CAR_Public/100831.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 31, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 171

                             Headlines

123 WASHINGTON: Sued for Diverting Trust Funds Under NY Lien Law
ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Automated Database
ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defending "Worker Classification" Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Consolidated EEOC/Romero Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in New Mexico

ALLSTATE CORP: Former Employee Agents' Suit Remain Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Ruling on Suit Over Hurricane Insurance
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Accused of Deceptive Business Practices
ARAMARK CORP: Wage Violation Settlement Pending Court Approval
ASSURED GUARANTY: Amended Antitrust Complaints Remain Pending

ASSURED GUARANTY: "Wilson" Suit Still Pending in Alabama
ATS MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement on Medtronic Merger Class Suits
AVERY DENNISON: Final Hearing on Calif. Settlement Set for Dec.
CHINA ORGANIC: Records Expenses on Provo Interim Settlement
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in ERISA Suit

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Morefield Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Rivera" Action Pending in California
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: To Oppose Certification in Madden Action
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defends Reed Suit v. Subsidiary in Texas
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Disputes Pompano Beach Campus Certification

DEX ONE: Securities Class Action Suits Still Pending in Delaware
DEX ONE: Still Faces ERISA Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
DYNEX CAPITAL: Plans to Seek Decertification of Pentlong Class
DYNEX CAPITAL: Still Facing Teamsters' Second Amended Complaint
EMULEX CORP: Oct. 4 Shareholder Litigation Dismissal Hearing Set

ENERGY TRANSFER: 5th Circuit Affirms Price-Fixing Suit Dismissal
ENERGY TRANSFER: Awaits 5th Circuit Ruling on Monopolization Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Unfair Competition
FREDERICK COUNTY BANCORP: Evaluating Claim in "Pionteck" Suit
GNC CORP: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Business Practice

HANSEN NATURAL: Seeks to Appeal Certification of "Chavez" Suit
HANSEN NATURAL: Awaits Outcome of Certification Motion in Canada
HANSEN NATURAL: Court Dismisses "Cunha" Suit With Leave to Amend
IMH FINANCIAL: Disputes Fiduciary Claims in Delaware Suits
IMH FINANCIAL: Defends Del. Suit Over Conversion Transactions

IMMUNOSYN CORP: Pursues Motion to Dismiss "Campbell" Suit
INTEGRATED SILICON: Court Approves Settlement of 3 U.S. SRAM Suits
KELLY SERVICES: Continues Defense in Certified "Sullivan" Suit
KELLY SERVICES: Court Recertifies "Fuller" Class Action
MBIA INC: Individual Defendants Dismissed From Securities Suit

MBIA INC: Faces Second Amended Complaint in NY Securities Suit
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: $80MM Lawsuit Settlement Now Effective
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Court to Hear Class Certification Oct. 22
NEWALLIANCE BANCSHARES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Illinois
NYMAGIC INC: Faces Four Suits in New York Over ProSight Merger
RELIANCE STANDARD: Still Faces Suit Over Retained Asset Account
RENTECH INC: Response to Consolidated Complaint Due Oct. 15
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Accused of Overtime Violations in California

TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Expects Settlement to Become Final Late 2010
TIGRENT INC: Canadian Unit Faces Suit Seeking Repayment
WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Awaits Court Okay of "Cuesta" Suit Settlement

                             *********

123 WASHINGTON: Sued for Diverting Trust Funds Under NY Lien Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nets That Work Co., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated under Article 3-A of the New York State Lien Law v. 123
Washington LLC, et al., Case No. 651357/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New
York Cty. August 24, 2010), brings claims against Century-Maxim
Corp. for non-payment of the balance of $215,581 owed to it under
its Base Contract Agreement with the general contractor, in
connection with a Project known and located at 123 Washington
Street, in New York City, which the general contractor contracted
with defendant 123 Washington.  Nets says it performed all the
requested labor, furnished and jumped its protective netting and
related materials, but did not receive the full amount due it
under the Agreement.

Nets also asserts claims against defendant 123 Washington for
reneging upon its promise and agreement to pay it the sum of
$215,581, and therefore, the property owner is liable to pay said
amount plus interest.  Nets asks the Court to order the sale of
the Property and from the proceeds, pay it the amount of its lien,
plus interest, costs and disbursements of this action, and
granting it judgment against Century-Maxim for any deficiency that
may remain after said payment.

Nets relates that on May 20, 2010, it filed in the office of the
New York County Clerk a Notice of Private Improvement Mechanic's
Lien which was duly served upon Century-Maxim as general
contractor and upon 123 Washington as the owner in fee simple of
the Property.  Nets' Notice of Private Improvement Mechanic's Lien
and the claim upon which it is based have not been paid, waived,
or canceled, except as to the discharge of said lien by the filing
of the lien law discharge bond with the Clerk of the County of New
York by 123 Washington on July 19, 2010.

Nets states that under Article 3-A of the New York State Lien Law
subcontractors and material suppliers constitute beneficiaries of
the trust funds created with respect to the Project, and
therefore, Century-Maxim, individual defendants Charles Alvarez
and Brian Alvarez, as corporate officers of Century-Maxim, by
diverting the monies received from defendant 123 Washington, are
guilty of larceny and punishable under Lien Law Section 79-a.

Plaintiff Nets That Work Co. is a partnership doing business in
the City and State of New York, with an office located at 322
Eight Avenue, New York.  Defendant 123 Washington LLC is a
domestic of foreign limited liability company, with an office
located at c/o Moinian Group, 530 Fifth Avenue, New York.
Defendant Century-Maxim is a domestic or foreign corporation doing
business in the City and State of New York, with an office located
at 76 Inwood Avenue, Port Chester, in Westchester County, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Wirth, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO, LLP
          135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 681-1100
          E-mail: gwirth@kdvglaw.com


ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Automated Database
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a nationwide putative class
action that challenges its use of a vendor's automated database in
valuing total loss automobiles.

To a large degree, this lawsuit mirrors similar lawsuits filed
against other carriers in the industry.

Plaintiffs allege that Allstate systematically underpays first
party total loss vehicle claims.  The plaintiffs are seeking
actual and punitive damages.

The lawsuit is in the discovery stage.

No updates or additional information regarding the matter was
disclosed in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defending "Worker Classification" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The court has issued a decision in favor of The Allstate Corp. on
all claims in a lawsuit involving worker classification issues,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

This lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a state wage
and hour law.

In this case, plaintiffs seek monetary relief, such as penalties
and liquidated damages, and non-monetary relief, such as
injunctive relief.

In December 2009, the liability phase of the case was tried and,
on July 6, 2010, the court issued its decision finding in favor of
Allstate on all claims.

The time for appeal has not yet run.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Consolidated EEOC/Romero Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a consolidated suit
alleging, among others, age discrimination.

A lawsuit was filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation under federal civil
rights laws (EEOC I suit) and a class action filed in 2001 by
former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract
and ERISA violations (Romero I suit).

In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the
trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the
court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the
option of the release signer.

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to Allstate "any and all benefits received by the [agent]
in exchange for signing the release."  The court also stated that,
"on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims
of age discrimination."

The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to clarify or reconsider
its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied
their request.

In June 2007, the court granted the company's motions for summary
judgment.

Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007
stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order
within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at
this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third
Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.  In July 2009, the
Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted the company's
summary judgment motions, remanded the cases to the trial court
for additional discovery, and directed that the cases be
reassigned to another trial court judge.

In January 2010, the cases were assigned to a new judge for
further proceedings in the trial court.

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

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a certified class action in
New Mexico challenging the method by which the company discloses
installment fees.

The class members are limited to New Mexico policyholders based on
the trial court's acceptance of plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The plaintiffs contend that installment fees must be disclosed on
the insurance policy itself, which would include the declarations
page, because the fees allegedly meet the legal definition of
"premium".

Plaintiffs seek repayment of installment fees since October 1996.

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

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Former Employee Agents' Suit Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative nationwide class action filed by former employee agents
against The Allstate Corp. remains pending in trial 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.

The putative nationwide class alleged various violations of ERISA,
including a worker classification issue.

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents
Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent
contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes.

This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and
remanded to the trial court in 2005.

In June 2007, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the case.

Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the Third
Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice
of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of
the federal law and thus not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third
Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.

In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted
the company's motion to dismiss the case, remanded the case to the
trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the case
be reassigned to another trial court judge.

In January 2010, the case was assigned to a new judge for further
proceedings in the trial court.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Ruling on Suit Over Hurricane Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's ruling on a
statewide putative class action in Louisiana filed against The
Allstate Corp. in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina remains
pending.

The Louisiana Attorney General filed a putative class action
lawsuit in state court against Allstate and other insurers on
behalf of Road Home fund recipients alleging that the insurers
have failed to pay all damages owed under their policies.

The insurers removed the matter to federal court.

The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter
to state court and the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed
a motion to remand the claims involving a Road Home subrogation
agreement.

In March 2009, the district court denied the State's request that
its claims be remanded to state court.  As for the defendant
insurers' motion, the judge granted it in part and denied it in
part.  Dismissal of all of the extra-contractual claims, including
the bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty claims, was granted.
Dismissal also was granted of all claims based on the Valued
Policy Law and all flood loss claims based on the levee breaches
finding that the insurers flood exclusions precluded coverage.
The remaining claims are for breach of contract and for
declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of claims by the
insurers.  The judge did not dismiss the class action allegations.

The defendants also had moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds
that the State had no standing to bring the lawsuit as an assignee
of insureds because of anti-assignment language in the insurers'
policies.  The judge denied the defendants' motion for
reconsideration on the assignment issue but found the matter was
ripe for consideration by the federal appellate court.

The defendants have filed a petition for permission to appeal to
the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit has accepted review.

After the Fifth Circuit accepted review, plaintiffs filed a motion
to remand the case to state court, asserting that the class claims
on which federal jurisdiction was premised have now effectively
been dismissed as a result of a ruling in a related case.  The
Fifth Circuit has denied the motion for remand, without prejudice
to plaintiffs' right to re-file the motion for remand after the
Fifth Circuit disposes of the pending appeal.

The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on July 7, 2010, and a
decision is pending, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Accused of Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Paniccia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. American Automobile Association New York, Case No.
111237/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cty. August 23, 2010), accuses
the privately owned not for profit corporation of backdating
renewal memberships of former AAA members to the date that their
old memberships lapsed, in violation of New York General Business
Law Section 349 and the common law of the State of New York.  Ms.
Paniccia says that by reducing the term of the policy to less than
12 months, members are deprived of the full 12-months of services
despite having purchased a 12 month membership.

American Automobile Association New York principally provides
roadside assistance and discounts on various products and
services, in exchange for the purchase of an annual membership.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hubbard, Esq.
          Matthew M. McDonald, Esq.
          LIDDLE & ROBINSON, L.L.P.
          800 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-8500


ARAMARK CORP: Wage Violation Settlement Pending Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARAMARK Corp. continues to await approval from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California of a memorandum of
understanding settling a class action alleging violations of the
California wage and hours laws, according to the company's
August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.

On July 29, 2009, Genaro Zendejas Morales, a former employee of
the Company, and Ricky Silva and Cristian Sanchez, current
employees of ARAMARK Sports, LLC, filed a proposed class action
complaint against the Company, ARAMARK Sports, Inc., and ARAMARK
Sports, LLC in the United States District Court, Central District
of California. The complaint, as filed, purports to assert class
claims that defendants did not pay all monies due under California
wage and hour laws.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The parties have executed a memorandum of understanding for a
full settlement of the matter.  The settlement is conditioned on
final approval by the court.

ARAMARK Corp. -- http://www.aramark.com/-- is a leader in
professional services, providing award-winning food services,
facilities management, and uniform and career apparel to health
care institutions, universities and school districts, stadiums
and arenas, and businesses around the world.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Amended Antitrust Complaints Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some activities of Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings, Inc., and
subsidiary Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., in their former
financial products business continue to be described in a
consolidated class action lawsuit in New York, according to
Assured Guaranty Ltd.'s August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

Although Assured Guaranty Ltd. did not acquire AGMH's former
Financial Products Business, which included AGMH's former GICs
business, MTN business and portions of the leveraged lease
businesses, certain legal proceedings relating to those businesses
are against entities which the Company did acquire.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts. These cases have been coordinated and
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal
Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516.

Five of these cases named both AGMH and AGM: (a) Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia
v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District,
Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank N.A.; (d) Mayor & City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank N.A.; and (e) Washington
County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank N.A. In April 2009, the MDL
1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the
federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint. In June 2009, interim lead plaintiffs'
counsel filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint. The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits; although the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint currently
describes some of AGMH's and AGM's activities, it does not name
those entities as defendants. In March 2010, the MDL 1950 court
denied the named defendants' motions to dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities of competition in the awarding of
GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying higher fees for
these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v. AIG Financial
Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v. AIG Financial
Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v. AIG Financial
Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG
Financial Products Corp.  When the four plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint in September 2009, the plaintiffs did not
name AGMH as a defendant. However, the complaint does describe
some of AGMH's and AGM's activities. The consolidated complaint
generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and other costs. In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in
part and denied in part the named defendants' motions to dismiss
this consolidated complaint


ASSURED GUARANTY: "Wilson" Suit Still Pending in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. continues to face a class action
complaint in Alabama alleging conspiracy and fraud in connection
with the issuance of Jefferson County's debt, according to Assured
Guaranty Ltd.'s August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In August 2008 a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including AGM, were named as defendants in a civil action
brought in the circuit court of Jefferson County, Alabama relating
to the County's problems meeting its debt obligations on its $3.2
billion sewer debt: Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co et
al (filed the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama), Case
No. 01-CV-2008-901907.00, a putative class action. The action was
brought on behalf of rate payers, tax payers and citizens residing
in Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and fraud in
connection with the issuance of the County's debt. The complaint
in this lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company said it cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss that may arise from the lawsuit.


ATS MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement on Medtronic Merger Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ATS Medical Inc. and the other defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in a consolidated shareholder class
action lawsuit in Minnesota related to the Company's merger
transaction with Medtronic Inc., the Company disclosed in an
August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ending July 3, 2010.

In May and June 2010, seven shareholders, each purporting to act
on behalf of a class of all public shareholders, separately sued
ATS and other named defendants alleging, among other things, that
the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger with
Medtronic.

Six of the seven lawsuits were filed in the District Court of the
State of Minnesota Hennepin County while one lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota:

  (1) Vandenberghe Lawsuit

On May 4, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the District
Court of the State of Minnesota Hennepin County concerning the
Merger.  The class action was instituted by Patrick Vandenberghe,
individually and on  behalf of all public shareholders of ATS,
against ATS, the ATS board of directors, the ATS president and
chief executive officer, Medtronic and Pilgrim Merger Corporation,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Medtronic or the Merger Sub.  The
complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the
Company's board of directors arising out of the attempt to sell
ATS by means of unfair process with preclusive deal protection
devices and at an unfair price of $4.00 in cash  for each share of
the Company's common stock.  The complaint also alleges that ATS
and Medtronic aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the other defendants.

On June 2, 2010, ATS received notice of an amended class action
complaint, which further alleges that the preliminary proxy
statement the company filed on May 25, 2010, fails to provide
shareholders with material information and provides shareholders
with materially misleading information, which the complaint
alleges renders the ATS shareholders unable to make an informed
decision on whether to vote in favor of the Merger.  The amended
class action complaint includes a claim brought pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 302A.467, alleging that each member of
the ATS board of directors violated the standard of conduct
imposed on him pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 302A.251 and
that each such member and the ATS president and chief executive
officer violated the standard of conduct imposed on him pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes Section 302A.361, in each case by allegedly
failing to discharge his respective duties as a member of the
Company's board of directors in good faith, in a manner he
reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the Company's
shareholders and with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a
like position would exercise under similar circumstances. The
complaint seeks damages, costs and injunctive relief to prevent
the consummation of the Merger, or in the event that the Merger is
consummated, then rescission or rescissory damages, and further
relief as the court deems just and proper.

  (2) Kirklighter Lawsuit

On May 4, 2010, the Company received notice of a class action
complaint venued in the District Court of the State of Minnesota
Hennepin County concerning the Merger.  The class action was
instituted by Scott Kirklighter, individually and on behalf of all
public shareholders of ATS, against ATS, its board of directors,
its chief executive officer, its chief financial officer,
Medtronic and Merger Sub.  The complaint alleges breach of
fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's board of directors,
its chief executive officer and chief financial officer arising
out of the attempt to sell ATS by means of unfair process with
preclusive deal protection devices and at an unfair price of $4.00
in cash for each share of ATS common stock.  The complaint also
alleges that ATS, Medtronic, Merger Sub and the ATS chief
financial officer aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary
duties.

On June 11, 2010, the Company received a notice of motion and
motion for leave to amend the complaint, accompanied by supporting
documents, including a proposed amended complaint.  The proposed
amended complaint further alleges that the preliminary proxy
statement the Company filed on May 25, 2010, contains numerous
material misleading statements or omissions.  The complaint seeks
costs and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the
Merger unless and until the Company adopt and implement a
procedure or process to obtain a transaction that provides the
best possible terms for the Company's shareholders, and,
rescission of, to the extent already implemented, the Merger
Agreement or any of the terms.  The complaint also seeks a
declaration and decree that the Merger Agreement was agreed to in
breach of the fiduciary duties of the members of the Company's
board of directors, the ATS chief executive officer and chief
financial officer, a direction from the court to the members of
the Company's board of directors, its chief executive officer and
chief financial officer to exercise their fiduciary duties to
commence a sale process that is reasonably designed to secure the
best possible consideration for ATS and the imposition of a
constructive trust, in favor of Mr. Kirklighter and members of the
purported class, upon any benefits improperly received by the
defendants as a result of their alleged wrongful conduct.

  (3) Dahle Lawsuit

On May 10, 2010, the Company received notice of a class action
complaint venued in the District Court of the State of Minnesota
Hennepin County concerning the Merger.  The class action was
instituted by Vance S. Dahle, individually and on behalf of all
public shareholders of ATS, against ATS, its board of directors,
Medtronic and Merger Sub.  The complaint alleges breach of
fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's board of directors
arising out of the attempt to sell ATS by means of unfair process
with preclusive deal protection devices, and at an unfair price of
$4.00 in cash for each share of the Company's common stock.  The
complaint also alleges that Medtronic and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

An amended complaint, dated May 28, 2010, further alleges that the
preliminary proxy statement the Company filed on May 25, 2010, is
deficient with respect to disclosures pertaining to the Merger,
the financial analyses conducted by J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.
and the alleged conflict of interest of various parties involved
in the Merger.  The complaint seeks damages, costs, injunctive
relief to prevent the consummation of the Merger, or in the event
that the Merger is consummated, then rescission or rescissory
damages, and filing an updated proxy statement to correct the
alleged disclosure deficiencies articulated in the complaint.

  (4) Tuksaudom Lawsuit

On May 20, 2010, the Company received notice of a class action
complaint venued in the District Court of the State of Minnesota
Hennepin County concerning the Merger.  The class action was
instituted by Pricha Tuksaudom, individually and on behalf of all
public shareholders of ATS, against ATS and the Company's board of
directors.  The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the
members of the Company's board of directors arising out of the
attempt to sell ATS by means of unfair process with preclusive
deal protection devices, and at an unfair price of $4.00 in cash
for each share of the Company's common stock.

An amended complaint, dated May 28, 2010, further alleges that the
preliminary proxy statement the Company filed on May 25, 2010,
fails to provide the Company's shareholders with material
information and provides the shareholders with materially
misleading information, which the complaint alleges renders the
Company's shareholders unable to make an informed decision on
whether to vote in favor of the Merger.  The complaint seeks
damages, costs and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation
of the Merger, or in the event that the Merger is consummated,
then rescission or rescissory damages.

  (5) Holmquist Lawsuit

On May 21, 2010, the Company received notice of a class action
complaint venued in the District Court of the State of Minnesota
Hennepin County concerning the Merger. The class action was
instituted by Marian J. Holmquist, individually and on behalf of
all public shareholders of ATS, against ATS, its board of
directors, its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer.  The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the
members of the Company's board of directors arising out of the
attempt to sell ATS by means of unfair process with preclusive
deal protection devices, and at an unfair price of $4.00 in cash
for each share of the Company's common stock.  The complaint seeks
costs and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the
Merger, to prevent the defendants from taking any actions that
violate their fiduciary duties to the shareholders and to prevent
the defendants from taking any actions that impede or deter other
potential acquirers.

  (6) Johnson Lawsuit

On May 26, 2010, the Company received notice of a class action
complaint venued in the District Court of the State of Minnesota
Hennepin County concerning the Merger.  The class action was
instituted by Mark W. Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
public shareholders of ATS, against ATS, its board of directors,
Medtronic and Merger Sub.  The complaint alleges breach of
fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's board of directors
arising out of the attempt to sell ATS by means of unfair process
with preclusive deal protection devices, and at an unfair price
of $4.00 in cash for each share of the Company's common stock.
The complaint also alleges that ATS and Medtronic aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint also
alleges that the preliminary proxy statement the Company filed on
May 25, 2010, fails to disclose certain material information
necessary for the Company's shareholders to make a rational and
fully-informed decision regarding the Merger. The complaint seeks
costs and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the
Merger, or in the event that the Merger is consummated, then
rescission or rescissory damages.

  (7) Fournier Lawsuit

On June 22, 2010, the Company became aware of the filing of a
class action complaint venued in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota concerning the Merger.  The class action was
instituted by Larry P. Fournier and Patrice M. Fournier
individually and on behalf of all public shareholders of ATS
against ATS, its board of directors, Medtronic and Merger Sub. The
complaint alleges: (a) violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder by all defendants arising out of the defendants'
alleged dissemination of a false and misleading preliminary proxy
statement, in reference to the preliminary proxy statement the
Company filed on May 25, 2010, which the plaintiffs allege the
defendants knew or should have known was misleading in that it
allegedly contained misrepresentations and failed to disclose
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading, including regarding alleged conflicts of interest of
certain members of the Company's board of directors; (b) breach of
fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's board of directors
arising out of the attempt to sell ATS by means of unfair process
with preclusive deal protection devices, and at an unconscionable,
unfair and grossly inadequate price of $4.00 in cash for each
share of the Company's common stock; (c) breach of fiduciary duty
by the members of the Company's board of directors arising out of
the alleged failure of the Company's preliminary proxy statement,
which the Company filed on May 25, 2010, to provide shareholders
with material information and providing them with materially
misleading information, thereby rendering the Company's
shareholders unable to make an informed decision regarding whether
to vote in favor of the Merger; and (d) that ATS and Medtronic
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks costs and injunctive relief to prevent the
consummation of the Merger.

                   Consolidation & Settlement

On June 16, 2010, all of the cases filed in state court were
consolidated in In re ATS Medical, Inc., Shareholder Litigation.

On July 12, 2010, the case filed in federal court was dismissed
voluntarily without prejudice.

On July 26, 2010, after extensive negotiations, ATS and the other
defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs
regarding settlement of the Lawsuit.  In connection with the
settlement contemplated by that agreement in principle, the
Lawsuit and all asserted claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
The terms of the settlement contemplated by that agreement in
principle require that ATS make certain additional disclosures
related to the Merger, which the Company has done.  The agreement
in principle contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary
conditions, including Court approval following notice to ATS's
shareholders.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement, that the Court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the agreement in
principle. By entering into the proposed settlement, ATS and the
other defendants are in no way acknowledging that the allegations
contained in the Lawsuit have merit, and the defendants deny any
liability.  The Company believes that the class actions are
without merit and, if necessary, would vigorously defend against
the claims asserted.

Minneapolis-based ATS Medical Inc. develops, manufactures, and
markets medical devices primarily for use by cardiovascular or
cardiothoracic surgeons during cardiac surgery.


AVERY DENNISON: Final Hearing on Calif. Settlement Set for Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing to consider approval of Avery Dennison
Corporation's $2.5 million settlement of all claims in class
action lawsuits filed in California alleging unlawful competitive
practices is set for December 2010, the company noted in its
August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2010.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class action on
behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock against the Company,
UPM and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac, seeking treble damages and
other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices, with
allegations including that the defendants attempted to limit
competition among themselves through anticompetitive
understandings.  Three similar complaints were filed in various
California courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the
parties, the California Judicial Council ordered the cases be
coordinated for pretrial purposes.  The cases were assigned to a
coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for the City and
County of San Francisco on March 30, 2004.  On September 30, 2004,
the Harman Press amended its complaint to add Bemis' subsidiary
Morgan Adhesives Company or MACtac as a defendant.

Without admitting any liability, the Company paid $2.5 million on
July 15, 2010, to resolve all claims in the California action.
This settlement was preliminarily approved by the California court
on July 23, 2010, with the final approval hearing scheduled for
December 2010.  In respect of settlement of this claim, the
Company recorded $0.7 in the fourth quarter of 2009 and $0.3 and
$1.5 million in the first and second quarters of 2010,
respectively.

        Similar Class Actions in Other States Also Settled

On January 21, 2005, American International Distribution
Corporation filed a purported class action on behalf of indirect
purchasers in the Superior Court for Chittenden County, Vermont.
Similar actions were filed by Richard Wrobel, on February 16,
2005, in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas; and by Chad
and Terry Muzzey, on February 16, 2005, in the District Court of
Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska.  On February 17, 2005, Judy Benson
filed a purported multi-state class action on behalf of indirect
purchasers in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

Without admitting liability, the Company agreed to pay plaintiffs
$2 million to resolve all claims related to the purported state
class actions in the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee and
Vermont.  Those settlements were approved by the Tennessee court
on March 12, 2010.  The Company recorded $2 million in the third
quarter of 2009 in respect of the settlement of those claims, and
made that payment on December 28, 2009.

Avery Dennison Corp. -- http://www.averydennison.com/-- is
engaged in the production of pressure-sensitive materials,
office products and a variety of tickets, tags, labels and other
converted products.  It also manufactures and sells a variety of
office products, and other converted products and other items
not involving pressure-sensitive components, such as binders,
organizing systems, markers, fasteners, business forms, as well
as tickets, tags, and imprinting equipment for retail and
apparel manufacturers.


CHINA ORGANIC: Records Expenses on Provo Interim Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Organic Agriculture, Inc., recorded expenses related to the
preliminary settlement of Lance C. Provo's class action lawsuit,
according to the company's Aug. 23, 2010 Form 10-Q filing to the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

The company has reached a preliminary settlement for the class
action lawsuit filed on Dec. 18, 2008, for an amount of $300,000
in cash and $300,000 worth of the company's stock.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by Lance C. Provo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the company,
past officers and directors of the company, and one current
director of the company.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act 0f
1934, as amended.  It asserts that the Defendants disseminated
false and misleading statements or concealed materially adverse
facts causing members of the class to purchase the company's stock
at inflated prices, and engaged in other improper actions,
including divesting the company of its sole productive asset and
acquiring a luxury retreat for the use of the Defendants.

The lawsuit seeks as relief civil penalties, attorney's fees, and
disgorgement.

The expenses are recorded in Selling, general, and administrative
expenses in 2009, and the accrual for this settlement is contained
in accounts payable and accrued expenses.

China Organic Agriculture, Inc., formerly Industrial Electric
Services, Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is
engaged in the business of rice production, processing and
distribution.  China Organic Agriculture, Ltd. is the company's
wholly owned subsidiary.  It operates in three segments: Ankang,
the segment for the trading of agricultural products; ErMaPao, the
one for rice production and processing, and Bellisimo Vineyard,
the segment for wine production.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corp. is awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on an appeal
filed by plaintiffs in a consolidated ERISA class action,
according to the company's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 2, 2010.

On August 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class action alleging stock
options backdating at the Company and miscellaneous violations of
ERISA fiduciary duties with respect to CSC's 401(k) plan was filed
in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York
entitled Quan, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-3927.

On September 21, 2006, a related ERISA class action was filed in
the same court entitled Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-5100.
The complaints named as defendants the Company, the Company's
Retirement and Employee Benefits Plans Committee and various
directors and officers.

The ERISA actions were consolidated and, on February 28, 2007,
plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint.  On
January 8, 2008, the District Court granted a motion to transfer
the consolidated cases to the United States District Court in Los
Angeles, California, where the cases were consolidated before the
District Court judge in Case No. CV 08-2398-SJO.  Class
certification was granted on December 29, 2008.  Defendants and
plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment on May 4, 2009,
and supplemental briefs thereafter.

On July 13, 2009, the District Court entered an Order granting
summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants.
Briefing on plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was completed on January 11,
2010.  Oral argument took place on June 10, 2010.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in
the information technology and professional services industry.
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.  Systems
integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and
integrating complete information systems.  Consulting and
professional services includes advising clients on the acquisition
and utilization of IT and on business strategy, security,
modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change management
and business process reengineering.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Morefield Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its motion
to dismiss a class action complaint initiated against it by
Shirley Morefield, according to the company August 11, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 2, 2010.

On May 29, 2009, a class action lawsuit entitled Shirley Morefield
vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case # A-09-591338-C,
was brought in state court in Clark County, Nevada, against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors
asserting claims for declarative and injunctive relief related to
stock option backdating.  The alleged factual basis for the claims
is the same as that which was alleged in a prior derivative case,
In re CSC Shareholder Derivative Litigation, CV 06-5288, filed in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, which was dismissed on
August 9, 2007, by that court.  This dismissal was affirmed on
appeal by the Ninth Circuit, which judgment is final.

The defendants in the Morefield case deny the allegations in the
complaint.  On June 30, 2009, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No.
2:09-cv-1176-KJD-GWF.  On motion made by the plaintiffs, the
District Court remanded the case to state court on February 18,
2010.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and
plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 14, 2010.  A hearing was
scheduled for August 18, 2010.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in
the information technology and professional services industry.
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.  Systems
integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and
integrating complete information systems.  Consulting and
professional services includes advising clients on the acquisition
and utilization of IT and on business strategy, security,
modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change management
and business process reengineering.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Rivera" Action Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------
The matter captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., remains pending, according to
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s Aug. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.

The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC students from the
company's WyoTech Fremont campus.

The arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business
and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and
intentional deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment and restitution, all related to
alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding the HVAC
program at these campuses.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The company never operated any HVAC programs at the company's
WyoTech Oakland campus during its ownership of that campus.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: To Oppose Certification in Madden Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., intends to challenge the conditional
certification at the second stage of the certification process in
the action captioned Mary Credille and Roger Madden, on behalf of
all similarly situated current and former employees, v. Corinthian
Colleges, et al.

On Nov. 17, 2008, the matter was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

The two named plaintiffs are former employees of the company's
Chicago campus, and allege failure to receive proper compensation
for all overtime hours allegedly worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Credille has voluntarily dismissed her claims against
the company.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff Madden's motion to
conditionally certify a collective action to include those current
and former admissions representatives at the company's Chicago
campus who also satisfy additional requirements.

According to the company's Aug. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010, it is unknown whether any, or how many, of
the prospective participants, estimated to be around 50 current
and former employees, will choose to "opt in" to participate in
the lawsuit.  To date, the company is aware of only one additional
former employee who has elected to opt in to the lawsuit.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defends Reed Suit v. Subsidiary in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., intends to defend a putative class
action complaint against its wholly owned subsidiary, Florida
Metropolitan University, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 23,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,
Texas.

Plaintiff purports to be a former student in the company's Everest
University Online operations.

The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who
contracted to receive distance education from Everest University
Online while residing in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of
such persons, pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and
injunctive relief, cost of suit, and such other relief as the
court deems proper.

On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to binding
arbitration.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Disputes Pompano Beach Campus Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., intends to challenge the conditional
certification of its Pompano Beach campus at the second stage of
the certification process.

On Dec. 17, 2009, an action captioned Mancuso, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Florida Metropolitan
University, Inc., and Corinthian Colleges, Inc., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The named plaintiff is an admissions representative of the
company's Pompano Beach campus, and alleges failure to receive
proper compensation for all overtime hours allegedly worked in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On June 24, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify a collective action to include those current
and former admissions representatives at the company's Pompano
Beach campus who also satisfy additional requirements.

The plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting the Court to
broaden the collective action from the Pompano campus to all
admissions representatives at every campus nationwide.  The
company is opposing this motion.

According to the company's Aug. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010, it is unknown whether any, or how many, of
the prospective participants will choose to "opt in" to
participate in the lawsuit.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


DEX ONE: Securities Class Action Suits Still Pending in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation continues to defend itself from a series of
putative securities class actions lawsuits filed in Delaware,
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.

Beginning on October 23, 2009, a series of putative securities
class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between July 26, 2007, and the time the
Company filed for bankruptcy on May 28, 2009, alleging that
certain Company officers issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial condition and
seeking damages and equitable relief.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend any and all such actions pursued
against the Company and its current and former officers,
employees and directors.

Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading
marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win
and keep ready-to-buy customers.  The company's highly-skilled,
locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of
marketing products and services that help businesses get found
more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping
consumers.  The company offers local businesses personalized
marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network
of local marketing products -- including the company's "official"
print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as
well as major search engines.


DEX ONE: Still Faces ERISA Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative ERISA class action lawsuit filed against Dex One
Corporation in Illinois remains pending, 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 December 7, 2009, a putative ERISA class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of certain participants in or
beneficiaries of the R.H. Donnelley 401(k) Savings Plan at any
time between July 26, 2007 and the time the lawsuit was filed and
whose plan accounts included investments in R.H. Donnelley common
stock.  The putative ERISA class action complaint contains
allegations against certain current and former Company directors,
officers and employees similar to those set forth in a putative
securities class action lawsuit in Delaware, which alleges that
certain Company officers issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial condition, as well
as allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA and
seeks damages and equitable relief.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend any and all such actions pursued
against the Company and its current and former officers,
employees and directors.

Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading
marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win
and keep ready-to-buy customers.  The company's highly-skilled,
locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of
marketing products and services that help businesses get found
more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping
consumers.  The company offers local businesses personalized
marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network
of local marketing products -- including the company's "official"
print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as
well as major search engines.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Plans to Seek Decertification of Pentlong Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLS Capital, Inc., a subsidiary of Dynex Capital Inc., plans to
seek the decertification of a class alleging illegal collection of
certain taxes in Pennsylvania, Dynex related in a Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

GLS Capital, Inc., and the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania are
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 1997 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  Between 1995 and
1997, GLS purchased delinquent county property tax receivables for
properties located in Allegheny County.  In its initial pleadings,
the Pentlong plaintiffs alleged that GLS did not have the right to
recover from delinquent taxpayers certain attorney fees, lien
docketing, revival, assignment and satisfaction costs, and
expenses associated with the original purchase transaction, and
interest, in the collection of the property tax receivables.
During the course of the litigation, the Pennsylvania State
Legislature enacted Act 20 of 2003, which cured many deficiencies
in the Pennsylvania Municipal Claims and Tax Lien Act at issue in
the Pentlong case, including confirming GLS' right to collect
attorney fees from delinquent taxpayers retroactive back to the
date when GLS first purchased the delinquent tax receivables.

In August 2009, based on the provisions of Act 20, GLS filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting Brief in the Court of
Common Pleas seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' remaining claims
regarding GLS' right to collect reasonable attorneys fees from the
named plaintiffs and purported class members; namely, its right to
collect lien docketing, revival, assignment and satisfaction costs
from delinquent taxpayers; and its practice of charging interest
on the first of each month for the entire month.  Subsequently the
plaintiffs abandoned their claims with respect to lien docketing
and satisfaction costs and the issue of interest.

On April 2, 2010, the Court of Common Pleas granted GLS' motion
for summary judgment with respect to its right to charge attorney
fees and interest in the collection of the receivables, removing
these claims from plaintiffs' case.  While the Court indicated at
that time that it lacked sufficient information to rule on the
remaining aspects of the motion related to the reasonableness of
attorney fees and lien costs, during a status conference between
the parties and the judge on April 13, 2010, the judge invited
GLS to renew its motion for summary judgment on the issue of GLS'
right to recover lien assignment and revival costs from delinquent
taxpayers.

With relation to the claim regarding the reasonableness of
attorney fees recovered by GLS, no motion is currently pending.
However, Dynex said, GLS plans to seek decertification of the
class once the lien cost issue is decided by the court because
GLS believes the class action vehicle will no longer be
appropriate if the only issue before the court is a challenge to
the reasonableness of attorneys fees charged in each individual
case.

There have been no further material developments in this case
through June 30, 2010, the Company disclosed.

Dynex Capital, Inc. -- http://www.dynexcapital.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, is a specialty finance company organized as
a real estate investment trust that invests in loans and
securities consisting principally of single-family residential and
commercial mortgage loans.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Still Facing Teamsters' Second Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc., continues to face a second amended complaint
filed by a Teamsters pension fund in New York alleging violations
of federal securities law, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary,
and the former president and current Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Dynex Capital, Inc., are defendants in
a putative class action alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight
Division Pension Fund.  The complaint was filed on February 7,
2005, and purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers
between February 2000 and May 2004 of MERIT Series 12 and MERIT
Series 13 securitization financing bonds, which are collateralized
by manufactured housing loans.

After a series of rulings by the District Court and an appeal by
Dynex and MERIT, on February 22, 2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the litigation against
Dynex and MERIT.  Teamsters filed an amended complaint on with the
District Court on August 6, 2008, to essentially restate the same
allegations as the original complaint, and added Dynex's former
president and current Chief Operating Officer as defendants.
Teamsters seeks unspecified damages and alleges, among other
things, fraud and misrepresentations in connection with the
issuance of and subsequent reporting related to the Bonds.

On October 19, 2009, the District Court substantially denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Teamsters' second amended
complaint.  On December 11, 2009, the Defendants filed an answer
to the second amended complaint.  The Company has evaluated the
allegations made in the complaint and believes them to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against them.

There have been no further material developments in this case
through June 30, 2010, the Company disclosed.

Dynex Capital, Inc. -- http://www.dynexcapital.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, is a specialty finance company organized as
a real estate investment trust that invests in loans and
securities consisting principally of single-family residential and
commercial mortgage loans.


EMULEX CORP: Oct. 4 Shareholder Litigation Dismissal Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 4, 2010 dismissal hearing has been set for the
consolidated class action captioned In re Emulex Shareholder
Litigation, according to Emulex Corporation's Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Aug. 23, 2010.

The company entered into a "Stipulation And Agreement Of Dismissal
Of Certain Claims As Being Moot And Of All Other Claims, And As To
Award Of Attorneys' Fees," dated Aug. 16, 2010.

The Stipulation provides for the dismissal of all claims asserted
in a previously disclosed litigation regarding Emulex's response
to a subsequently withdrawn acquisition proposal by Broadcom
Corporation, entitled In Re Emulex Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, 4536-VCS, pending in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

This stipulation supersedes the stipulation previously filed by
the parties on July 9, 2010.

The dismissal of the action and plaintiffs' application for an
award of attorneys' fees are subject to approval of the Court.

The Court has scheduled a hearing for Oct. 4, 2010, to be held at
the Court of Chancery, 34 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801,
at 10 a.m., for the purpose of hearing and determining any
objections to the proposed dismissal of the lawsuit and the
application of plaintiffs' attorneys for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The Stipulation and a Notice document providing more information
about the dismissal and the procedure for objecting to the
Stipulation can be found on the company's Web site at
http://www.emulex.com/

A copy of the Stipulation is also available for free at
http://is.gd/eHHmI

A copy of the Notice document is also available for free at
http://is.gd/eHHo6

Emulex Corp. -- http://www.emulex.com/-- is a provider of a range
of storage networking infrastructure solutions that connect
servers, storage and networks within the data center.  The
company's product portfolio includes host bus adapters (HBAs),
converged network adapters (CNAs), mezzanine cards for blade
servers, and embedded storage bridges, routers, switches and
input/output controllers (IOCs).  The company's host server
products (HSP) include both fiber channel-based connectivity
products and enhanced Ethernet-based products that support
Internet protocol (IP) and storage networking, including
transmission control protocol (TCP)/IP, Internet small computer
system interface (iSCSI), network attached storage (NAS), IOC
solutions, and fibre channel over Ethernet (FCoE).  The company's
fibre channel-based products include LightPulse, HBAs, custom form
factor solutions for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) blade
servers and application specific integrated circuits (ASIC).


ENERGY TRANSFER: 5th Circuit Affirms Price-Fixing Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a
district court's dismissal of a consolidated class action
complaint against Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., according to
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2010.

The consolidated class action complaint was filed against ETP In
October 2007, in the Texas District Court.  ETP is a subsidiary of
Energy Transfer Equity.  The action alleges that ETP engaged in
intentional and unlawful manipulation of the price of natural gas
futures and options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange,
in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.  It is further alleged
that during the class period from Dec. 29, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2005,
ETP had the market power to manipulate index prices, and that ETP
used this market power to artificially depress the index prices at
major natural gas trading hubs, including the Houston Ship
Channel, in order to benefit its natural gas physical and
financial trading positions, and that ETP intentionally submitted
price and volume trade information to trade publications.  The
complaint also alleges that ETP violated the CEA by knowingly
aiding and abetting violations of the CEA.  The plaintiffs state
that this allegedly unlawful depression of index prices by ETP
manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas futures and options
contracts to artificial levels during the class period, causing
unspecified damages to the plaintiffs and all other members of the
putative class who sold natural gas futures or who purchased
and/or sold natural gas options contracts on NYMEX during the
class period.  The plaintiffs have requested certification of
their suit as a class action and seek unspecified damages, court
costs and other appropriate relief.

On Jan. 14, 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this suit on the
grounds of failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.
On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
class action complaint. In response to this new pleading, on
May 5, 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On
March 26, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing the
complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

On April 9, 2009, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
order dismissing the complaint, and on Aug. 26, 2009, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

On Sept. 28, 2009, these decisions were appealed by the
plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oral arguments on this motion were made before the Fifth Circuit
on April 28, 2010.

On June 23, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion affirming
the lower court's order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. No
petition for rehearing was timely filed.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. --
http://www.energytransfer.com/-- through its general
partnership interest in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., transports
natural gas midstream, stores and retails propane in the United
States.  The company, formerly known as La Grange Energy, L.P.,
was founded in 2002.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Awaits 5th Circuit Ruling on Monopolization Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., is awaiting the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's ruling on an appeal of the
dismissal of a class action lawsuit alleging monopolization,
according to Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s August 9, 2010 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended June 30, 2010.

ETP is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Equity.

In March 2008, a class action complaint was filed against ETP in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The
action alleges that ETP engaged in unlawful restraint of trade and
intentional monopolization and attempted monopolization of the
market for fixed-price natural gas baseload transactions at the
Houston Ship Channel from December 2003 through December 2005 in
violation of federal antitrust law.  The complaint further alleges
that during this period ETP exerted monopoly power to suppress the
price for these transactions to non-competitive levels in order to
benefit its own physical natural gas positions.  The plaintiff
has, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
sellers of physical natural gas, requested certification of its
suit as a class action and seeks unspecified treble damages, court
costs and other appropriate relief.

On May 19, 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this complaint.  On
March 26, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing the
complaint.  The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim on all causes of action and for antitrust injury, but
granted leave to amend.

On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend to assert a claim for common law fraud and attached a
proposed amended complaint as an exhibit.  ETP opposed the motion
and cross-moved to dismiss.  On Aug. 7, 2009, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion and granted ETP's motion to dismiss the
complaint.

On September 8, 2009, the plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, appealing
only the common law fraud claim. Both parties submitted briefs
related to the judgment regarding the common law fraud claim, and
oral arguments were made before the Fifth Circuit on April 27,
2010.  The Company is awaiting a decision by the Fifth Circuit.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. --
http://www.energytransfer.com/-- through its general partnership
interest in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., transports natural gas
midstream, stores and retails propane in the United States.
The company, formerly known as La Grange Energy, L.P., was founded
in 2002.


FACEBOOK INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Unfair Competition
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that Facebook sells
the names and likenesses of children who use its social networking
site, and makes no effort to get parental consent, a class action
claims in Los Angeles Superior court.

"Facebook encourages the participation of children on its social
networking website, stressing the authenticity of the experience
of communicating with friends," according to the lawsuit filed on
behalf of two minors from Los Angeles County.  "It then markets
the names and likenesses of those children for use by
advertisers."

Facebook then tells advertisers that the use of the child's name
as an "endorsement" of the advertiser's product "can increase
marketing returns by 400 percent," according to the complaint.

In violation of California law, a child's name and likeness cannot
be used for commercial purposes without parental consent.
Plaintiffs claim Facebook makes "no effort to obtain parental
consent."

Plaintiffs are David A. Cohen and his mother, Robin S. Cohen; and
Shelby Orland and her mother, Marcia Orland.  They want the
alleged misconduct stopped, and seek unspecified damages for
violations of state law, unfair competition and other charges.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Torjesen, Esq.
          JOHN C. TORJESEN & ASSOCIATES PC
          612 Sepulveda Blvd.
          Los Angeles CA 90049
          Telephone: 310-440-0005


FREDERICK COUNTY BANCORP: Evaluating Claim in "Pionteck" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., is in the process of evaluating a
claim asserted against it and the bank's defenses or mitigating
factors to liability or damages with respect to a lawsuit entitled
Pionteck v. Frederick County Bank, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division,
according to the bank's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, the bank was served with the lawsuit alleging
noncompliance of the ATM notice requirements of the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act. The complaint, which purports to be a class
action, was filed on July 15, 2010.  If the class action proceeds
and the Bank is ultimately found to be liable, statutory damages
from the noncompliance could be up to 1% of the Bank's net worth,
approximately $270,000 at June 30, 2010.

Frederick County Bank commenced operations in 2001 and has posted
positive quarterly earnings continuously since 2002, its second
year in operation. The Bank is headquartered in Frederick,
Maryland, and conducts full service commercial banking services
through four offices, three of which are in the City of Frederick
and one office located in Walkersville, Maryland. Frederick County
Bank maintains a solid Four Star Rating from Bankrate.com as of
December 31, 2009 and the top Five Star Rating from Bauer
Financial, Inc., as of March 31, 2010.


GNC CORP: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Business Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims GNC
Corp. sells a drug for "enhanced male performance" that contains
yohimbe, which can cause kidney failure, seizures and death,
though the FDA has twice warned that yohimbe can be lethal, in
Orange County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Gray v. GNC Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 30-2010-00401159 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)
(Andler, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/26/Penis.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Michael E. Velarde, Esq.
          David W. Reid, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          610 Newport Center Dr., Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949-706-6464


HANSEN NATURAL: Seeks to Appeal Certification of "Chavez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corp. is seeking permission from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal a certification
order in a class action lawsuit filed in California against the
Company and its subsidiaries, according to the company's Aug. 9,
2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a class of consumers yet to be defined filed an
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, City and
County of San Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries
for unfair business practices, false advertising, violation of
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled wholly
in Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Defendants removed this Superior Court
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act, and
filed motions for dismissal or transfer.

On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss Chavez's complaint with prejudice.

On June 23, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit filed a memorandum opinion reversing the opinion of
the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act claims; the plaintiff has filed a motion for a
decision on a preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification on April 22, 2010.  The District Court
heard all three motions on May 27, 2010.

On June 18, 2010, the District Court entered an order certifying
the class, ruled that there was no preemption by federal law, and
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  The class that the
District Court certified initially consists of all persons who
purchased any beverage bearing the Blue Sky mark or brand in the
United States at any time between May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006.

On July 2, 2010, the Company filed a petition with the Ninth
Circuit seeking permission to file an immediate appeal to reverse
the decision to certify a class.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to all the allegations and plans a vigorous
defense.  Discovery on the merits of the claims and defenses has
just begun.

Hansen Natural Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 550 Monica Circle, Suite 201,
Corona, California 92880.  Hansen, through its subsidiaries,
engages in the development, marketing, sale, and distribution of
beverages in the United States and Canada.


HANSEN NATURAL: Awaits Outcome of Certification Motion in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corp. is awaiting the outcome of a certification
motion in a putative class action filed in Canada alleging the
mislabeling of energy drink products, according to the company's
Aug. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against the Company and its former
Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as defendants.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants misleadingly packaged and
labeled Monster Energy(R) products in Canada by not including
sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-
indications and adverse reactions associated with the consumption
of the energy drink products.  The plaintiff's claims against the
defendants are for negligence, unjust enrichment, and making
misleading or false representations in violation of the
Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and the
Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario).

The plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative
class in the amount of C$20 million, together with punitive
damages of C$5 million, plus legal costs and interest. The
plaintiff's certification motion materials have not yet been
filed.

In accordance with class action practice in Ontario, the Company
will not file an answer to the complaint until after the
determination of the certification motion.  The Company believes
that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit and plans a
vigorous defense.

Hansen Natural Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 550 Monica Circle, Suite 201,
Corona, California 92880.  Hansen, through its subsidiaries,
engages in the development, marketing, sale, and distribution of
beverages in the United States and Canada.


HANSEN NATURAL: Court Dismisses "Cunha" Suit With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action complaint was granted but the lead plaintiff may still file
an amended complaint, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2010 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities
class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et
al. was also filed in the District Court.

On July 14, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions and appointing lead counsel and the Structural Ironworkers
Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. On August 28, 2009,
lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of
Federal Securities Laws. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period November 9, 2006 through
November 8, 2007.  It names as defendants the Company, Rodney C.
Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff
principally alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants
made false and misleading statements relating to the Company's
distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
and its sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales
of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public
information.  Plaintiff also alleges that the Company's financial
statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain
promotional expenses.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On July 12, 2010, following a hearing, the District Court granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, with leave to amend, on the grounds, among others, that
it failed to specify which statements Plaintiff claimed were false
or misleading, failed adequately to allege that certain statements
were actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to
demonstrate that Defendants acted with scienter.  Under the
Court's order, lead plaintiff had until August 27, 2010 to file an
amended complaint.

Hansen Natural Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 550 Monica Circle, Suite 201,
Corona, California 92880.  Hansen, through its subsidiaries,
engages in the development, marketing, sale, and distribution of
beverages in the United States and Canada.


IMH FINANCIAL: Disputes Fiduciary Claims in Delaware Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corporation disputes the fiduciary claims in two
proposed class action lawsuits in Delaware, according to the
company's Aug. 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On May 26, 2010 and June 15, 2010, similar proposed class action
lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
company and its affiliated named individuals and entities.

The lawsuits contain similar allegations, claiming that fiduciary
duties owed to Fund members and to the Fund were breached because
the Conversion Transactions were unfair to Fund members,
constitute self-dealing and because the Form S-4 or information
provided about the Form S-4 or Conversion Transactions are false
and misleading.

IMH Financial Corporation, formerly known as IMH Secured Loan
Fund, LLC, is headquartered in Scottsdale, Ariz. The company's
primary business is to originate, purchase or otherwise acquire
commercial mortgage loans with maturities of generally 18 months
or less that are secured by first deeds of trust on real property
located throughout the United States of America. Such loans are
originated, purchased or acquired with the intent to sell or
participate the loans.


IMH FINANCIAL: Defends Del. Suit Over Conversion Transactions
-------------------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corporation defends a proposed class action
regarding Conversion Transactions, according to the company's
Aug. 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 17, 2010, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the company and its affiliated
named individuals and entities.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Conversion Transactions
constitute a "roll up" transaction under the Fund's operating
agreement, and seeks damages for breach of the operating
agreement.

IMH Financial Corporation, formerly known as IMH Secured Loan
Fund, LLC, is headquartered in Scottsdale, Ariz. The company's
primary business is to originate, purchase or otherwise acquire
commercial mortgage loans with maturities of generally 18 months
or less that are secured by first deeds of trust on real property
located throughout the United States of America. Such loans are
originated, purchased or acquired with the intent to sell or
participate the loans.


IMMUNOSYN CORP: Pursues Motion to Dismiss "Campbell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Immunosyn Corporation continues to pursue the dismissal of a class
action filed by Denise Campbell in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, according to the company's Aug. 23,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Aug. 24, 2009, a complaint was filed by Denise Campbell on
behalf of a putative class in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas that names as defendants Immunosyn,
Argyll Biotech, James T. Miceli, Douglas A. McClain, Jr., Frank
Morales, Argyll Equities, LLC, Stephen Ferrone and Douglass A.
McClain, Sr.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have made false or misleading statements concerning Immunosyn and
SF-1019 in filings with the SEC in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including Section 10b-5 thereof,
including, without limitation, that the Food & Drug Administration
had not approved SF-1019 for human injection, that SF-1019 had not
received compassionate waiver status, that SF-1019 was on clinical
hold, that SF-1019 had negative results in certain safety studies,
that SF-1019 was being sold by the defendants outside of the
exclusive license held by Immunosyn and that Alan Osmond was being
paid to promote SF-1019; defendants have committed fraud in their
SEC disclosures and on their Web sites; defendants have engaged in
civil conspiracy; defendants have been unjustly enriched through
the sale of Immunosyn stock; and James T. Miceli, Douglas McClain,
Sr. and Douglas McClain Jr. have committed RICO violations and
conspired to violate RICO.

The complaint seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The parties, including
Immunosyn, answered the complaint on Oct. 16, 2009.

An initial telephonic pretrial conference among attorneys was held
on January 19, 2010 and discovery has commenced.

The defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss upon which the Court
has not yet ruled.  Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is based on lack
of federal jurisdiction and plaintiff's failure to allege
sufficient facts to establish a class action.

Immunosyn Corporation -- http://www.immunosyn.com/-- is a
development stage company.  The company owns a worldwide license
to market, distribute and sell a biopharmaceutical drug product,
referred to as SF-1019, for multiple uses, including the treatment
of any and all diseases, and pathological conditions.  Under the
terms of its license, the Company is further granted the rights to
any improvement of SF-1019 and other compounds, which are
developed under the same technology platform, and which are
chemically similar to SF-1019.


INTEGRATED SILICON: Court Approves Settlement of 3 U.S. SRAM Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., obtained court approval of its
settlement agreement in three lawsuits brought by direct
purchasers in the U.S. relating to the sale and pricing of static
random access memory products, according to the company's
August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Thirty-three purported class action lawsuits were filed by U.S.
Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against
the Company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. federal
courts alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of state
unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment relating to the
sale and pricing of SRAM products. The U.S. lawsuits seek treble
damages for the alleged damages sustained by purported class
members, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees, as
well as an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

As of August 30, 2007, the Company was voluntarily dismissed from
all lawsuits brought by the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs
pursuant to a Tolling Agreement between the Company and the U.S.
Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs. The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser
Plaintiffs agreed not to name the Company as a defendant unless
the Tolling Agreement is terminated according to terms specified
in that agreement.

On January 9, 2008, the Company were voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice from one of the lawsuits brought by the U.S. Direct-
Purchaser Plaintiffs.  The Company remained a defendant in three
lawsuits brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs.

On October 5, 2009, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs. On July 2,
2010, the court issued an order granting approval of the
settlement. As part of the agreement, the Company will receive a
release for all Direct-Purchaser SRAM claims and did not admit any
wrongdoing or liability.

Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is a
fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high-
performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as
digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications
and automotive electronics.  The company's primary products are
high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low-and
medium-density dynamic random access memory.  It also designs and
markets electrically erasable programmable ready only memory,
SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory sticks and card
reader-writers, and wireless chipsets.


KELLY SERVICES: Continues Defense in Certified "Sullivan" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action
complaint filed by a certain Sullivan, the company noted in its
August 11, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.

The Sullivan Action, currently pending in the U.S. District Court
Southern District of California, involve claims for monetary
damages by current and former temporary employees working in the
State of California.  The Sullivan matter relates to claims by
temporary workers for compensation while interviewing for
assignments.  On April 27, 2010, the Court in the Sullivan matter
certified the lawsuit as a class action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the lawsuit
and will continue to vigorously defend itself during the
litigation process.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a
global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and
territories throughout the world.


KELLY SERVICES: Court Recertifies "Fuller" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
A California court recertified the class action status of the
lawsuit captioned Fuller v. Kelly Services, Inc., and Kelly Home
Care Services, Inc., the company noted in its August 11, 2010 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 4, 2010.

The Fuller action, currently pending in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles, involve claims for monetary damages by
current and former temporary employees working in the state of
California.  The Fuller matter involves claims relating to alleged
misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and not
entitled to overtime compensation under state law and to alleged
technical violations of a state law governing the content of
employee pay stubs.

On April 30, 2007, the Court in the Fuller case certified both
plaintiff classes involved in the lawsuit.  In the third quarter
of 2008, Kelly was granted a hearing date for its motions related
to summary judgment on both certified claims.

On March 13, 2009, the Court granted Kelly's motion for
decertification of the classes. Plaintiffs filed a petition for
review on April 3, 2009 requesting the decertification ruling be
overturned.

The Plaintiffs' request was granted on May 17, 2010 and the suit
was recertified as a class action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the Fuller
lawsuit and will continue to vigorously defend itself during the
litigation process.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a
global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and
territories throughout the world.


MBIA INC: Individual Defendants Dismissed From Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Individual defendants Juliette Tehrani and David Elliot were
voluntarily dismissed from the consolidated class action filed
against MBIA, Inc., In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation;
(Case No. 05 CV 03514(LLS); S.D.N.Y.), according to the company's
August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010.

The Company was named as a defendant, along with certain of its
current and former officers, in private securities actions that
were consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York as In re MBIA Inc. Securities
Litigation; (Case No. 05 CV 03514(LLS); S.D.N.Y.) (filed
October 3, 2005). The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
lead plaintiffs purport to be acting as representatives for a
class consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period from August 5, 2003 to March 30, 2005. The lawsuit asserts,
among other things, violations of the federal securities laws
arising out of the Company's allegedly false and misleading
statements about its financial condition and the nature of the
arrangements entered into by MBIA Corp. in connection with a
health care transaction loss. The plaintiffs allege that, as a
result of these misleading statements or omissions, the Company's
stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

The defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss
this lawsuit on various grounds. On February 13, 2007, the Court
granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety,
on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. The Court did not reach the
other grounds for dismissal argued by the Company and the other
defendants.

On November 12, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal on statute of
limitations grounds, but remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint. The Second Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint was filed on February 18, 2009. The
defendants filed their renewed motion to dismiss on April 17,
2009, and on September 24, 2009, the Court granted that motion and
dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

On November 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
April 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed their opening brief. On June 11,
2010, the Company and the individual defendants filed their
response brief. On June 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their reply
brief.

On June 22 and 24, 2010, individual defendants Juliette Tehrani
and David Elliot, respectively, were voluntarily dismissed from
the litigation.

MBIA, Inc. -- http://www.mbia.com-- is engaged in providing
financial guarantee insurance and other forms of credit
protection, as well as investment management services to public
finance and structured finance issuers, investors and capital
market participants on a global basis.


MBIA INC: Faces Second Amended Complaint in NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08-CV-
264, (KMK) have filed their second consolidated amended class
action complaint against MBIA, Inc., according to the company's
August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010.

On October 17, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
in a shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company and
certain of its officers, In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 08-CV-264, (KMK) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. Lead plaintiff, the Teachers' Retirement
System of Oklahoma, seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased MBIA stock between July 2, 2007 and January 9, 2008. The
amended complaint alleges that defendants MBIA Inc., Gary C.
Dunton and C. Edward Chaplin violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's exposure to CDOs
containing RMBS, specifically its exposure to so-called "CDO-
squared" securities, which allegedly caused the Company's stock to
trade at inflated prices.

On March, 31, 2010, the Court denied in part and granted in part
MBIA's motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was granted in
full as to Messrs. Chaplin and Dunton.

On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint.

MBIA, Inc. -- http://www.mbia.com-- is engaged in providing
financial guarantee insurance and other forms of credit
protection, as well as investment management services to public
finance and structured finance issuers, investors and capital
market participants on a global basis.


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.'s motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint in a consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit filed
in Arizona remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 9,
2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On October 3, 10, and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action
lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-
01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
stockholders who purchased securities of the Company during the
period between October 30, 2003, and approximately September 24,
2008. The Court consolidated these actions into a single
proceeding and on May 18, 2009, an amended complaint was filed
alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements
in 2008.

On December 2, 2009, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice, and on January 18, 2010, the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

On February 19, 2010, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety on
various grounds. The Company will continue to vigorously defend
the claims in these consolidated matters.

Scottsdale, Arizona-based Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. sells
prescription skin medications, and offers aethestic dermal
treatments.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: $80MM Lawsuit Settlement Now Effective
---------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit is now effective, according to the
company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2010.

On March 9, 2010, the Company and certain of its present and
former officers and directors entered into a Settlement Agreement,
subject to final approval of the court, to settle a consolidated
class action case in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota captioned In re MoneyGram International,
Inc. Securities Litigation. The settlement provides for a cash
payment of $80 million, all but $20 million of which would be paid
by the Company's insurance carriers.

At a hearing on June 18, 2010, the Court issued a final order and
judgment approving the settlement. The settlement became effective
on July 26, 2010, when the time to appeal the Court's final order
and judgment expired without any appeal having been filed. The
Company paid $20.0 million into an escrow account in March 2010
and the insurance carrier paid $60.0 million in April 2010,
resulting in full settlement of the Company's liability in this
matter.

MoneyGram International, Inc. (NYSE: MGI) --
http://www.moneygram.com/-- is a leading global payment services
company.  The Company's major products and services include global
money transfers, money orders and payment processing solutions for
financial institutions and retail customers.  MoneyGram is a New
York Stock Exchange listed company with 203,000 global money
transfer agent locations in 191 countries and territories.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Court to Hear Class Certification Oct. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc.'s motion for partial summary
judgment as well as plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
an ERISA class action lawsuit will be heard on October 22, 2010,
according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2010.

On April 22, 2008, Delilah Morrison, on behalf of herself and all
other MoneyGram 401(k) Plan participants, brought an action in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The
complaint alleges claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, including claims that the
defendants breached fiduciary duties by failing to manage the
plan's investment in Company stock, and by continuing to offer
Company stock as an investment option when the stock was no longer
a prudent investment. The complaint also alleges that defendants
failed to provide complete and accurate information regarding
Company stock sufficient to advise plan participants of the risks
involved with investing in Company stock and breached fiduciary
duties by failing to avoid conflicts of interests and to properly
monitor the performance of plan fiduciaries and fiduciary
appointees. Finally, the complaint alleges that to the extent that
the Company is not a fiduciary, it is liable for knowingly
participating in the fiduciary breaches as alleged. On August 7,
2008, plaintiff amended the complaint to add an additional
plaintiff, name additional defendants and additional allegations.
For relief, the complaint seeks damages based on what the most
profitable alternatives to Company stock would have yielded,
unspecified equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 25, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification, which defendants opposed in a
brief filed May 28, 2010. On June 8, 2010, defendants filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Both motions are scheduled
for hearing before the Court on October 22, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY & MCKENNA
          295 Madison Ave 4th Fl
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-1300
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Perry, Esq.
          PERRY & PERRY, PLLP
          5401 Gamble Dr. Ste. 270
          Minneapolis, MN 55416
          Telephone: 952-546-3555
          E-mail: shawn.perry@pppllp.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Stephen P. Lucke, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
          Telephone: 612-343-7947
          Facsimile: 952-516-5643

MoneyGram International, Inc. (NYSE: MGI) --
http://www.moneygram.com/-- is a leading global payment services
company.  The Company's major products and services include global
money transfers, money orders and payment processing solutions for
financial institutions and retail customers.  MoneyGram is a New
York Stock Exchange listed company with 203,000 global money
transfer agent locations in 191 countries and territories.


NEWALLIANCE BANCSHARES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NewAlliance Bancshares is
selling itself too cheaply to First Niagara Financial Group, for
$14.09 a share, or 1.1 Niagara shares for each NewAlliance share,
a $1.5 billion deal, shareholders claim in New Haven Superior
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Kops v. NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2033162984 (Conn. Super. Ct., New Haven Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/26/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
          DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI LLP
          One Atlantic St.
          Stanford, CT 06901
          Telephone: 203-358-0800

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-660-8000


NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corp. continues to defend several related antitrust class-
action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 3, 2009.

Standard Iron Works v. ArcelorMittal, et al., Case No. 08-cv-5214
(N.D. Ill.), was filed on Sept. 12, 2008, and names the company
as defendant along with:

     1. ArcelorMittal USA,
     2. U.S. Steel Corp.,
     3. Gerdau Ameristeel,
     4. Steel Dynamics, Inc.,
     5. AK Steel Holding,
     6. SSAB Swedish Steel, and
     7. Commercial Metals

The plaintiffs allege that from January 2005 to the present, the
eight steel manufacturers engaged in anticompetitive activities
with respect to the production and sale of steel.  The plaintiffs
seek monetary and other relief.

In a decision announced on June 12, 2009, Judge James B. Zagel
denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the lawsuit.  Judge
Zagel determined that the eight steel manufacturers coordinated
production schedules and undertook other schemes intended to
inflate the price of steel between January 2005 and the present.

No further updates were reported in the company's recent Form 10-Q
filing.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Nucor Corporation produces about
25 million tons of steel annually, including hot- and cold-rolled
steel, steel joists, and metal buildings.  A major recycler of
scrap metal, the Company produces steel by melting scrap in
electric arc furnaces.


NYMAGIC INC: Faces Four Suits in New York Over ProSight Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
NYMAGIC, Inc., said it intends to defend itself against four class
action lawsuits challenging its merger with ProSight Specialty
Insurance Holdings, Inc., according to the company's August 9,
2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On July 15, 2010, NYMAGIC entered into a definitive agreement to
be acquired by ProSight Specialty Insurance Holdings, Inc.
ProSight Specialty Insurance Holdings, Inc., was founded by a
group of senior executives from the property and casualty industry
and is backed by affiliates of TPG Capital and GS Capital
Partners.

Between July 16 and July 26, 2010, four substantially similar
putative class action lawsuits were commenced by stockholders of
NYMAGIC against the Company, its board of directors and ProSight
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of
New York challenging the proposed merger, captioned, Gross v.
NYMAGIC, Inc., No. 650979/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed July 16,
2010), Kahn v. Trumbull, No. 651033/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed July
20, 2010), Cambridge Retirement System v. NYMAGIC, Inc., No.
651058/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed July 21, 2010), and Walker v.
NYMAGIC, Inc., No. 109851/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed July 26,
2010), respectively. The complaints, each of which purports to be
brought as a class action on behalf of all of the Company's
stockholders, excluding the defendants and their affiliates,
allege that the consideration that stockholders will receive in
connection with the merger is inadequate and that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in
negotiating and approving the merger agreement. The complaints
further allege that the Company and ProSight aided and abetted the
alleged breaches by the Company's directors. The complaints seek
various forms of relief, including injunctive relief to prevent
consummation of the merger.

A motion to consolidate the actions and appoint a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel has been filed and is currently pending. The
Company believes that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously.

Headquartered in New York, NYMAGIC, INC. is a holding company that
owns and operates insurance companies, risk bearing entities and
insurance underwriters and managers.


RELIANCE STANDARD: Still Faces Suit Over Retained Asset Account
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Delphi
Financial Group, Inc., continues to face a purported class-action
lawsuit in Mississippi, entitled "Moore v. Reliance Standard Life
Insurance Company," according to Delphi Financial's Aug. 9,
2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The complaint, filed on July 3, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi, challenges RSLIC's
ability to pay certain insurance policy benefits through a
mechanism commonly known in the insurance industry as a retained
asset account and contains related claims of breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

The suit is "Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00161-WAP-SAA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Judge W. Allen
Pepper, presiding.

The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this
action will have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jason L. Nabors, Esq.
          SMITH, PHILLIPS, MITCHELL & SCOTT
          P.O. Drawer 1586
          Batesville, MS 38606
          Telephone: 662-563-4613
          E-mail: jason@smithphillips.com

               - and -

          Ronald R. Parry, Esq.
          PARRY DEERING FUTSCHER & SPARKS, PSC
          P.O. Box 2618
          Covington, KY 41012-2618
          Telephone: 859-291-9000
          E-mail: rparry@pdfslaw.com
Representing the defendants are:

          Dan W. Webb, Esq.
          WEBB SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC
          P.O. Box 496
          Tupelo, MS 38802-0496
          Telephone: 662-844-2137
          E-mail: dwebb@webbsanders.com

               - and -

          Phillip E. Stano, Esq.
          SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP
          1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2415
          Telephone: 202-383-0100

Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company provides insurance
products and services in all states (except New York), the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Delphi Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE:DFG). Delphi
Financial Group, Inc. is an integrated employee benefit services
company.


RENTECH INC: Response to Consolidated Complaint Due Oct. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc., has until October 15, 2010, to respond to a
consolidated class action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, according to the
company's Aug. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Between December 29, 2009 and January 6, 2010, three purported
class action shareholder lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that the Company and the named current and
former directors and officers made false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance in connection with
its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2009. Plaintiffs in the actions purport to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Rentech
securities between May 9, 2008, and December 14, 2009 and seek
unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The cases were consolidated as Michael Silbergleid v. Rentech,
Inc., et al. (In re Rentech Securities Litigation), Lead Case No.
2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), and a lead plaintiff was
appointed on April 5, 2010.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 20, 2010, and
the Company's response is due on October 15, 2010. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company cannot at
this time estimate the cost to resolve these matters, but it does
not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect
on the Company.

Rentech, Inc. -- http://www.rentechinc.com/-- is focused on
providing clean energy solutions.  The company is focusing on the
deployment of the Rentech Process and the Rentech-SilvaGas biomass
gasification technology (Rentech-SilvaGas Technology) through both
licensing of its technology and development of facilities to
produce synthetic fuels and chemicals, natural gas substitutes,
and electric power from renewable and fossil feedstocks.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Accused of Overtime Violations in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Southwest Airlines and J.C.
Penney are accused of overtime violations in separate class
actions in Los Angeles Superior Court.


TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Expects Settlement to Become Final Late 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
TETRA Technologies, Inc., expects its $8.25 million settlement
agreement with plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit to become final by late 2010, according to
the company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Between March 27, 2008, and April 30, 2008, two putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) against the
Company and certain former officers by certain stockholders on
behalf of themselves and other stockholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between January 3, 2007, and October 16,
2007. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaints allege that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws during the period by, among
other things, disseminating false and misleading statements and
concealing material facts concerning the Company's current and
prospective business and financial results. The complaints also
allege that, as a result of these actions, the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated during the class period, which
enabled the Company's insiders to sell their personally-held
shares for a substantial gain. The complaints seek unspecified
compensatory damages, costs, and expenses.

On May 8, 2008, the Court consolidated these complaints as In re
TETRA Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:08-cv-0965
(S.D. Tex.). On August 27, 2008, Lead Plaintiff Fulton County
Employees' Retirement System filed its Amended Consolidated
Complaint.

On October 28, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
federal class action. On July 9, 2009, the Court issued an opinion
dismissing, without prejudice, most of the claims in this lawsuit,
but permitting plaintiffs to proceed on their allegations
regarding disclosures pertaining to the collectability of certain
insurance receivables.

On June 16, 2010, defendants and plaintiff's counsel reached a
settlement agreement whereby all claims against defendants will be
released in exchange for a payment of $8.25 million, which is
expected to be paid by the Company's insurers. On July 21, 2010,
the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the Court, and the Company expects the settlement
to become final in late 2010.

TETRA Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.tetratec.com/-- is an
oil and gas services company with an integrated calcium chloride
and brominated products manufacturing operation that supplies
feedstocks to energy markets, as well as other markets.  The
Company has three divisions: Fluids, Well Abandonment and
Decommissioning (WA&D), and Production Enhancement.  Its Fluids
Division manufactures and markets brine fluids, additives, and
other associated products and services to the oil and gas industry
for use in well drilling, completion, and workover operations both
domestically and in certain regions of Europe, Asia, Latin America
and Africa.  The WA&D Division consists of two operating segments:
WA&D Services and Maritech.  The Production Enhancement Division
provides production testing services to the Texas, New Mexico,
Louisiana, offshore Gulf of Mexico, and certain international
markets.


TIGRENT INC: Canadian Unit Faces Suit Seeking Repayment
-------------------------------------------------------
Tigrent Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Whitney Canada, Inc.,
continues to face a class action complaint in Quebec, according to
the company's Aug. 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On Jan. 11, 2007, Whitney Canada and the company received notice
of an Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action
in the Province of Quebec, Canada on behalf of all persons who are
alleged to have made various real estate investments at the
alleged inducement of, or through, Marc Jemus, Francois Roy,
Robert Primeau and/or their companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or
Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or the company and/or Jean Lafreniere.

The complaint seeks repayment of $39,235 to the petitioner,
unspecified payment to each member of the class of an amount
corresponding to their lost investments, payment of $10,000 to
each member of the class as general damages, recovery of costs and
other litigation expenses, and unspecified equitable relief.

On Oct. 19 and Oct. 20, 2009, the company argued its motions for
lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss the authorization of the class
claims against Whitney Information Network n/k/a Tigrent.

On Nov. 3, 2009, the Canadian Court denied the company's motion
for lack of jurisdiction.

On Aug. 19, 2010, the Canadian Court denied the plaintiffs'
Re-re-Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class action
against the company, but granted the motion against, Whitney
Canada, Inc.

Tigrent Inc. -- http://tigrent.com/-- formerly Whitney
Information Network, Inc., is a provider of practical, training,
conferences, publications, technology-based tools and mentoring.
Through its affiliates, Tigrent Brands, Tigrent Learning, Tigrent
eLearning and Rich Dad Education, the company provides a training
model that imparts skills and knowledge in investing (real estate
and financial instruments), entrepreneurship and personal finance.
The company's courses are available for customers to attend live
and in person at various regional locations.  Many of Tigrent's
trainings are offered in a virtual live environment over the
Internet.  Other forms of training program delivery include on-
demand streaming Internet-based courses and packaged compact discs
(CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs), as well as mentoring and
personal phone coaching.


WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Awaits Court Okay of "Cuesta" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Controls, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement agreement in the class action, Cuesta v. Ford, et al.,
according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On October 1, 2004, the Company was named as a co-defendant in a
product liability case (Cuesta v. Ford, et al), brought in the
Oklahoma State District Court in Bryant, Oklahoma. The complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the class
based on allegations that certain of the Company's products, as
incorporated into certain models of Ford motor vehicles, are in
some way defective.

Management continues to believe the claim to be without merit,
however, the Company has entered into a settlement agreement
between and among Ford and the plaintiff group.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company recorded a
$775,000 provision for a full settlement and release of all
claims. The settlement agreement involves settlements with both
Ford and the Company, with the Company's settlement costs to be
$775,000.  The settlement will require court approval, which the
Company believes is probable.

Williams Controls, Inc. -- http://www.wmco.com/-- designs,
manufactures and sells electronic throttle and pneumatic control
systems for heavy trucks, transit busses and off-road equipment.
Electronic throttle controls send a signal proportional to
throttle position to adjust the speed of electronically controlled
engines.  The company's active subsidiaries include Williams
Controls Industries, Inc. (Williams), Williams (Suzhou)
Controls Co. Ltd. (Williams Controls Asia), Williams Controls
Europe GmbH (Williams Controls Europe) and Williams Controls
India Private Limited (Williams Controls India).


                           *********

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  * * *