear how much of the success was because of the Six Sigma
program.


AIR TRANSPORT: Plaintiffs' Second Plea to Amend Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' second motion to amend their complaint in an
effort to revive one of their dismissed causes of action against
ABX Air, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, according to Air Transport Services
Group Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

ABX is a subsidiary of Air Transport.

On Dec. 31, 2008, a former ABX employee filed a complaint against
ABX, a total of four current and former executives and managers of
ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and three former executives of
the Garcia Labor companies.

The case was filed as a putative class action against the
defendants, and asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Practices Act.

The complaint, which seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to hire illegal
immigrant workers to depress the wages paid to hourly wage
employees during the period from December 1999 to January 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2009, ABX and the four current and former executives
and managers of ABX filed an answer denying the allegations
contained in the complaint.

On July 24, 2009, ABX and the current and former executives of
ABX filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision dismissing three of
the five claims, constituting the basis of Plaintiff's cause of
action.

On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision dismissing three of
the five claims, constituting the bases of Plaintiff's cause of
action.

On July 30, 2010, the plaintiffs' filed a second motion to amend
their complaint in an effort to revive one of their dismissed
causes of action, which motion is currently pending.

Air Transport Services Group Inc. -- http://www.atsginc.com/-- is
a holding company whose principal subsidiaries include three
independently United States-certificated airlines and an aircraft
leasing company. The three airlines, ABX Air, Inc. (ABX), Capital
Cargo International Airlines, Inc. (CCIA), and Air Transport
International, LLC (ATI), primarily transport cargo within the
United States and include operations in Europe, Central America,
South America, and Asia. ATSG's leasing subsidiary, Cargo Aircraft
Management, Inc. (CAM), leases aircraft to ATSG's airlines and to
external customers. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the
company operated three segments: DHL, ACMI Services and CAM. The
Company's other business operations include aircraft maintenance
and modification services, aircraft part sales, equipment leasing
and maintenance, mail handling for the United States Postal
Service (USPS), specialized services for aircraft fuel management
and freight logistics.


ALMOST FAMILY: Faces Securities Violation Suit in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------
Almost Family, Inc., faces a putative class action lawsuit styled
City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Almost Family,
Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, 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 April 27, 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article
exploring the relationship between the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services home health payment policies and the utilization
rates of certain home health agencies.  Following The Wall Street
Journal article, on May 12, 2010, the U.S. Senate Finance
Committee sent a letter to each of the publicly traded companies
mentioned in the article requesting information including Medicare
utilization rates for therapy visits.  Subsequently, on June 30,
2010, the company received a civil subpoena for documents and
notice of investigation from the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The subpoena seeks documents related to the company's
home health care services and operations, including reimbursements
under the Medicare home health prospective payment system, since
Jan. 1, 2000.

On Aug. 3, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company.

The complaint also refers to The Wall Street Journal article and
the subsequent governmental investigations and alleges that the
company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer
violated federal securities laws.  The complaint seeks damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company is reviewing the complaint and has not yet filed a
responsive pleading.

Almost Family, Inc. -- http://www.almostfamily.com/-- founded in
1976, is a leading regional provider of home health nursing
services, with branch locations in Florida, Kentucky, Connecticut,
New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, Alabama, Missouri, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, and Indiana (in order of revenue significance).
Almost Family, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate a Medicare-
certified segment and a personal care segment. Altogether, Almost
Family operates over 100 branch locations in 11 U.S. states.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Abraham Fruchter Firm Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has been retained to file a class
action law suit on behalf of purchasers of American Apparel, Inc.,
stock during the period between December 20, 2006 and August 17,
2010.

The complaint charges American Apparel and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  American Apparel purports to be a vertically integrated
manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic
apparel.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements about the Company's hiring
practices and the effect of such hiring practices on the Company's
financial performance. Specifically, defendants falsely stated
that they made "diligent efforts" to comply with employment and
labor regulations, and failed to disclose, and made false
statements to shareholders regarding, the effect of the Company's
illegal hiring practices on its operating costs and margins.
Beginning in July 2009, after the Company revealed that it was
being investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
regarding its compliance with U.S. immigration law, the true
financial condition of the Company began to be revealed. However,
defendants assured investors that such investigation would not
have a material effect on American Apparel.

Then, on August 17, 2010, the Company issued a press release
announcing that the Company expected to report a loss of $5
million to $7 million in the second quarter of 2010 on net sales
of $132 million to $143 million. According to the press release, a
significant factor in such losses was "lower labor efficiency at
the Company's production facilities in the second quarter of 2010
compared to the prior year period. The lower labor efficiency was
primarily a result of the hiring of over 1,600 net new
manufacturing workers during the second quarter of 2010."  By
August 18, 2010, as this news was digested by the market, American
Apparel's stock price had declined rapidly, from a close of $1.39
per share on August 16, 2010, to a close of just $0.81 per share
on August 18, 2010 -- a decline of over 41%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
American Apparel common stock during the Class Period. The
Plaintiff is represented by Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP which
has extensive experience in securities class action cases, and the
firm has been ranked among the leading class action law firms in
terms of recoveries achieved by a survey of class action law firms
conducted by Institutional Shareholder Services. If you would like
to discuss this action or if you have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights as a potential class member or lead
plaintiff, you may contact: Jack Fruchter or Arthur J. Chen of
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP at 212-279-5050, or via e-mail at
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or achen@aftlaw.com respectively. If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
60 days from today.  Any member of the proposed class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed
class.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A Medical Capital-related class action has been voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff, according to
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

In July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests (Medical
Capital Holdings, Inc./Medical Capital Corporation and affiliated
corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and affiliated
corporations) sold by the company's subsidiary Securities America,
Inc., were the subject of SEC actions against those entities and
individuals associated with them, which has resulted in the filing
of several putative class action lawsuits naming both SAI and
Ameriprise Financial, and numerous FINRA arbitrations and state
court actions naming SAI primarily but occasionally also naming
Ameriprise Financial, as well as related regulatory inquiries.
The putative class actions and arbitrations generally allege
violations of state or federal securities laws in connection with
SAI's sales of these private placement interests.

These actions were commenced in September 2009 and thereafter.

Currently, five arbitrations have been scheduled for hearings
later this year, in November and December 2010, with the other
scheduled arbitration hearings set to begin in 2011 and 2012.
Motions to dismiss have been filed or will be filed in all of the
putative class actions.

On Jan. 26, 2010, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed an
Administrative Complaint against SAI, and on Feb. 16, 2010, SAI
filed an Answer.  At this time, an Administrative Hearing in this
matter has been scheduled to commence on Aug. 30, 2010.

On April 15, 2010, four Medical Capital-related class actions were
centralized and moved to the Central District of California by
order of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under
the caption "In re: Medical Capital Securities Litigation."

On June 23, 2010, another Medical Capital-related class action was
ordered transferred to the Central District of California by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and then on July 1,
2010, plaintiffs in that action voluntarily dismissed the action
without prejudice.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a holding company, which primarily
conducts business through its subsidiaries to provide financial
planning and products and services that are designed to be
utilized as solutions for clients' cash and liquidity, asset
accumulation, income, protection and estate and wealth transfer
needs.  The company's foreign operations in the United Kingdom are
conducted through its subsidiary, Threadneedle Asset Management
Holdings Sarl.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Suit Against SAI in Texas Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against Securities America, Inc., in Texas
has been dismissed, according to Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests (Medical
Capital Holdings, Inc./Medical Capital Corporation and affiliated
corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and affiliated
corporations) sold by the company's subsidiary Securities America,
Inc. ("SAI") were the subject of SEC actions against those
entities and individuals associated with them, which has resulted
in the filing of several putative class action lawsuits naming
both SAI and Ameriprise Financial, and numerous FINRA arbitrations
and state court actions naming SAI primarily but occasionally also
naming Ameriprise Financial, as well as related regulatory
inquiries.  The putative class actions and arbitrations generally
allege violations of state and/or federal securities laws in
connection with SAI's sales of these private placement interests.

These actions were commenced in September 2009 and thereafter.

Currently, five arbitrations have been scheduled for hearings
later this year, in November and December 2010, with the other
scheduled arbitration hearings set to begin in 2011 and 2012.
Motions to dismiss have been filed or will be filed in all of the
putative class actions.

On June 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order denying centralization of the Provident Shale-
related class actions which remain pending in Texas and Idaho
federal courts.  On July 26, 2010, the court in the Texas
Provident Shale class action granted the motion to dismiss as to
the securities law claim against SAI, held that the securities law
claim against Ameriprise Financial could not proceed without an
underlying claim against SAI, and denied the motion as to the
common law claim for breach of fiduciary duty in the absence of
sufficient facts for determination of the issue.

Plaintiffs in the Texas class action have until August 27, 2010
to, amend their complaint one final time.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a holding company, which primarily
conducts business through its subsidiaries to provide financial
planning and products and services that are designed to be
utilized as solutions for clients' cash and liquidity, asset
accumulation, income, protection and estate and wealth transfer
needs.  The company's foreign operations in the United Kingdom are
conducted through its subsidiary, Threadneedle Asset Management
Holdings Sarl.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motion to Certify Class in Suit vs. 012 Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs to certify a class action against
several international telephony companies, including 012 Smile
Communications Ltd., remains pending, according to Ampal-American
Israel Corp.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

012 Smile is Ampal-American Israel Corporation's subsidiary.

In April 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed with
various District Courts in Israel against several international
telephony companies including 012, with respect to prepaid calling
card services.

The plaintiffs allege that:

     (i) the defendants unlawfully charged consumers in excess
         of the tariffs published by them,

    (ii) the prepaid calling cards provide an average of 50% of
         the units of time indicated to the purchasers of the
         cards,

   (iii) the defendants deducted from the prepaid calling card
         the time spent when a user unsuccessfully attempts to
         make a call utilizing the card,

    (iv) the defendants calculated and collected payment not by
         units of round minutes indicated,

     (v) the defendants provided misleading information about
         the number of "units" on the card, and

    (vi) the defendants formed a cartel that arranged and raised
         the prices of calling cards.

In the event the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total
amount claimed against 012 is NIS226.4 million (approximately
$58.40 million).

012 Smile, as successor to 012 filed its summation on June 13,
2010, the plaintiffs' respondent summation was filed on July 22,
2010 and the parties are currently awaiting the court's decision.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located
in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal is
seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with
a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors.
Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in
businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash
flow that Ampal can control.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: Pre-Trial Hearing in "Tariffs" Suit on Nov. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
Another pre-trial hearing in a class action against 012 Smile
Communications Ltd., in connection with its monthly tariffs for
Internet services, is set for Nov. 33, 2010, according to Ampal-
American Israel Corp.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

012 Smile is Ampal-American's subsidiary.

In November 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed
with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel against 012.

The action alleges that 012 unlawfully raised the monthly tariffs
for its Internet services.

The total amount of the claim is NIS 81.5 million (approximately
$21.6 million). 012 replied to the motion on May 2009.

The motion was scheduled to be heard on March 16, 2010.

A pre-trial hearing was held on January 2010.  The case is
scheduled for an additional pre-trial hearing on Nov. 3, 2010.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located
in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal is
seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with
a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors.
Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in
businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash
flow that Ampal can control.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: Plaintiff to Litigate "Anti Spam" Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff has notified the Central District Court in Israel
that he intends to litigate the suit alleging violation of Israeli
"anti spam" law against 012 Smile Communications Ltd., according
to Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

012 Smile is Ampal-American Israel Corporation's subsidiary.

In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel.

Together with the filing of the motion, the plaintiff filed a
motion for a temporary restrictive order to prevent 012 from
deleting or changing data from its database with regard to the
plaintiff's claims in the motion.  The motion alleges that 012 has
violated the Israeli "anti spam" law by sending advertising
materials to its customers.

The amount of the plaintiff's personal claim is set at NIS 10,000
(approximately $2,650).  The estimated amount of the entire claim
is yet to be known.

On Nov. 29, 2009, the court granted a temporary order which
prevents 012 from deleting or changing data from its database with
regard to specific messages which according to the motion were
sent by the plaintiff to 012.  012 filed its response to the
motion on February 2010.

A court hearing was held on March 2010 and the court ordered the
plaintiff to notify the Court by May 17, 2010, whether he intends
to litigate the claim and the request or to submit a motion to
withdrawal.

On May 13, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the
suit, subject to payment of the plaintiff's legal fees by 012
Smile.

On June 13, 2010, the court declined the motion and the plaintiff
notified the court of his intention to litigate the suit and to
file a motion to amend his suit and request on Sept. 15, 2010.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located
in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal is
seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with
a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors.
Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in
businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash
flow that Ampal can control.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: Certification Hearing vs. 012 Smile Set for Oct. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion to certify a class action against
012 Smile Communications Ltd., in relation to its collection
expenses charged to customers, is set for Oct. 7, 2010, according
to Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

012 is Ampal-American's subsidiary.

In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 with the Tel-Aviv District Court in Israel.

The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully charges its customers who
do not pay their debts on time with collection expenses.

The estimated amount of the entire claim is NIS 21.75 Million
(approximately $5.6 million).

012 Smile, as successor to 012, has replied to the motion on
June 14, 2010.  The motion is scheduled to be heard on Oct. 7,
2010.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located
in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal is
seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with
a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors.
Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in
businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash
flow that Ampal can control.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: Certification Hearing in "Web Traffic" Suit Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion to certify a class action against
012 Smile Communications Ltd., alleging that its unlawfully
intervenes in web traffic, is set for Sept. 7, 2010, according to
Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

012 is Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s subsidiary.

In December 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel.

The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully intervenes with web
traffic, especially as it relates to Peer to Peer websites.

The estimated amount of the entire claim is NIS 40 Million
(approximately $10.3 million).

012 has not yet replied to the motion.

The motion is scheduled to be heard on Sept. 7, 2010.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located
in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal is
seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with
a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors.
Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in
businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash
flow that Ampal can control.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends Suit Over Call Center Charge
--------------------------------------------------------------
012 Smile Communications Ltd., is defending a suit relating to
charging customers when placing calls to 012's support center,
according to Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

012 is Ampal-American's subsidiary.

In January 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012, 012's subsidiary, 012 Telecom Ltd., and others with
the Central District Court in Israel.

The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully charges its customers when
placing calls to 012's support center.

The total amount of the action against 012 and its subsidiary is
approximately NIS 48.6 million (approximately $12.5 million).

012 Smile's response to the motion was due Aug. 22, 2010.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located
in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal is
seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with
a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors.
Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in
businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash
flow that Ampal can control.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: Defends Suit Over Higher Tariffs in Tel-Aviv
------------------------------------------------------------
012 Smile Communications Ltd., is defending a suit alleging that
it unlawfully charges its customers with higher tariffs than the
tariffs agreed, according to Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In May 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed against
012 Smile with the Tel-Aviv District Court in Israel.

The motion alleges that 012 Smile unlawfully charges its customers
with higher tariffs than the tariffs agreed.  The total amount of
the action against 012 Smile is approximately NIS 3.0 million
(approximately $0.8 million ).

012 Smile has not yet replied to the motion. The motion is not
scheduled to be heard yet.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located
in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal is
seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with
a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors.
Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in
businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash
flow that Ampal can control.


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused in Ill. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America and
Countrywide Home Loans stiffed workers for overtime, a class
action claims in Chicago Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Kelly, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-05332 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/25/EmployBofA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          4717 Grand Ave., Suite 840
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-531-2277
          E-mail: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Kenneth C. Apicella, Esq.
          APICELLA & MALATESTA LLC
          134 North LaSalle, Suite 320
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-445-0514
          E-mail: kca@theamfirm.com


BRISTOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Helicopter Services Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristow Group Inc. continues to defend a purported class action
complaint relating to its offshore helicopter services.

The action styled Superior Offshore International, Inc., v.
Bristow Group Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-00438 (D. Del.) (Davis,
J.), was filed on June 12, 2009.  It also names Era Helicopters
LLC, SEACOR Holdings Inc., Era Group Inc., Era Aviation Inc. and
PHI Inc. as defendants.

The purported class action complaint, which also names other
providers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as
defendants, alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired to raise and maintain the price of offshore
helicopter services between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2005.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of direct
purchasers of offshore helicopter services and is asking for,
among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

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.

Bristow Group Inc. -- http://www.bristowgroup.com/-- is a
provider of helicopter services to the offshore energy industry
with global operations.  The company has operations in offshore
oil and gas producing regions, including North Sea, the United
States Gulf of Mexico, Nigeria, Australia and Latin America.  It
generated 76% of its revenues from international operations in
fiscal year ended March 31, 2009. The Helicopter Services segment
operations are conducted through three divisions, Western
Hemisphere, Eastern Hemisphere and Global Training.  Western
Hemisphere includes United States (US) Gulf of Mexico, Arctic,
Latin America and Western Hemisphere (WH) Centralized Operations.
Eastern Hemisphere includes Europe, West Africa, Southeast Asia,
Other International and Eastern Hemisphere (EH) Centralized
Operations.


CADENCE DESIGN: Securities Suit Stayed to Facilitate Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has agreed to stay a consolidated amended complaint against
Cadence Design Systems, Inc., in order to facilitate mediation,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 3, 2010.

During fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the District
Court all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Cadence's common stock.

The three complaints are:

     (1) Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
         William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik, filed on Oct. 29,
         2008;

     (2) Vyas v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J.
         Fister, and Kevin S. Palatnik, filed on Nov. 4, 2008;
         and

     (3) Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J.
         Fister, John B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William
         Porter, filed Nov. 21, 2008.

On March 4, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating these three complaints and captioning the
consolidated case In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

The District Court also named a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
for the consolidated litigation.  The lead plaintiff filed its
consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2009, naming Cadence,
Michael J. Fister, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin
Bushby as defendants, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Cadence's common stock who traded Cadence's common stock between
April 23, 2008 and Dec. 10, 2008.

The amended complaint alleged that Cadence and the individual
defendants made statements during the Alleged Class Period
regarding Cadence's financial results that were false and
misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should have
been recognized in subsequent quarters.  The amended complaint
requested certification of the action as a class action,
unspecified damages, interest and costs, and unspecified equitable
relief.

On June 8, 2009, Cadence and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.

On Sept. 11, 2009, the District Court held that the plaintiffs had
failed to allege a valid claim under the relevant legal standards,
and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The District Court gave the plaintiffs leave to file
another amended complaint, and the plaintiffs did so on Oct. 13,
2009.

The amended complaint filed on Oct. 13, 2009, names the same
defendants, asserts the same causes of action, and seeks the same
relief as the earlier amended complaint.

Cadence moved to dismiss the Oct. 13, 2009, amended complaint.
The District Court denied the motion to dismiss on March 2, 2010.

On July 7, 2010, the parties agreed, and the District Court
ordered, that the litigation be stayed in order to facilitate a
mediation scheduled in late August 2010.

Cadence Design Systems, Inc. -- http://www.cadence.com/--
develops electronic design automation (EDA) software and hardware.
The company licenses software, sells or leases hardware
technology, and provides design, methodology and education
services throughout the world to help manage and accelerate
electronics product development processes.  Its range of products
and services are used by the electronics companies to design and
develop complex integrated circuits (ICs) and electronics systems.
The company offers its customers three license types for its
software: perpetual, term and subscription.


CAMBREX CORP: Parties Appealing Awards in Generic APIs Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter, "In Re Lorazepam & Clorazepate
Antitrust Litigation," a purported class-action complaint that
names Cambrex Corp., as a defendant, are appealing the awards
ruled by the court, 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.

Mylan Laboratories, Inc. and Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc.,
including the company and its subsidiary Profarmaco S.r.l.
currently known as Cambrex Profarmaco Milano S.r.l. have been
named in purported class action complaints brought by private
plaintiffs in various state courts on behalf of purchasers of the
active pharmaceutical ingredients ("APIs") in generic form.

The complaint make allegations similar to those raised in the
Federal Trade Commission complaint and seeking various forms of
relief including treble damages.

All of these cases have been resolved except for one brought by
three health care insurers known as "In Re Lorazepam & Clorazepate
Antitrust Litigation."

In April 2003, Cambrex reached an agreement with Mylan under which
Cambrex would contribute $12,415,000 to the settlement of
litigation brought by a class of direct purchasers which has been
fully paid as of Sept. 30, 2008.  In exchange, Cambrex and
Profarmaco received from Mylan a release and full indemnity
against future costs or liabilities in related litigation brought
by purchasers, as well as potential future claims related to this
matter.

In February 2008, the District Court, in the In Re Lorazepam &
Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation, entered judgment after trial
against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in the amount of $8,355,000,
payable jointly and severally, and also a punitive damage award
against each of Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in the amount of
$16,709,000.

In October 2008, the District Court ruled that Mylan, Gyma and
Cambrex were also subject to a total of approximately $7,000,000
in prejudgment interest.

The parties have appealed the awards and oral arguments on the
appeal are expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Cambrex Corp. -- http://www.cambrex.com/-- is a life sciences
company engaged primarily in the custom development and
manufacture of pharmaceutical ingredients derived from organic
chemistry.  Products and services are supplied globally to generic
drug companies.  Cambrex primarily supplies its products and
services to pharmaceutical and generic drug companies.  The
company's products consist of active pharmaceutical ingredients
(APIs) and pharmaceutical intermediates for use in the production
of prescription and over-the-counter drug products and other fine
custom chemicals derived from organic chemistry.


COMBAT SURVIVAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
Robb Hamic, one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit,
disclosed in a news release dated August 25, 2010, that Moni Aizik
and Combat Survival -- doing business as Commando Krava Maga or
CKM -- have finally been served with a large class action lawsuit
for fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
inducement, or tortious interference with business.  This is a
multi-million dollar lawsuit and it will positively prove all of
Pino (AKA Moni) Aizik's lies.

Plaintiffs: Robb Hamic, David Kahn, Nir Maman and Joel Gerson.

Defendants: Moni Aizik and Combat Survival (DBA CKM, Commando Krav
Maga).

In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court, in
and for Broward County, Florida, Case No: 10-33524, the plaintiffs
allege that Mr. Aizik refutes almost all of his statements about
his experience:

   a. [Mr.] Aizik never served with any Israeli Specail Forces of
      Commando units;

   b. [Mr.] Aizik never achieved any officer rank in the Israel
      Defense Special Forces (IDF);

   c. [Mr.] Aizik never contributed to the development of Krav
      Maga;

   d. [Mr.] Aizik has never instructed the IDF, its Special
      Forces, or Israeli Intelligence;

   e. [Mr.] Aizik did not serve in a combat unit during the Yom
      Kippur War;

   f. [Mr.] Aizik is not a member of Shabak, and

   g. [Mr.] Aizik was never a member of Sayeret Matkal.

The complaint stated: "All of [Mr.] Aizik's misrepresentations
were created fro the sole purpose of exaggerating his credentials
in order to induce prospective students to purchase martial arts
training from him.  [Mr.] Aizik combined the terms "commando" and
"krav maga" because [Mr.] Aizik knew these words would falsely
give him credibility, provided he maintained the fiction about his
history.  [Mr.] Aizik successfully sold the CKM story to
USADOJO.com, RealFighting.com, Inside Martial Arts Magazine, Black
Belt magazine, the History Channel's series "Human Weapon," as
well as, an appearance on the Military Channel."

Moni Aizik -- http://www.moniaizik.com/-- is the founder of
Combat Survival doing business as Commando Krav Maga.  He states
that CKM is the fastest growing reality based martial art in the
world. This business has produced millions in revenues in recent
years mainly through instructor certification classes and DVD
sales although it has lost many of its instructors due to their
mass resignations since February 2010.  Mr. Aizik has denied
claims of wrongdoing but he can't support the claims that he has
made and revised over the years through his own advertising. He is
recently quoted in a letter to Black Belt Magazine Editor Robert
Young stating that people were making false accusations against
him. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include his former top student,
former business partner, instructor and martial arts industry
leader.

Mr. Aizik has been featured prominently in the Fake Self Defense
Instructor's Blog -- http://www.fakeselfdefenseinstructors.com/--
for his fraud and misrepresentations.


DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: Being Sold for Too Little, Ill. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Diamond Management &
Technology Consultants is selling itself too cheaply to
PricewaterhouseCoopers, for $12.50 a share or $338 million,
shareholders claim in Cook County Court.

A copy of the Complain in Jeng v. Diamond Management & Technology
Consultants Inc., et al., Case No. 10CH36538 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/25/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: 312-634-0057

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

                - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM, LLP
          2501 North Harwood St., Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-583-2233


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Shareholders Ask Judge to Delay Hertz Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports attorneys
representing shareholders of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group asked
a Delaware judge on Wednesday to delay a vote on the rental car
company's proposed $1.2 billion acquisition by Hertz Global
Holdings so it can try to negotiate a better deal with Avis Budget
Group.

Dollar Thrifty shareholders are scheduled to vote Sept. 16 on the
$1.2 billion cash-and-stock offer Hertz made in April.

Earlier this month, Dollar Thrifty, based in Tulsa, Okla.,
rebuffed a $1.3 billion cash-and-stock counteroffer from Avis,
saying the proposal did not include deal protection measures or
adequately address antitrust concerns.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, at least five
Dollar Thrifty shareholder lawsuits in Oklahoma and five in
Delaware have been filed that seek to block the proposed merger
with Hertz, court documents and company filings say.

Attorneys for the shareholders claim Dollar Thrifty's directors
have breached their fiduciary duties by rejecting the Avis bid,
refusing to negotiate, and locking in a deal with Hertz.

"They've got a job to do, and their job is to get the best price,"
shareholder attorney Stephen Grygiel told Vice Chancellor Leo
Strine Jr.

"Let them have an auction," Mr. Grygiel added. "Let's see where
they get."

Mitchell Lowenthal, an attorney for Dollar Thrifty, defended the
deal with Hertz and said Avis has yet to make a better offer. He
denied suggestions that Dollar Thrifty was improperly favoring
Hertz, noting that it had walked away from merger discussions
three times in the past couple of years and gained concessions
from Hertz in the most recent deal talks.

"This was the antithesis of some kind of sweetheart arrangement,"
Mr. Lowenthal said, adding that Dollar Thrifty has not ruled out
another offer from Avis.

"We would welcome their making a truly superior proposal," he
said.

After four hours of arguments, Judge Strine said only that he
would issue his ruling sometime before the scheduled shareholder
meeting.

The judge did suggest, however, that the shareholders bear a heavy
burden in trying to convince him that he should "second-guess"
Dollar Thrifty's board.

"Are you telling me they're bad guys? And if they are bad guys,
tell me why, because your briefs don't," Judge Strine told Mr.
Grygiel.

Mr. Grygiel suggested that Dollar Thrifty's board was duped by its
financial advisers, Goldman Sachs  and JPMorgan Chase, into
accepting a bad deal, and that Goldman had a conflict of interest
because of its previous ties to Dollar Thrifty CEO Scott Thompson,
and because two former Goldman bankers serve on Hertz's board.

But Judge Strine wondered whether Avis is simply trying to blow up
Dollar Thrifty's deal with rival Hertz, and why Avis had not come
back with an offer that better addresses Dollar Thrifty's
concerns.

"What the heck's going on with Avis, given that they can't
reconfigure their deal?" he said.

Hertz, based in Park Ridge, N.J., offered Dollar Thrifty a deal
valued at about $41 per share, which the shareholders argue does
not reflect an adequate premium.

Avis, based in Parsippany, N.J., offered a deal valued at more
than $47 per share, but without the $45 million breakup fee Hertz
agreed to pay if it fails to complete its acquisition.

"Avis won't offer up to pay any termination fee if it fails to get
antitrust approval," Judge Strine noted. ". . . It must be that
they take the antitrust risk pretty seriously, because they don't
want to pay a reverse termination fee."

Mr. Lowenthal, the Dollar Thrifty attorney, suggested that Avis
ran a higher risk of not winning regulatory approval because its
Budget Rent A Car division and Dollar Thrifty have similar market
shares of airport car rentals aimed at leisure travelers, while
Hertz's Advantage Rent A Car has only a tiny slice of that market.

Mr. Lowenthal added that while Avis faces more antitrust pressure
than Hertz, the value of the assets it has offered to divest to
win regulatory approval is $10 million less than what Hertz has
offered to divest.

Mr. Grygiel, the shareholders' attorney, countered that deal
certainty doesn't trump Dollar Thrifty's duty under Delaware law
to get the best price it can from a buyer.

But Judge Strine noted that a higher price doesn't mean anything
if the buyer can't close the deal, and that he didn't think it
would be right to block a shareholder vote on Hertz's offer "so
Avis can be told in crayon something they obviously know."


FEDEX GROUND: Judge Miller Rules Owner-Operators Are Not Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Dunn at eTrucker.com reports FedEx Ground won a victory
applicable to its other class action cases when a federal judge
ruled the company's owner-operators in Kansas are not employees.

On Aug. 11, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. for the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana ruled in favor of the
Tennessee-based company.  The right of a company to control an
employee's work is key in common law, he said.

"If several other factors weighed strongly in favor of employee
status, the right to control analysis, standing alone, might not
be enough under these facts to establish independent contractor
status," Judge Miller wrote. "But many of the other factors also
point to independent contractor status, and when viewing all the
various factors together, the court finds that the drivers are
independent contractors as a matter of law."

While some facts point to FedEx's right to control, "they don't
raise to the level of control necessary to show employee status,"
he said.

FedEx's 2010 annual report, issued June 16, noted FedEx Ground was
involved in 50 class action lawsuits, several individual lawsuits
and 40 state tax and other administrative proceedings over the
independent contractor issue.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings into Judge Miller's
court.

Last week, former and current FedEx Ground Package System owner-
operators filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the company. They sought class
action status for themselves and FedEx Home Delivery owner-
operators, charging they should have been classified as employees.

On July 15, FedEx Ground agreed to pay $3 million to Massachusetts
to settle claims that the company misclassified drivers as
independent contractors.


GATCO INC: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Holster" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
a federal district court's dismissal of a putative class action
filed by Charles E. Holster, III, against Gatco, Inc., doing
business as Folio Associates, for lack of jurisdiction.

The Second Circuit notes that the case centers on the intersection
of four laws:

   (a) the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which
       provides a statutory penalty of $500 for each instance of
       unsolicited, commercial fax transmission and a federal
       cause of action "if otherwise permitted by the laws or
       rules of court of a State.";

   (b) New York C.P.L.R. 901(b), which prohibits class-action
       suits seeking statutory damages;

   (c) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which authorizes class-
       action suits in federal courts when various criteria are
       met; and

   (d) the federal Class Action Fairness Act, which gives federal
       courts jurisdiction over class actions alleging at least $5
       million of damages so long as there is minimal diversity
       among the parties.

Alleging violations of the TCPA, Charles Holster sued Gatco, Inc.,
in federal court in a putative class action under Rule 23. He
grounded federal jurisdiction in CAFA. Gatco moved to dismiss,
claiming that, due to C.P.L.R. 901(b), a class action could not be
maintained in New York.  Relying on the TCPA's "otherwise
permitted" language, Gatco argued that, as a result, no suit could
lie under the TCPA and therefore that CAFA could not apply.  That
meant, Gatco concluded, that the district court lacked
jurisdiction.  The district court agreed and dismissed the case.

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the
Second Circuit's decision, and remanded the case for
reconsideration.

The Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that

The Second Circuit affirmed in a summary order predicated on a
case decided the same day, raising the same issue, Bonime v.
Avaya, Inc., 547 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 2008). Holster v. Gatco, Inc.,
No. 07-2191-cv, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23203 (2d Cir. Oct. 31,
2008). In Bonime, the Second Circuit held that C.P.L.R. 901(b)
applied to TCPA actions in New York for two, independent, reasons:

   (1) The Second Circuit explained that "because Congress
       directed that the TCPA be applied as if it were a state
       law," the Erie doctrine required federal courts to apply
       C.P.L.R. 901(b) to TCPA claims in New York. Bonime, 547
       F.3d at 501. To hold otherwise, the Second Circuit said,
       "would create a predictable and foreseeable outcome-
       determinative difference that would strongly encourage
       forum shopping and create inequitable administration of the
       laws." Id. at 501-02.

   (2) The Second Circuit found that the specific language of the
       TCPA that allows a person to sue under it only "if
       otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a
       State," 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3), "constitutes an
       express limitation on the TCPA which federal courts are
       required to respect." Bonime, 547 F.3d at 502. A
       concurrence further explained this second rationale.
       Because federal law (the TCPA) uses state law to define the
       federal cause of action, when the state refuses to
       recognize that cause of action, "there remains [nothing] to
       which any grant of federal court jurisdiction could
       attach." Id. at 503 (Calabresi, J., concurring).

Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the
Second Circuit's decision, and remanded the case for
reconsideration in light of its opinion in Shady Grove Orthopedic
Associates, P.A., v. Allstate Insurance Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431
(2010).

The Second Circuit now must decide the extent to which Shady Grove
undercuts each of its separate and independent holdings in Bonime.
Though the Second Circuit finds the first ground abrogated by
Shady Grove, the Second Circuit sees nothing in the Court's
holding that undermines the second ground, which rests not on the
relationship between the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
state rules, but on the unique nature of the federal action the
TCPA created.

A copy of the Second Circuit's decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100824090


HOMETOWN AMERICA: Loses Appeal on Judgment for Liberty Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota affirmed a district court
judgment that Liberty Insurance Corporation did not have a duty to
defend or indemnify Hometown America, LLC, in a class action.

Hometown America, LLC owns and operates the Cimarron Manufactured
Home Park.  As part of its monthly rental fee for leases entered
into before February 2001, Hometown provided water and sewer
services.  Cimarron residents brought a class action against
Hometown, alleging a breach of contract for failing to provide
water and sewer services as part of the monthly rental fee.

At the conclusion of the October 2004 trial, a jury ruled in favor
of the Cimarron residents and assessed the damages at $288,697.21.
Hometown moved for a new trial or remittitur.  The district court
denied the motion and Hometown appealed the judgment.

On September 6, 2005, while the appeal was pending and more than
ten months after the conclusion of the jury trial, Hometown sent a
letter to Liberty tendering its defense in the class action and
several other similar actions. On October 6, 2005, Liberty denied
a duty to defend or indemnify Hometown in any of the actions.

Hometown brought a declaratory-judgment action in May 2008,
alleging that Liberty breached its duty to defend and indemnify
Hometown.  Liberty moved for summary judgment, which the district
court granted based on the combination of the jury's findings and
the date that Hometown tendered its defense to Liberty.

A copy of the Court of Appeals' decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inmnco20100824224


MILESTONE AV: Recalls 131,000 Flat Screen Television Wall Mounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Milestone AV Technologies LLC, of Savage, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 131,000 flat screen television wall
mounts.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The elbow joint components on the wall mount's arm do not fit
together properly, causing the attached television to tilt and
possibly fall when the television is adjusted.  This could pose an
injury hazard to a consumer

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the Sanus Vision Mount model LF228-B1 wall
mounts and Simplicity model SLF2.  The wall mounts were sold for
flat screen televisions.  The model numbers can be found on the UL
sticker on the wall plate.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10326.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
the Sanus Vision Mount model LF228-B1 was sold through independent
television mount dealers nationwide from June 2009 through July
2010 for about $450.  The Simplicity model SLF2 was sold through
Costco from June 2009 through July 2010 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately inspect the wall mount to determine
if the elbow joint fits properly and contact Milestone for a free
replacement wall mount arm.  Instructions for visual inspections
are located at http://www.milestone.com/recall/  For additional
information, contact Milestone toll-free at (877) 894-6280 between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday and
between 10:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Central Time, Saturday through
Sunday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.milestone.com/recall/


MINNESOTA: Settles Gang Strike Force Suit for $3 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Mara H. Gottfried, writing for The Pioneer Press, reports Zelaido
Rivera Garcia went to the Minneapolis impound lot in 2008 to pick
up his car.  His encounter there with Metro Gang Strike Force
officers left him shaken.

"They were very aggressive," Mr. Garcia said Wednesday, speaking
through an interpreter. "They said that we shouldn't look at them,
at their faces."

Mr. Garcia said police humiliated and taunted him and others at
the impound lot. "We had not done anything," he said. "We were
just trying to retrieve our car that had been picked up by the tow
truck."

Officers took Mr. Garcia's wallet. When they returned it, he said,
$100 was missing.

That $100, and the ordeals of others whose money was seized by
strike force officers, mushroomed to a $3 million settlement of a
federal lawsuit announced Wednesday.

"I see that justice has been served," Mr. Garcia said of the
settlement, which awaits court approval. "We all need to be
respected as human beings. We all have rights."

Up to 200 people could be eligible for awards, said Randy Hopper,
an attorney for the plaintiffs.

After claims are paid, a "significant portion of the settlement
will fund additional statewide" training for officers "about
cultural and racial sensitivity, property handling procedures and
basic constitutional rights," according to a news release.

One year and five days before Wednesday's settlement was
announced, an independent review of the now-defunct Metro Gang
Strike Force was issued.

Two cases highlighted were those of Garcia and Dagoberto
Rodriguez-Cardona, from whom officers took $4,500 at the impound
lot (Rodriguez-Cardona's lawsuit in state court was settled for
$70,000 in the spring).

The men didn't know each other, were not gang members and didn't
have any drugs in their possession, but they had two things in
common: Both were Hispanic and illegal immigrants.

The strike force review found some of its officers would stop
people not suspected of gang activity and seize their money.

"These encounters almost always involved a person of color," the
report said.

The lawsuit also claimed that strike force members "engaged in a
pattern and practice of using their apparent authority as police
officers to extort cash and property . . . particularly from those
concerned about their immigration status who would naturally
perceive that they had no ability to assert legal rights."

In May 2009, the state legislative auditor issued a report about
the strike force, saying the agency couldn't account for more than
$18,000 in seized cash and 14 seized cars. The review released
last August found perhaps a dozen strike force employees engaged
in misconduct, and some in criminal acts, by taking seized goods
for their own use.

Minnesota's public safety commissioner asked the FBI to
investigate. The Hennepin County attorney's office has taken over
the investigation, federal and state sources said.

The settlement announced Wednesday is "absolutely not" an
admission of guilt, said Kori Land, an attorney representing the
strike force's advisory board.

"We think we have a very defensible position in the class action,
but in the interest of all the parties we felt like this was the
best approach," she said.

The next steps are for a judge to certify the case as a class
action and approve the settlement.

The proposed class is "all persons who . . . have been stopped,
questioned, arrested, charged, frisked, detained or searched . . .
or whose dwelling was searched . . . by a peace officer or peace
officers serving on or assisting the (strike force) . . . in an
incident where property was taken . . . without a receipt or
inventory itemization, or . . . without notification to the
property owner of his or her right to contest the forfeiture,"
according to court papers.

How many people could compose the class isn't known, but attorneys
are looking to the legislative auditor's report as guidance. In
202 of 545 seizures of cash, there was no documentation that the
strike force served required notices of seizure to the owners, the
report found. About 100 people have come forward so far, Mr.
Hopper said.

The court will appoint a special master, who will determine which
claims merit an award, Mr. Hopper said.

A phone hotline set up in October to handle claims from people who
believe strike force officers improperly seized their cash or
property will be shut when the court approves the settlement, Land
said. Through that process, settlements have been made with about
10 people, using strike force funds. Five were paid a total of
$7,794, Land said. Their recoveries could suggest the amounts of
future payouts, she said.

The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust insured the gang
strike force and will pay the $3 million.  The settlement calls
for defendants to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees.

Mr. Hopper said the settlement's training component was "something
we worked hard to achieve . . . (to) address many of the issues
that arose during the course of this debacle."

Mr. Hopper said he believed the civil justice system worked to
hold the government accountable.

"Everybody was failed here in the Twin Cities, everybody had a
loss here," he said. "The Constitution didn't work for all of us
when this rogue task force was run amok out there, violating
people's rights. . . . This is an ugly chapter, I'm sorry to say,
in the life of the Twin Cities. But it ends positively, it ends on
a good note."


NORTHERN TRUST: Accused in Ill. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed Tuesday that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Northern Trust Corporation
NTRS common stock during the period between October 17, 2007 and
October 20, 2009.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a
copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/northerntrust/ Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Northern Trust and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Northern Trust is a financial holding company that provides
asset servicing, fund administration, investment management,
banking and fiduciary solutions for corporations, institutions and
affluent individuals worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results and engaged in improper
behavior that harmed Northern Trust's investors by failing to
disclose the extent of its seriously delinquent commercial real
estate loans and the true nature and risks associated with its
once highly profitable securities lending program. As a result of
defendants' false statements, Northern Trust's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $87.20 per share on September 11, 2008. While Northern
Trust's stock was artificially inflated due to defendants' false
statements, certain top officers and directors of the Company sold
over 1.5 million shares of their Northern Trust stock for proceeds
of over $106.5 million.

Then, on October 21, 2009, before the market opened, Northern
Trust reported its third quarter 2009 earnings results, announcing
third quarter results that fell short of expectations due in part
to a serious decline in the Company's securities lending program
and to continuing pressure from its non-performing loans. On this
news, Northern Trust's stock fell $3.29 per share to close at
$54.16 per share on October 21, 2009, a one-day decline of nearly
6% on volume of over 8.55 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) defendants failed to properly
account for Northern Trust's commercial real estate loans, failing
to reflect impairment in the loans; (b) Northern Trust had not
adequately reserved for loan losses such that its financial
statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles; (c) Northern Trust had not disclosed the
true risk associated with the Company's securities lending
program, as the Company was engaging in excessively risky
investment practices by investing collateral pools in high risk
investments; (d) the disruption to the Company's securities
lending program was not temporary and would significantly impact
the Company's business and outlook; and (e) the deterioration in
the Company's operating results from its securities lending
business was not primarily attributable to negative returns
associated with one of its collateral funds that used mark-to-
market accounting or to a decline in overall borrowing demand, but
rather, in large part, to an overall decline in the supply of
securities available for loans.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Northern Trust common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff
is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- a 180-lawyer firm with
offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major
litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.

                    Northern Trust Responds

Craig McGlashan at GSL.tv reports Northern Trust has responded to
a class action filed against it by describing the case as "wholly
without merit".

A spokesperson for Northern Trust responded to the allegation as
follows: "On August 24, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in federal court
in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Northern Trust stock during the period from
October 17, 2007 to October 20, 2009.  The complaint is wholly
without merit and Northern Trust will vigorously defend itself."

A copy of the Complaint in NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur
Plan) v. Northern Trust Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-05339
(N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/25/NorthernTrust.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Faning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312/332-3400
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
                  lfanning@millerlawllc.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: 619/231-1058

               - and -

          Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq.
          CAVANAGH & O'HARA
          407 East Adams St.
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: 217/544-1771


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Multi-District Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a multi-district litigation, including Ocwen
Financial Corporation, have agreed in principle to settle a multi-
district litigation over the defendants mortgage servicing
practices, 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 company has been included as a defendant in multiparty
lawsuits brought by borrowers in various federal and state courts
challenging the defendants' mortgage servicing practices,
including charging improper or unnecessary fees, misapplying
borrower payments, and similar allegations.  In April 2004,
defendants' petition was granted to transfer and consolidate a
number of such lawsuits into a single proceeding pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the MDL
Proceeding).

Additional lawsuits similar to the MDL Proceeding have
subsequently been brought in other courts, some of which have been
or may be transferred to and consolidated in the MDL Proceeding.
The borrowers in many of these lawsuits seek class action
certification.  Others have brought individual actions.  No class
has been certified in the MDL Proceeding or any related lawsuits.

In April 2005, the trial court in the MDL Proceeding entered a
partial summary judgment in favor of defendants holding that
plaintiffs' signed loan contracts authorized the collection of
certain fees by Ocwen as servicer for the related mortgages.  In
May 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint containing various
claims under several federal statutes, state deceptive trade
practices statutes and common law.  No specific amounts of damages
are asserted, however, plaintiffs may amend the complaint to seek
damages should the matter proceed to trial.

In June 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
issued an opinion holding that many of the claims were preempted
or failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the applicable
rules of procedure and directing the trial judge to seek
clarification from the plaintiffs so as to properly determine
which particular claims must be dismissed.

In March 2009, the trial court struck the amended complaint in its
entirety on the grounds of vagueness.  In April 2009, plaintiffs
filed a third amended complaint which defendants moved to dismiss.
The motion is fully briefed and pending decision by the trial
court.

The company says it believes the allegations in the MDL Proceeding
are without merit.  However, in the interests of obtaining
finality and cost certainty with regard to this complex and
protracted litigated matter, in July 2010, defendants, including
Ocwen, have reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs'
counsel with respect to a class settlement.

Ocwen's portion of the proposed settlement would be $5,163,000
plus certain other non-cash consideration.  Specific terms remain
to be negotiated and any final settlement agreement would be
subject to definitive written settlement documents and court
approval.

Ocwen Financial Corporation - http://www.ocwen.com/-- is a
leading provider of residential and commercial loan servicing,
special servicing and asset management services.  Ocwen is
headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida with offices in
California, the District of Columbia and Georgia and support
operations in India and Uruguay.  Utilizing proprietary technology
and world-class training and processes, the company provides
solutions that make its clients' loans worth more.


PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Agrees to Settle Two Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., has agreed in principle to settle two
consolidated suits arising out of its planned merger with
Universal Health Services, Inc., according to the company's
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On May 16, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Universal Health Services, Inc., and Olympus
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of UHS.  Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and
into the company, with the company continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of UHS.

Seven putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of
alleged public stockholders of the company.

Two of the lawsuits, Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia v.
Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 38359, and Pedric v.
Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 38391, were filed in
the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee.

One of the lawsuits, Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-862-II, was filed in the Chancery Court for Davidson
County, Tennessee.  The Smith case was transferred to Williamson
County.

Another three lawsuits, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. CA 5514, City of Miami Police
Relief and Pension Fund v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 5515, and
Plumbers & Pipefitters, Local 152 Pension Fund v. Psychiatric
Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 5532, were filed in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware.

A seventh lawsuit, Rosinek v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:10-cv-00534, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The defendants generally include the company, members of its board
of directors and, in certain of the cases, the company's officers.

UHS or its affiliates are named as defendants in some of the
lawsuits.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that our directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
Merger by failing to maximize stockholder value.  The lawsuits
also allege that the company's directors have put their personal
interests ahead of those of the stockholders, including by
approving the Merger to extinguish any personal liability they
could suffer from previously asserted derivative claims related
to, among other things, violations of fiduciary duties and federal
securities laws and also by negotiating a Merger Agreement that
includes broad director and officer insurance and indemnification
provisions protecting them against civil and criminal claims for
six years from the date of the Merger Agreement.

Certain of the lawsuits allege that various individual defendants
will receive improper change of control payments and Merger
Consideration in connection with equity awards that plaintiffs
contend were improper.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege that
the company and UHS aided and abetted the various breaches of
fiduciary duty.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege that various
individual defendants caused us to issue a proxy statement
containing materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in connection with the company's 2010 annual stockholder
meeting.  Among other things, the lawsuits seek to enjoin us and
our directors from consummating the Merger and also seek
rescission of the allegedly improper equity awards.

The three Delaware cases were consolidated and set for trial
beginning on Aug. 5, 2010.

The three Tennessee state court cases were consolidated in
Williamson County, and then stayed in favor of the consolidated
Delaware action by agreed order of the Williamson County court.

After substantially completing fact discovery in the consolidated
Delaware action, without admitting liability on the part of any of
the defendants, the parties to the consolidated Delaware action
and the consolidated Tennessee state court action have agreed in
principle to these terms of settlement:

     (1) requiring additional disclosures in the proxy statement
         to be delivered to stockholders in connection with the
         Special Meeting called to vote on the Merger regarding,
         among other things, the background of and negotiations
         relating to the Merger, the Executive Performance
         Incentive Plan, the amendment to the company's 2009
         Long-Term Equity Compensation Plan and adoption of the
         2010 Long-Term Equity Compensation Plan, the
         circumstances surrounding the company's compensation
         committee's approval of equity and restricted stock
         grants in February 2010, and the financial disclosures
         relating to the transaction, including the discounted
         cash flow and other analyses performed by Goldman Sachs
         & Co.;

     (2) allowing the company's stockholders to revote on the
         proposal to amend the Equity Incentive Plan to increase
         the number of shares of Common Stock subject to grant
         under the Equity Incentive Plan by 900,000 and to
         restrict the repricing of options, which was approved
         by the stockholders at the company's annual meeting of
         stockholders in May 2010;

     (3) requiring the release by the class of stockholders
         entitled to vote on the Merger of any and all claims
         that have been or could have been made against any of
         the defendants relating to the Merger, the disclosures
         made by or on behalf of the company through and
         including consummation of the Merger, and the
         compensation received by any defendant through and
         including the consummation of the Merger; and

     (4) requiring the company to pay plaintiffs' reasonable
         attorneys' fees and expenses in the amounts ordered by
         the courts.

The settlements in those actions are subject to court approval,
which has not yet been obtained.  The settlement will not affect
the form or amount of the consideration to be received by our
stockholders in the Merger.  The defendants have denied and
continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to all
claims, events, and transactions complained of in the
aforementioned lawsuits or that they have engaged in any
wrongdoing.  The defendants have entered into the settlement to
eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction
of further litigation.

The Rosinek case remains pending in the United States District
Court in Tennessee, but a motion has been filed asking the court
to stay that proceeding in favor of the consolidated Delaware
action.

Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.psysolutions.com/--
offers an extensive continuum of behavioral health programs to
critically ill children, adolescents and adults and is the largest
operator of owned or leased freestanding psychiatric inpatient
facilities with over 11,000 beds in 32 states, Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands.  PSI also manages freestanding psychiatric
inpatient facilities for government agencies and psychiatric
inpatient units within medical/surgical hospitals owned by others.


ROWAN COS: Disputes Claim of Former Subsidiary's Purchaser
----------------------------------------------------------
Rowan Companies, Inc., continues to dispute the claim that it is
responsible for any exposure the purchaser of its aviation
subsidiary has.  Rowan's former aviation subsidiary has been named
as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, 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 2005, the company learned that the U.S. Department of
Justice was conducting an investigation of potential antitrust
violations among helicopter transportation providers in the Gulf
of Mexico.  Rowan's former aviation subsidiary, which was sold
effective Dec. 31, 2004, received a subpoena in connection with
the investigation.

The company has not been contacted by the DOJ, but the purchaser
claimed that Rowan is responsible for any exposure it may have.
The company has disputed that claim.

On Aug. 6, 2009, the company received a letter from the purchaser
informing the company that Rowan's former aviation subsidiary has
been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
alleging antitrust violations and claiming that Rowan is
responsible for any exposure the purchaser may have under the
lawsuit.  The company says it disputes that claim as well.

Rowan Companies, Inc. -- http://www.rowancompanies.com/-- is a
major provider of international and domestic contract drilling
services.  The company also owns and operates a manufacturing
division that produces equipment for the drilling, mining and
timber industries.


SCANA CORP: Continues to Defend "Gressette/Rudd" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation continues to defend the matter Douglas E.
Gressette and Mark Rudd, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated v. South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company and SCANA Communications, Inc.

In May 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company in South Carolina's Circuit
Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

The plaintiffs allege that SCE&G made improper use of certain
electric transmission easements and rights-of-way by allowing
fiber optic communication lines and wireless communication
equipment to transmit communications other than SCE&G's
electricity-related internal communications.  The plaintiffs
asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment, trespass,
injunction and declaratory judgment, but did not assert a specific
dollar amount for the claims.

SCE&G believes its actions are consistent with governing law and
the applicable documents granting easements and rights-of-way.

In June 2007, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that limits the
plaintiffs' purported class to easement grantors situated in
Charleston County, South Carolina.  In February 2008, the Circuit
Court issued an order to conditionally certify the class, which
remains limited to easements in Charleston County.  In July 2008,
the plaintiffs' motion to add SCI to the lawsuit as an additional
defendant was granted.

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.

Headquartered in Cayce, South Carolina, SCANA Corporation -
http://www.scana.com/-- is an energy-based holding company
principally engaged, through subsidiaries, in electric and natural
gas utility operations and other energy-related businesses.  The
company serves approximately 660,000 electric customers in South
Carolina and more than 1.2 million natural gas customers in South
Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia.


SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fraud in New Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------------
T.S. Last at El Defensor Chieftain reports that a lawsuit taking
aim at Socorro Electric Cooperative officials, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and fraud, was filed in 13th Judicial District
Court in Los Lunas in New Mexico on Tuesday, Aug. 24.

The cross claim and request for class action certification comes
in response to Socorro Electric's lawsuit against its
approximately 10,000 member-owners.  The co-op's filing nearly two
months ago challenges three of a bevy of reform-related bylaws
overwhelming passed at the annual meeting in April.

All three bylaws being contested address transparency of
governance, calling for meetings to be open to members and the
press and allowing them access to co-op records, data and audits
with some limitations.

Named as the representative party for the class of member-owners
is Charlie Wagner, a member of Socorro Electric's board of
trustees and a leader in the movement to reform the co-op.

While Mr. Wagner's name is attached, he said the counter claim is
really for the benefit of member-owners.

"This is simply about correcting what has been generations of
disobeying bylaws and using the trustee position to increase
trustees' income," Mr. Wagner said. "They (trustees) have wasted a
great deal of corporate assets on improving benefits for
themselves, while neglecting the interests of members. Instead of
working on behalf of members, they've actually worked against the
interests of members."

Named as defendants in the countersuit are trustees Luis Aguilar,
Leroy Anaya, Jack Bruton, Paul Bustamante, Leo Cordova, Prescilla
Mauldin, Milton Ulibarri, Dave Wade and Don Wolberg; former
trustees Harold Baca, Juan Gonzales, Manny Marquez and Herman
Romero; and General Manger Polo Pineda Jr., who is now on
administrative leave while an investigation into financial
irregularities is being conducted.

Filed Tuesday afternoon, Aug. 24, in Valencia County, none of the
co-op officials, nor Socorro Electric attorney Dennis Francish,
had seen the 31-page document so they were unable to comment
before El Defensor Chieftain deadline.

The team of attorneys representing Mr. Wagner and the class of
member-owners includes law partners Lee Deschamps and Stephen
Kortemeier of Socorro.

Significantly, also on board is one of the lawyers who helped win
a monumental class action lawsuit against the largest rural
electric utility in the country.

Austin, Texas-attorney William "Bill" Ikard represented plaintiffs
in a class action suit that won a $23 million settlement against
Pedernales Electric Cooperative in 2009.  The judgment led to a
complete overhaul of the Pedernales board and top management and
drastically changed the manner in which that co-op goes about its
business.

Mr. Ikard, who is listed as lead attorney in the case, said during
a phone interview that the issues surrounding Socorro Electric and
those dealt with in the Pedernales case are similar.

"There are marked differences mainly based on the size," he said,
noting that Pedernales serves roughly 225,000 customers as
compared to the 10,000 or so served by the Socorro co-op. "But the
issues of absence of democracy, failure to provide good
governance, transparency, abuses in expenses and salaries are very
similar.  The allegations are, frankly, beyond dispute.  The
claims have merit and it needs to get its day in court."

Mr. Ikard said he's also currently engaged in another lawsuit of a
similar vein involving Nueces Electric Cooperative in southern
Texas.

Mr. Kortemeier said Mr. Ikard's experience in such cases can only
serve to benefit the effort in Socorro.

"One of the requirements for a class action is the party has to
certify to the court that they have experience in class action,
and this is where Mr. Ikard proves invaluable," he said. "The
second thing is in dealing with these issues, he has the map.
Having been there before, he knows what it looks like. It's like
going hunting with a guide."

Mr. Ikard's law partner, Anne S. Wynne, and William Kilgarlin, a
former Texas Supreme Court Judge affiliated with the firm, are
also listed as lawyers for the cross claim plaintiffs.

The counterclaim targets the trustees who voted in May to
challenge the newly adopted bylaws with a lawsuit against member-
owners.  Also named are four longstanding former trustees, three
of whom were defeated in district elections last year as the
reform movement gained momentum (Baca, Gonzales and Romero) and
another who resigned earlier this year (Marquez).

Mr. Pineda is named individually and in his capacity as general
manager.

"This class action lawsuit is not intended to harm the SEC or its
service to its members, and neither is it aimed at the rank-and-
file dedicated employees," the document reads. "Instead, this
lawsuit seeks to place responsibility on the trustees and officers
for a variety of wrongful practices, to recover on behalf of
member-owners for the damages caused by these wrongful practices,
and to reform the organization so that it operates democratically,
transparently, and in the best interest of its members."

The suit lists 16 counts against the defendants covering a wide
range of alleged improprieties.

The lawsuit claims defendants breached fiduciary duty by:

   * Maintaining a system of grossly unequal election districts
     contrary to the co-op's bylaws

   * Imposing and maintaining restrictions on voting

   * Failing to follow contractual responsibilities set forth in
     the Rural Electric Cooperative Act and the co-op's own bylaws

   * Failing to manage the co-op democratically and with
     transparency in the best interest of its member-owners

   * Mismanaging finances and accounting records

   * Paying excessive compensation to trustees and "key" employees
     in the form of per diem, reimbursements and benefits

Further, the suit alleges that the co-op officials "have and
continue to deceitfully conceal their wrongdoing and fraudulently
conceal their unlawful conduct in order to avoid liability for
it."

In stating its position, the lawsuit claims defendants "are liable
for exemplary damages based on malice, willful, reckless or wanton
behavior, fraudulent behavior or acts or omissions done in bad
faith."

The countersuit calls for the court to remove the defendants from
their positions and replace them through a method determined by
the court. It asks the court to make the defendants pay back the
money deemed to be in excess of reasonable compensation out of
their own pockets.

To determine the extent of damages, it calls for the court to
enter judgment requiring an independent accounting of all
transactions for the past 10 years.

In addition, member-owners are to receive patronage capital
payments, which otherwise should have been retired and repaid.

As a private, non-profit organization, member-owners are to share
in the profits the co-op earns.

Finally, the suit calls for the defendants to pay the plaintiffs'
attorney fees and court costs.


SOUTHERN STAR: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in "Price" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. said in its August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
doesn't know if plaintiffs in these lawsuits intend to proceed
with the merits of their claims, absent class certification, or
plan to move to dismiss these lawsuits:

   -- Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case
      No. 99 C 30, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas, or
      Price Litigation I

   -- Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case
      No. 03 C 23, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas, or
      Price Litigation II

Will Price, et al., filed the Price I suit on May 28, 1999,
against more than 50 defendants, including Central.  Asserting
theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and
unjust enrichment, their Fourth Amended Class Action Petition
alleges that the defendants have under measured the volume of, and
therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained
from or measured for Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages.  On August
22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of
Central. Despite a denial by the Court on April 10, 2003 of their
original motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs continue
to seek the certification of a class.

The Price II suit, filed May 12, 2003, was initiated by the same
plaintiffs in the Price I suit against the same defendants,
including Central.  Asserting substantially identical legal and
equitable theories, as in Price Litigation I, the Price II
petition alleges that the defendants have under measured the
British thermal units, or Btu, content of, and therefore have
underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured
for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages,
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the
right to plead for punitive damages.  On November 10, 2003, an
answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central.

The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
Plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price Litigation
I, was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.

On September 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider
that ruling on October 2, 2009. The defendants, including Central,
filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration on January 18, 2010.  The Plaintiffs filed a
reply, and oral argument, which was presented before a different
judge, was heard on February 10, 2010.

By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the Plaintiff's
October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier denial of class
certification. The Plaintiffs did not file for interlocutory
review of the March 31, 2010 order.

Southern Star said it is unknown at this time whether the
Plaintiffs intend to proceed with the merits of their claims,
absent class certification or plan to move to dismiss the lawsuit.

                     About Southern Star

Headquartered in Owensboro, Ky., Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding
company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations and
development opportunities.  The company operates through its
wholly owned operating subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Central).  Central is an interstate natural gas
transportation company that owns and operates a natural gas
pipeline system. The pipeline system operates in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. The
system serves customers in these seven states, including
metropolitan areas in Kansas and Missouri, its main market areas.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, Central's natural gas
pipeline system had a mainline delivery capacity of approximately
2.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per day, and is
composed of approximately 6,000 miles of mainline and branch
transmission and storage pipelines.


STERLING CHEMICALS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Chemicals, Inc., is awaiting the outcome of an appeal
filed by plaintiffs from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas' order dismissing all of their claims against
the company, according to the company's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On February 21, 2007, three retired employees of Sterling Fibers,
Inc., one of the company's former subsidiaries, sued the company,
several of its benefit plans and the plan administrators for those
plans in a class action suit, Case No. H-07-0625 filed in the
District Court.  The plaintiffs allege that the company was not
permitted to increase their premiums for retiree medical insurance
based on a provision contained in an asset purchase agreement
among the company, Sterling Fibers, Inc., and Cytec Industries,
Inc., and certain of its affiliates governing the company's
purchase of its former acrylic fibers business in 1997.

During the company's bankruptcy case, it specifically rejected
this asset purchase agreement and the bankruptcy court approved
that rejection. The plaintiffs claimed that the company violated
the terms of the benefit plans and breached fiduciary duties
governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and failed
to comply with sections of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with
retiree benefits, and sought damages, declaratory relief, punitive
damages and attorneys' fees.

A trial for this matter was held during the second week of
November 2009.

On July 1, 2010, the judge ruled for the company on the merits and
dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal on July 16, 2010.  The company will
vigorously seek the appellate court's affirmation of the trial
judge's ruling.

The company is unable to state at this time if a loss is probable
or remote and is unable to determine the possible range of loss
related to this matter, if any.

Headquartered in Houston Texas, Sterling is a producer of selected
petrochemicals used to manufacture a wide array of consumer goods
and industrial products throughout the world.  The company's
primary products are currently acetic acid and plasticizers.


THEGLOBE.COM: Objectors' Brief on Settlement Appeal Due Oct. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefs relating to an appeal of an order issued by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York approving the
settlement in a lawsuit involving theglobe.com, inc., are due in
October, according to the company's August 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On and after August 3, 2001, six putative shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against theglobe.com, inc., certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and several investment
banks that were the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering and secondary offering.  The lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the
operative complaint, was filed in the Southern District of New
York on April 19, 2002.  The lawsuit purports to be a class action
filed on behalf of purchasers of the stock of the Company during
the period from November 12, 1998, through December 6, 2000.  The
purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs
allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in
the Company's initial public offering and its secondary offering
to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
The plaintiffs allege that the Prospectuses for the Company's
initial public offering and its secondary offering were false and
misleading and in violation of the securities laws because it did
not disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants
from the case without prejudice.  This dismissal disposed of the
Section 15 and 20(a) control person claims without prejudice.

At the Court's request, the plaintiffs selected six "focus" cases,
which do not include the Company.  The Court indicated that its
decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide strong
guidance for the parties in the remaining cases.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated a decision by the District Court granting class
certification in the focus cases.  On April 6, 2007, the Second
Circuit denied a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs,
but noted that the plaintiffs could ask the District Court to
certify more narrow classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases reached a
settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in the
coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including theglobe.

On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

A group of three objectors has filed a petition to the Second
Circuit seeking permission to appeal the District Court's final
approval order on the basis that the settlement class is broader
than the class previously rejected by the Second Circuit in its
December 5, 2006 order vacating the District Court's order
certifying classes in the focus cases.  The plaintiffs have filed
an opposition to the petition.  Objectors, including the objectors
that filed the petition seeking permission to appeal, filed six
notices of appeal of the Court's order finally approving the
settlement.  The deadline to file additional notices of appeal has
run.

Subject to court approval, the Objectors will file their briefs in
the Second Circuit no later than October 6, 2010, and answering
briefs will be due no later than February 3, 2011.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.  If
the settlement does not survive appeal and the Company is found
liable, the Company is unable to estimate or predict the potential
damages that might be awarded, whether the damages would be
greater than the Company's insurance coverage, and whether the
damages would have a material impact on the Company's results of
operations or financial condition in any future period.

theglobe.com, inc. -- http://www.theglobe.com/-- is a shell
company.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company had no material
operations or assets.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, theglobe has no plans
to acquire or start-up any new businesses.  On Sept. 29, 2008,
the company sold the business and substantially all of the assets
of its Tralliance Corporation subsidiary to Tralliance Registry
Management.  theglobe received earn-out rights from Tralliance
Registry Management, which will constitute the only source of
future revenue for theglobe as a shell company.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Garcia" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. continues to await approval of a
settlement agreement resolving a second amended consolidated
cross-complaint and complaint captioned Garcia v. Toyota Motor
Credit Corporation, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A cross-complaint alleging a class action in the Superior Court of
California Stanislaus County, filed in August 2007, claims that
TMCC's post-repossession notice failed to comply with the Rees-
Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of California.   Three
additional putative class action complaints or cross-complaints
were filed making similar allegations.  The cases were coordinated
in the California Superior Court, Stanislaus County and a Second
Amended Consolidated Cross-Complaint and Complaint was
subsequently filed in March 2009.

The Second Amended Consolidated Cross-Complaint and Complaint
seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement and other
equitable relief under California's Unfair Competition Law.

As a result of mediation in January 2010, the parties agreed to
settle all of the foregoing matters.  The proposed settlement, for
which the company has adequately accrued, is subject to
preliminary and final court approval.

A fourth case was recently filed which the court has included in
the settlement.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial equipment
dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range of finance
products, including retail financing, leasing, and dealer
financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and their
customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and claims
administration related to covering certain risks of vehicle
dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage and
related administrative services to its affiliates.  The company is
wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas Corp. (TFSA).


TOYOTA MOTOR: Remains a Defendant in Orange County Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. remains a defendant in a suit pending in
the California Superior Court in Orange County relating to the
recall of certain Toyota and Lexus models by Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., 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 the latter part of fiscal 2010 and in early fiscal 2011,
TMS announced several recalls and temporary suspensions of sales
and production of certain Toyota and Lexus models.  As a result of
the TMS recall-related events, TMCC and certain affiliates are
named as defendants in several lawsuits purporting to seek class
action status.

TMCC and certain affiliates are named as defendants in ten
putative class actions in which plaintiffs allege they purchased
or leased Toyota or Lexus vehicles that allegedly share a common
design that allow the vehicles to experience sudden unintended
acceleration and braking defects.

On April 9, 2010, the cases were consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation, In Re:  Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, and
transferred to the Central District of California.  Plaintiffs
seek compensatory and punitive damages, reformation of their lease
and finance contracts and the cessation of payment collection on
leases and finance contracts from owners of defective vehicles.

On March 12, 2010, the Orange County District Attorney filed a
similar suit in the California Superior Court in Orange County and
seeks an injunction and statutory penalties.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
the multidistrict litigation that does not name TMCC as a
defendant.  TMCC remains, however, a defendant in the action filed
by the Orange County District Attorney.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial equipment
dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range of finance
products, including retail financing, leasing, and dealer
financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and their
customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and claims
administration related to covering certain risks of vehicle
dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage and
related administrative services to its affiliates.  The company is
wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas Corp. (TFSA).


TOYOTA MOTOR: Bondholder's Suit Dismissed in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative bondholder class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor
Credit Corp. filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has been voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff, 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, captioned Harel Pia Mutual Fund vs. Toyota Motor Corp.,
et al., was filed on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

Plaintiffs allege defendants failed to disclose that there was a
major design defect in Toyota's acceleration system, and seek
damages based upon losses incurred in connection with the purchase
of TMCC bonds.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial equipment
dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range of finance
products, including retail financing, leasing, and dealer
financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and their
customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and claims
administration related to covering certain risks of vehicle
dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage and
related administrative services to its affiliates.  The company is
wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas Corp. (TFSA).


TOYOTA MOTOR: Bondholder's Suit Re-filed in Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter Harel Pia Mutual Fund vs. Toyota Motor
Corp., et al., has re-filed the suit in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, according to the company's
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on July 22, 2010, on behalf of purchasers of
TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges.

The complaint alleges violations of California securities laws,
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other state law claims.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial equipment
dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range of finance
products, including retail financing, leasing, and dealer
financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and their
customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and claims
administration related to covering certain risks of vehicle
dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage and
related administrative services to its affiliates.  The company is
wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas Corp. (TFSA).


UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., continues to face a consolidated second
amended complaint in a purported class-action in Illinois on
behalf of a purported class of California gasoline retailers,
according to the company's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On January 12, 2009, Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of
ten defendants in a related action filed in the Superior Court of
California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a purported
class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters.
On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of removal
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
and then subsequently requested that the JPML transfer this case
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings, which the JPML granted.

On February 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint in the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of a purported class of California gasoline
retailers who indirectly purchase filters from defendants for
resale.

No further developments were reported in the company's August 11,
2010, Form 10-Q filing.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuit Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., continues to face a putative class-action suit
related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada.

Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of five defendants in a
class action filed in Quebec, Canada.  This action alleges
conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act and
violations of the obligation to act in good faith (contrary to
art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related to the sale of
aftermarket filters.  The plaintiff seeks joint and several
liability against the five defendants in the amount of $5.0
million in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitive
damages.  The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the
matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet
been ruled on.

No further updates were reported in the company's August 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


URS CORP: Subsidiary Faces New Orleans Levee Failure Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company, subsequently renamed URS Energy &
Construction, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary acquired by URS
Corporation on November 15, 2007, performed demolition, site
preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal -- the "Industrial Canal" -- in New Orleans,
Louisiana.

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The
storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial
Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other
parts of the city.

Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant.  Other defendants
include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the
Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Company.

Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including the WGI Ohio cases,
have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their
design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees.
The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim to
have incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure of the
hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.

The allegation against the company is that the work it performed
adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall
and caused and/or contributed to breaches and flooding.  The
plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and demand attorney's
fees and costs.

WGI Ohio says it did not design, construct, repair or maintain any
of the levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after
Hurricane Katrina.  WGI Ohio performed the work adjacent to the
Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government and
has pursued dismissal from the lawsuits on a motion for summary
judgment on the basis that government contractors are immune from
liability.

On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the
company performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a
contractor for the federal government and, are therefore immune
from liability, which ruling was appealed by a number of the
plaintiffs on April 27, 2009, to the United States Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously;
however, it cannot provide assurance that it will be successful in
these efforts.  The potential range of loss and the resolution of
these matters cannot be determined at this time, according to the
company's August 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2010.

URS Corporation -- http://www.urscorp.com/-- is a leading
provider of engineering, construction and technical services for
public agencies and private sector companies around the world.
The Company offers a full range of program management; planning,
design and engineering; systems engineering and technical
assistance; construction and construction management; operations
and maintenance; and decommissioning and closure services.  URS
provides services for power, infrastructure, industrial and
commercial, and federal projects and programs. Headquartered in
San Francisco, URS has approximately 42,000 employees in a network
of offices in more than 30 countries.


WAL-MART STORES: Asks High Court to Stop Sex Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine at Reuters reports that the world's largest retailer
has asked the Supreme Court to halt a mammoth sex-discrimination
case brought by its women workers, according to a Wednesday court
filing.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is appealing an April ruling that authorized
the class action, which could include more than 1 million women.
Wal-Mart allegedly practiced widespread discrimination in its pay
and promotion practices.

A divided 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had allowed the
lawsuit to proceed, saying mere size should not be a reason for
dismissing the case. The litigation could involve billions of
dollars in damages and has been described as the largest sex-
discrimination class action.

"It is important to remember that the 9th Circuit's opinion dealt
only with class certification, not with the merits of the
lawsuit," the company said in a statement.

"Wal-Mart is an excellent place for women to work and has been
recognized as a leader in fostering the advancement and success of
women in the workplace," the statement said.

Lawyer Brad Seligman, who is representing the women, said Wal-
Mart's appeal was an attempt to deny his clients their day in
court.

"The ruling upholding the class in this case is well within the
mainstream that courts at all levels have recognized for decades,"
he said. "Only the size of the case is unusual, and that is a
product of Wal-Mart's size and the breadth of the discrimination
we documented."

The litigation has ground through the federal courts in California
for nine years, including six at the 9th Circuit. In its Wednesday
filing, Wal-Mart argued that the appellate court's ruling created
uncertainty in the law detrimental to businesses beyond the
retailer.

The case is: Dukes v Walmart in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No.
04-16688.


WELLS REAL ESTATE: Court OKs Piedmont REIT Summary Judgment Plea
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Maryland approved, in part, the summary
judgment motion filed by a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty
Trust Inc. in the putative class action and derivative complaint
against Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., its officers and
affiliates, Wells Real Estate said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2010.

On March 12, 2007, a Piedmont REIT stockholder filed the putative
class action and derivative complaint, presently styled In Re
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation
Case No. 07-cv-00862, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F.
Wells, III, the Chairman of Wells Real Estate Board of Directors;
Wells Capital; Wells Management, its property manager; certain
affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain
individuals who formerly served as officers or directors of
Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, violations of the federal proxy rules and breaches of
fiduciary duty arising from the Piedmont REIT internalization
transaction and the related proxy statement filed with the SEC on
February 26, 2007, as amended. The complaint sought, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages and nullification of the
Piedmont REIT internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT
proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in
acquiring Piedmont REIT.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon
allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for the
Piedmont REIT internalization transaction omitted details of
certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT. The
second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the internalization
transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to the
defendants as consideration for the internalization transaction.
On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On September 20, 2009,
the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment. On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial. A trial date has not
been set.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action. Any financial loss
incurred by Wells Capital, Wells Management, or their affiliates
could hinder their ability to successfully manage the company's
operations and its portfolio of investments.

                      About Wells Real Estate

Based in Norcross, Ga., Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II,
Inc. engages in the acquisition and ownership of commercial real
estate properties, including properties that are under
construction, are newly constructed, or have operating histories.


* Wage and Hour Litigation Tops Employment Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to a 2010 survey of more than 1,800 senior legal and HR
professionals conducted by ELT, leading specialists in ethics and
workplace compliance training, one-third of respondents indicated
that their organization had been hit with a wage and hour claim in
the past year.  Accordingly, 54% of respondents indicated that
despite the troubled economy, their organization has increased its
2010 spend on wage and hour compliance.

Today, wage and hour class actions outnumber all other
discrimination class actions combined. With the explosion in wage
and hour claims over the past several years, most employers are
finally starting to grasp the enormity of this litigation
landmine.

"It's been a perfect storm for wage and hour class and collective
actions against employers," says Shanti Atkins, Esq., President
and CEO of ELT.  "Employers are being hit from two sides. On one,
there is a better funded, more fully staffed Department of Labor
(DOL) that has made fighting 'wage theft' one of its key
priorities.  On the other side are aggressive plaintiff law firms
that literally salivate at these easy-to-identify and easy-to-win,
lucrative class actions."

According to the DOL, more than 80% of employers are out of
compliance with federal and state wage and hour laws.  Vowing to
fight this standard of non-compliance, President Obama increased
the DOL's budget for 2010, which means even stricter enforcement
of wage and hour laws and hundreds of additional field
investigators. These investigators are tasked with closely
examining the pay practices surrounding overtime, off-the-clock
work, meal and rest breaks, and auto-deduction at hundreds of
employers around the country.

Adding to the risk, wage and hour lawsuits have become a strong
focus for the plaintiff's bar.  Finding technical violations of
antiquated wage and hour laws is relatively simple, and the burden
of proof is on the employer who is presumed guilty until proven
innocent. This type of litigation also lends itself to a
"template" lawsuit where multiple employers can be simultaneously
targeted.

The money on the table for wage and hour class action settlements
is huge, averaging $23.5M at the federal level and $24.4M at the
state level.  With the majority of employers already out of
compliance with wage and hour laws, these are the kind of open and
shut cases plaintiff's law firms love to take on.  Although these
lawsuits are often positioned as valiant efforts toward worker
protection, most of the money ends up in the hands of the
attorneys while many class participants see as little as a few
hundred dollars.

Employers can protect themselves from wage and hour claims by
proactively training their workforce on wage and hour compliance.
Not surprisingly, 60% of ELT's survey respondents have or are
planning to implement a wage and hour training course over the
next year. These savvy employers are using training not only to
help prevent wage and hour issues in the first place, but to arm
their organization with powerful legal defenses in case of
litigation. Wage and hour training can help to reduce damage
awards by as much as 66%.

"Most plaintiff law firms won't want to take on a wage and hour
case if the employer has a robust compliance program that includes
wage and hour training for employees and managers," says Atkins.
Evidence of a consistent and thorough program makes a class harder
to certify, a case harder to win and plummets settlement values.
"It's like having a security system sign in your front yard during
a neighborhood crime wave. It may not provide 100 percent
protection against a robbery, but the burglar is likely to go to
the less risky house down the street."

ELT's all-new online Wage and Hour course educates employees and
managers about the basics of state and federal law as well as
company policies. Built in close partnership with Littler, the
world's largest employment law firm, the course translates
critical wage and hour issues into real-life stories that
employees will understand and remember. Full-motion video
storylines and interactive exercises bring lessons to life and
capture learners' attention.

ELT's course uses smart logic to ensure that each learner is
trained on both federal law, and the laws of the state where the
learner works. Based on a learner's location, course content is
automatically and intelligently configured. ELT is the only
training provider in the market to offer this unique capability,
helping employers to manage costly state law litigation risk.

                            About ELT

ELT -- http://www.elt-inc.com/-- provides online training
solutions to help employers manage their most important workplace
compliance challenges.  ELT specializes in the topics that create
the greatest legal risks, and where effective employee training
can prevent misconduct, establish powerful legal defenses, and
help to create a culture of ethics, inclusion and respect.  The
company focuses on wage and hour training, sexual harassment
training, union awareness training and ethics training. ELT
features legal content from Littler, the world's largest
employment law firm, and is endorsed by SHRM, the world's largest
human resources association.  ELT's award-winning courses engage
employees with compelling stories drawn from actual cases and real
events.  Leveraging the latest technology and high-end media,
ELT's solutions reflect the level of quality that organizations
want to associate with their compliance program. With more than a
decade of market-tested success and millions of employees trained,
ELT is trusted by today's most respected employers.

                           *********

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  * * *