CAR_Public/100901.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 172

                             Headlines

AMERICA SERVICE: Class Certification Denial Ruling Affirmed
AMERICA SERVICE: Final Approval of $10.5-Mil. Settlement Pending
AMERICAN DENTAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
BRAZILIAN BANKS: Superior Court Narrows Scope of Savings Refunds
CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Hayward Tenants' Class Action Mulled

CAMERON INT'L: Motion to Consolidate "Deepwater" Suits Pending
CENTRAL GARDEN: Sued for Selling Unsafe Flea Control Products
CHARLIE CRIST: Plaintiffs Ask Judge to Ban Use of Campaign Funds
CLERMONT COUNTY: 6th Cir. Rejects Suit Over Missing Organs
DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: D&Os Sued for Selling Firm to PwC at Low Price

DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: D&Os Face 2nd Suit Over Sale to PwC
ECLIPSYS CORP: Defends Six Suits Over Planned Allscripts Merger
FACEBOOK INC: Breach of Contract Claims in Click Fraud Suit Junked
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Pictures of Minors
FBL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion in "Tabares" Pending

FBL FINANCIAL: Discovery in "Eller" Suit Ongoing
H&R BLOCK: Seeks Reargument of Basile Case in Pa. Superior Court
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery in Suit Over Budeprion XL Ongoing
LAKESHORE LEARNING: Recalls 18,500 Magnetic Maze Boards
LANDWIN MANAGEMENT: Wyatt Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

LITHIA MOTORS: Agrees to Conduct Arbitration with Plaintiffs
MANTLE OIL: Faces Class Action Over Blown Well Near Paincourtville
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: High Court Grants Petition for Review
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Motion for Lead Plaintiff Remains Pending
MERCK SHARP: 1,500 People Join Class Action Lawsuit Over Vioxx

NEW LEAF: Still a Defendant in Suit Over Calif. Proposition 65
NEWALLIANCE BANK: Shareholders File Suit Over First Niagara Sale
OGE ENERGY: Rehearing Request in Price I Denied by Kansas Court
OGE ENERGY: Court Denies Rehearing Motion in Price II Suit
OGE ENERGY: Files Writ of Prohibition with Oklahoma High Court

PACTIV CORP: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint
SKECHERS USA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Judge Rejects Motion for Mistrial
SLM CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Arthur" Suit

SLM CORP: "Chae" Plaintiffs File Petition for Certiorari
SPRINT NEXTEL: Continues to Seek Settlement of "Easement" Suits
SPRINT NEXTEL: Motion for Summary Judgment Remains Pending
SYNGENTA CROP: Judge Crowder to Rule on Motion to Quash Very Soon
UNISOURCE ENERGY: BIA Says Appeal Fails to Meet Requirements

UNITED WESTERN: U.C.C. Article 4-A Violations Claim Dismissed
VISTAPRINT USA: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Texas Suit

                             *********

AMERICA SERVICE: Class Certification Denial Ruling Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has affirmed the ruling denying
class certification in the matter Andrew Berkowitz, M.D.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Prison Health Services, Inc. and City of Philadelphia, according
to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On or about Aug. 2, 2006, plaintiff, an individual physician
independent contractor in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed a
putative class action suit against Prison Health Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of America Service Group Inc., and the City of
Philadelphia in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Trial Division, seeking unspecified damages for the class, but
damages in the amount of approximately $10,000 individually.

Plaintiff alleges that he provided services to inmates in the
Philadelphia Prison System at the request of the defendants and
that the defendants breached the alleged contractual duties owed
to him by paying an amount alleged to be less than the full amount
plaintiff billed for his medical services.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the City filed a New Matter Crossclaim against
PHS alleging breach of contract, negligence and seeking
indemnification.  On Sept. 29, 2006, PHS filed its Answer to
plaintiff's complaint, which Answer included a crossclaim against
the City for contribution and indemnification.

The plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on Oct. 1,
2007; and PHS and the City responded to this motion.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The plaintiff appealed the trial court's ruling.

On May 24, 2010, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the
trial court's order denying the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The ruling of the Superior Court is now final.

As a result of the denial of the plaintiff's motion for class
certification, an adverse judgment against PHS in this case can no
longer have a material adverse affect on the company's financial
position.

America Service Group Inc. -- http://www.asgr.com/-- provides
correctional healthcare services in the United States.  America
Service Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a wide
range of healthcare programs to government agencies for the
medical care of inmates.


AMERICA SERVICE: Final Approval of $10.5-Mil. Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
America Service Group Inc., awaits final approval of the
settlement agreement resolving a consolidated action against the
company for $10.5 million, according to the company's Aug. 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed the first of four similar
securities class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee against the company and the
company's Chief Executive Officer, at that time, and Chief
Financial Officer.

Plaintiffs' allegations in these class action lawsuits are
substantially identical and generally allege on behalf of a
putative class of individuals who purchased the company's common
stock between Sept. 24, 2003 and March 16, 2006 that, prior to the
company's announcement of the Audit Committee investigation, the
company and/or the company's Chief Executive Officer, at that
time, and Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-
5 by making false and misleading statements, or concealing
information about the company's business, forecasts and financial
performance.

The complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

By order dated Aug. 3, 2006, the district court consolidated the
lawsuits into one consolidated action and on Oct. 31, 2006,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Secure Pharmacy Plus,
LLC, Enoch E. Hartman III and Grant J. Bryson as defendants.

Enoch E. Hartman III is a former employee of the company and SPP
and Grant J. Bryson is a former employee of SPP.

The amended complaint also generally alleges that defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning the company's business
which caused the company's securities to trade at inflated prices
during the class period.

Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages in the form of:

     (i) restitution;
    (ii) compensatory damages, including interest; and
   (iii) reasonable costs and expenses.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 19,
2007, and the parties completed the briefs on the motion in May
2007.

On March 31, 2009, the Court ruled on the defendants' motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part.

While the Court's ruling dismissed significant portions of
plaintiffs' amended complaint and, as a result, narrowed the scope
of plaintiffs' claims, none of the defendants were dismissed from
the case and several of plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 remain.

The parties were not in agreement as to the scope of the Court's
order and defendants filed a motion to confirm which claims the
Court dismissed in its March 31, 2009 ruling.  The Court granted
defendants' motion to confirm the scope of the dismissal order on
July 20, 2009, ruling that certain of Plaintiff's claims had been
in fact dismissed.

The Court also confirmed, however, that certain other claims
remained viable.

On July 22, 2009, the Court administratively closed the
shareholder litigation case, while the parties pursued mediation
of this matter.

On Feb. 19, 2010, the parties agreed to the terms of a mediator's
proposal to settle all of the claims in this lawsuit.

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well as
approval by the Court, provides for payment by the company of
$10.5 million and issuance by the Company of 300,000 shares of
common stock and would lead to a dismissal with prejudice of all
claims against all defendants in the litigation.  The preliminary
total value of the settlement, based upon the Company's closing
share price for its common stock of $15.42 per share on Feb. 19,
2010, is approximately $15.1 million.

As such, the company has recorded a reserve of $15.1 million,
which has been included in accrued expenses in the company's
consolidated balance sheet as of Dec. 31, 2009.  The final value
of the settlement will be determined based upon the company's
closing share price at the time of final approval of the
settlement by the Court.

The settlement provides for price protection to the plaintiffs in
the event the closing share price is below $14.65 per share at the
time of final approval of the settlement by the Court.  In such
event, the company would pay in cash the difference between the
share value at the time of final approval and $14.65 per share.

The parties have formalized the terms of the settlement through a
written agreement which received preliminary approval from the
court on May 3, 2010.  Upon final approval of the Court and
payment of the settlement amount, the company will consider this
matter closed.

America Service Group Inc. -- http://www.asgr.com/-- provides
correctional healthcare services in the United States.  America
Service Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a wide
range of healthcare programs to government agencies for the
medical care of inmates.


AMERICAN DENTAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts gave its
final approval to the settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated amended complaint against American Dental Partners,
Inc., according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

On or about Jan. 25, 2008, Feb. 4, 2008, Feb. 12, 2008 and
March 13, 2008, the company and certain of its executive officers
were named as defendants in four actions respectively entitled:

     (1) Oliphant v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et al.,
         civil action number 1:08-CV-10119-RGS;

     (2) Downey v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et al., civil
         action number 1:08-CV-10169-RGS;

     (3) Johnston v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et al.,
         civil action number 1:08-CA-10230-RGS; and

     (4) Monihan v. American Dental Partners, Inc., et al.,
         civil action number 1:08-CV-10410-RGS.

The actions were all filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The actions each purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period Aug.
10, 2005, through Dec. 13, 2007.

The complaints allege that the company and certain of its
executive officers violated the federal securities laws, in
particular, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, by making allegedly material
misrepresentations and failing to disclose allegedly material
facts concerning the lawsuit by Park Dental Group, or PDG, against
PDHC, Ltd., titled PDG, P.A. v. PDHC, Ltd., Civ. A. Nos. 27-CV-06-
2500 and 27-CV-07-13030, filed in the Fourth Judicial District of
Hennepin County, Minnesota on Feb. 3, 2006, and conduct at issue
in that action during the class period, which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the company's stock.
Each complaint also asserts control person claims under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the executive
officers named as defendants.

Each plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of
money damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable,
injunctive or other relief the Court deems proper.

On or about May 29, 2008, the Court appointed the Operating
Engineers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and its counsel, the law
firm of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., as lead counsel.

The Court also ordered that the four pending actions be
consolidated under the caption In re American Dental Partners,
Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action number 1:08-CV-10119-RGS.

On or about June 5, 2008, one of the original named plaintiffs,
W.K. Downey, agreed to enter an order that dismissed his
individual claims with prejudice.

On Sept. 29, 2008, the Operating Engineers Pension Fund filed with
the Court a consolidated amended complaint that alleges a new
class period of Feb. 25, 2004, through Dec. 13, 2007, and asserts
violations of the federal securities laws.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the action.  The Court denied the motion on
April 2, 2009.

On Dec. 15, 2009, the company, the other defendants and the lead
plaintiff entered a Class Action Settlement Agreement to settle
and release all remaining claims.

The settlement agreement was filed on Dec. 15, 2009, and is
subject to the Court's final approval.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement on
Dec. 23, 2009.

Pursuant to its terms, the insurance company that issued the
company's Directors, Officers and Corporate Liability Insurance
Policy has paid $6,000,000 into a settlement fund that will be
distributed in accordance with the Court's Final Order, dated
April 9, 2010.

On or about Feb. 22 and 23, 2010, Special Situations Fund III
L.P., Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., and Special Situations
Fund III Q.P., L.P. excluded themselves from the settlement and
filed an opt-out complaint in the District of Massachusetts,
against the Company and the same executive officers named as
defendants in the prior actions, entitled "Special Situations Fund
III, L.P. et al. v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et al.," civil
action number 1:10-CV-10331, which is referred to as the Opt-Out
Action.  The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs purchased over
500,000 shares of the Company's common stock during the class
period, alleges the same violations of the federal securities
laws, and claims that certain of the alleged misrepresentations
also violated Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78(r).  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of money
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and any other relief the Court
deems proper.  On June 11, 2010, the Company and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Action.  The
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on July 9, 2010.  The
Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

American Dental Partners, Inc. -- http://www.amdpi.com/-- is one
of the nation's leading business partners to dental group
practices.  The company is affiliated with 27 dental group
practices, which have 268 dental facilities with approximately
2,259 operatories located in 19 states.


BRAZILIAN BANKS: Superior Court Narrows Scope of Savings Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Frisch, writing for Bloomberg News, reports most Brazilian
bank stocks rose after a high court invalidated 99 percent of
lawsuits demanding additional interest payments on savings
deposits from 1987 to 1991 to compensate investors for inflation.

The Superior Court of Justice late Wednesday narrowed the scope of
a previous decision that ordered banks to refund depositors as
much as BRL180 billion (US$102 billion). Under the ruling, only
those investors in class-action suits filed no more than five
years after the alleged losses should be compensated. The decision
isn't final and can be appealed.

"The decision limited the scope of potential losses," said Aloisio
Lemos, a bank analyst with Agora Corretora in Rio de Janeiro.
Lemos said the ruling, if confirmed, may have a positive impact on
earnings because most banks had provisioned for bigger losses for
this case.

The Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense, known as Idec, said
Wednesday's ruling means that 99 percent of the account holders
included in the lawsuits will no longer be compensated, according
to a statement.  Most class-action suits were filed five years
after the alleged loss, according to Idec.

The Brazilian Banking Association said in a statement it's
analyzing the impact of the court's decision.


CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Hayward Tenants' Class Action Mulled
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit is presently pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California entitled La Raza Unida of
Southern Alameda County, et al., v. Samuel K. Skinner, et al.,
Case No. C71-1166 TEH.  The lawsuit is a class action filed in
1971 on behalf of tenants in the Route 238 Freeway Corridor who
allegedly would have been displaced due to, and adversely affected
by the environmental impacts from, the then-proposed California
State Route 238 freeway or expressway project in Hayward, Calif.

Dismissal of this lawsuit is now being considered because the
Project has been permanently abandoned and will never be
constructed.  Also, a class-wide settlement agreement has been
reached in a state court case, Swanson, et al. v. California
Department of Transportation and the City of Hayward, Alameda
Superior Court Case No. RG 09476468.  That settlement agreement
will provide housing-related benefits to tenants residing in
properties acquired by the California Department of Transportation
for the Project, but cannot be implemented unless this federal
court case is dismissed.  Dismissal of this federal court case
will also enable the sale of the Route 238 Freeway Corridor
properties to generate funds for local transportation projects
adopted in lieu of the Project.

The parties have submitted their request for dismissal to the
federal court, which has granted preliminary approval of the
dismissal. The court will hold a hearing on October 4, 2010, at
10:00 AM, in Courtroom 12, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
CA 94102, to determine whether to grant final approval of the
dismissal.  You are welcome to attend this hearing but you are not
required to do so.

Any comments on or objections to the dismissal of this case must
be received in writing by one of the attorneys listed below on or
before September 24, 2010. You may also contact any of the
attorneys listed below if you have any questions about this
notice.

         Stephen E. Ronfeldt, Esq.
         THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT
         449-15th Street, Suite 301
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 891-9794

              - or -

         Michael Lawson, Esq.
         THE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
         City Hall
         777 B Street
         Hayward, CA 94541-5007
         Telephone: (510) 583-4450

              - or -

         David Gossage, Esq., Deputy Chief Counsel
         Lucille Baca, Esq., Assistant Chief Counsel
         CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LEGAL DIVISION
         595 Market Street, Suite 1700
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 904-5700


CAMERON INT'L: Motion to Consolidate "Deepwater" Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to consolidate all suits resulting from the Deepwater
Horizon incident is pending, according to Cameron International
Corporation's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

A blowout preventer originally manufactured by the company and
delivered in 2001, and for which the company was one of the
suppliers of spare parts and repair services, was deployed by the
drilling rig Deepwater Horizon when it experienced a tragic
explosion and fire on April 20, 2010, resulting in bodily injuries
and loss of life, loss of the rig, and an unprecedented discharge
of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico.

While the company did not operate the BOP nor did it have anyone
on the rig at the time of the incident, claims for personal
injury, wrongful death and property damage arising from the
Deepwater Horizon incident have been and will continue to be
asserted against the company.  Additionally, claims for pollution
and other economic damages, including business interruption and
loss of revenue, have been, and the company anticipates will
continue to be, asserted against all parties associated with this
incident, including the company, BP plc and certain of its
subsidiaries, the operator of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 upon
which the Macondo well was being drilled, Transocean Ltd. and
certain of its affiliates, the rig owner and operator, as well as
other equipment and service companies.

The company has been named as one of several defendants in over
270 suits filed in a variety of Federal and State courts, of which
over 160 have been filed as class actions, and over 50 each as
multi-plaintiff and single plaintiff actions.  A motion to
consolidate all suits pending in Federal courts into a single
proceeding before a single Federal judge under the Federal rules
governing multi-district litigation has been made.

This would involve all but less than 10 of the cases filed.  A
decision on the consolidation motion In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil
Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010,
MDL Docket No. 2179, is expected by mid-August 2010.

The company adds that it is also possible that claims for
destruction of and/or harm to natural resources may be asserted
against those associated with this incident by the United States
Government and by the Gulf and/or East Coast States, whose
Attorneys General have notified the company to preserve documents
in the event of a claim, and possibly by other parties.  This
event and its causes are also being investigated by the U.S. Coast
Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which have named
Cameron as a party-in-interest in their joint investigation, the
Department of Justice, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, and by numerous other
governmental entities, including Congressional Committees.

Cameron International Corporation -- http://www.c-a-m.com/-- is a
leading provider of flow equipment products, systems and services
to worldwide oil, gas and process industries.


CENTRAL GARDEN: Sued for Selling Unsafe Flea Control Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Johansson, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Central Garden and Pet Company, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-03771 (N.D. Calif. August 25, 2010), charges the pet
supplies manufacturer with selling flea-protection products
containing Pyrethrin, an active ingredient in flea and tick
control products sold over the counter, even though it knew that
these products could cause pets to fall ill or die when used in
accordance with label instructions.  Ms. Johansson says that she
used "Bio-Spot" on her companion pet, Jack, a 7-year old manx cat,
on August 19, 2010.  The following day Jack fell ill, and Ms.
Johansson had to use an organic shampoo to remove as much of the
product as she could.  The vet's assistant she spoke to said that
had she not shampooed Jack right away, the product most likely
would have killed him.  Ms. Johansson says that Central Garden's
actions violated Consumer Fraud Acts, including the California
Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacqueline Mottek, Esq.
          POSITIVE LEGAL
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 946-4014
          E-mail: jmottek@positivelegal.net

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Eric Freed, Esq.
          Julie D. Miller, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 220-0000
          E-mail: julie@freedwess.com


CHARLIE CRIST: Plaintiffs Ask Judge to Ban Use of Campaign Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
A report posted at news-press.com disclosed that a political
battle over the U.S. Senate seat is brewing in Naples -- at the
Collier County Courthouse.

A class-action lawsuit filed in June against Gov. Charlie Crist by
Republican contributors to his U.S. Senate campaign is seeking to
block about $10 million in funds since he left the party and
became an independent candidate.

On Monday, Senior Circuit Judge Jack Schoonover heard an emergency
motion filed by the plaintiffs, which asks for Judge Schoonover to
ban Mr. Crist from using the contributions, to make him put the
money in an account supervised by the court until the lawsuit is
resolved or requiring Mr. Crist to return the contributions.

Mr. Crist bolted the party in April to run as an independent after
polls showed him trailing former Florida House Speaker Marco
Rubio, who won last Tuesday's primary election. Polls now show
Rubio now with a close lead over Mr. Crist with Democratic
candidate Kendrick Meek a distant third.

The lawsuit was filed by Naples woman Linda Morton and John Rood
of Jacksonville, a former U.S. Ambassador to the Bahamas appointed
by former President George W. Bush. According to the lawsuit, Ms.
Morton contributed $500 and Mr. Rood $4,800.

"If defendants are permitted to retain and use Republican
contributions despite the fact that [Mr.] Crist is not running as
a Republican, not only will defendants gain a windfall at the
expense of the class, but the class will be unable to support the
true qualifying Republican candidate and the political process
will be irreparably harmed," the lawsuit states.

Mr. Crist's attorney, Scott Weinstein of Fort Myers, said the
lawsuit is about politics, not justice.

"The general (election) is starting now," he said. "It's to their
benefit to choke off an independent's campaign funds."  He said
nothing's changed but the symbol next to Mr. Crist's name on the
ballot.  "The governor's the same candidate with the same
principles," Mr. Weinstein said. "He's the same guy."

Former Florida Representative Tom Grady, R-Naples, represents Ms.
Morton and Mr. Rood in the lawsuit.  He said the case isn't about
politics, but about doing the right thing.

"[Mr.] Crist filled all of his papers saying, 'I'm a Republican, I
want to be a Republican.  Contribute to me as a Republican,'" Mr.
Grady said. "Now not only is [Mr.] Crist no longer a Republican,
he's opposing a Republican."


CLERMONT COUNTY: 6th Cir. Rejects Suit Over Missing Organs
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that coroners can
remove organs during an autopsy without notifying the deceased
person's loved ones, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit ruled, rejecting a class action filed by an Ohio
couple who said the practice violated their due-process rights.

Mark and Diane Albrecht sued on behalf of families whose deceased
relatives "were returned to them missing tissues or organs,"
according to the ruling.

The Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that the families have no
protected property interest in the dead bodies.

"Here, the Albrechts had no property rights on which the state
could infringe," Senior U.S. District Judge Joseph Hood wrote for
the appellate panel, because there was a legitimate investigative
purpose for the brain removal.

A corner examined the brain as part of an investigation into 30-
year-old Christopher Albrecht's death from drowning after an
epileptic seizure.

"When the body was returned to the Albrechts, they were not
informed that the coroner had retained the brain for further study
and that it would be destroyed once the investigation was
complete," according to the ruling.

The parents argued that the removal and destruction of their son's
brain, without their knowledge or consent, deprived them of their
right to dispose of the brain how they saw fit.

But the federal appeals court disagreed.

"Removal and retention of tissues or organs for forensic analysis
in furtherance of a criminal investigation serves an important
state function, which is paramount to the Albrechts' right to
possess their son's body in its entirety," Judge Hood wrote,
upholding a federal judge's ruling for the Clermont County coroner
and various county officials.

The Albrechts' attorney, John Metz, told the Cincinnati Enquirer
that he would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Once the cause of death is determined," he said, coroners "no
longer have any right to keep that body or any part of it."

A copy of the decision in Albrecht, et ux. v. Treon, et al., Case
No. 09-3703 (6th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0260p-06.pdf

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          John Henry Metz, Esq.
          JOHN HENRY METZ, LAW OFFICE
          1117 Edwards Rd.
          Cincinnati, OH 45208-3412
          Telephone: 513-241-8844

               - and -

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          DWORKEN BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: 440-352-3391

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          John Henry Metz, Esq.
          JOHN HENRY METZ, LAW OFFICE
          1117 Edwards Rd.
          Cincinnati, OH 45208-3412
          Telephone: 513-241-8844

               - and -

          H. Elizabeth Mason, Esq.
          CLERMONT COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
          Batavia, OH 45103

Amici Curiae is represented by:

          Mark D. Landes, Esq.
          David G. Jennings, Esq.
          Jennifer H. George, Esq.
          ISAAC, BRANT, LEDMAN & TEETOR
          250 East Broad St., Suite 900
          Columbus, OH 43215-3742
          Telephone 614-221-2121

               - and -

          David G. Lambert, Esq.
          Paul J. Cristallo, Esq.
          Frederick W. Whatley, Esq.
          CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
          Justice Center Bld. Floor 8th and 9th
          1200 Ontario St.
           Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: 216-443-7800


DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: D&Os Sued for Selling Firm to PwC at Low Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene F. Falconer, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Adam J. Gutstein, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-36552 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. August 24, 2010), accuses certain officers and
directors of Diamond Management & Technology Consultants, Inc.
of attempting to sell DTPI via an unfair process and at a grossly
indadequate price of $12.50 per share to PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, given the Company's strong first quarter 2011 earnings
performance and recent rise in the Company's stock trading price.
Mr. Falconer says that in doing so, each of the individual
defendants directly breached or aided the other defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
diligence, good faith, and fair dealing.  The transaction, Mr.
Falconer adds, also reaps disproportionate benefits for the
individual defendants to the exclusion of the Company's
shareholders.  The Complaint charges DTPI and PwC with aiding and
abetting the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

In explaining why the proposed offer of $12.50 per share of DTPI
common stock is grossly inadequate, Mr. Falconer relates that in
2010, DTPI's stock had risen over 60%, in contrast to the proposed
acquisition which provides for a mere 10% premium from the
Company's trading stock price of $11.36 on June 17, 2010.
Further, even in the now unlikely event that the Company receives
a superior offer, the Merger Agreement dated August 23, 2010,
allows PwC to match any offer, effectively shutting out potential
second bidders.  The individual defendants include: Adam J.
Gutstein, DTPI's CEO and President, Karl E. Bupp, DTPI's CFO,
Melvyn E. Bergstein, DTPI's non-executive Chairman of the Board,
and DTPI directors Michael E. Mikolajczyk, Javier Rubio, John J.
Sviokla (also DTPI's Vice Chairman and Global Managing Director of
Innovation and Research), Donald R. Caldwell, (DTPI's Lead
Director), Edward R. Anderson, Pauline A. Schneider, and  Michael
H. Moskow.  DTPI is a Delaware management and technology
consulting corporation primarily service clients in the financial
services, insurance, healthcare, and enterprise industries, as
well as in the public sector.

Messrs. Gutstein, Bupp, Bergstein, Mikolajczyk and Rubio have each
agreed to vote their shares of DTPI common stock in favor of the
Proposed Acquisition and against any alternate transaction
proposal.

The Merger Agreement also imposes a $9 million termination fee, or
2.4% of the amount PwC will pay, and also contains a no-
solicitation clause that prohibits the Company from seeking a
superior offer for its shareholders.

The proposed transaction has been unanimously approved by the
boards of DTPI and PwC and is expected to close in the fourth
quarter of 2010, subject to customary closing conditions,
including the approval of DTPI's stockholders and antitrust
clearance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward T. Joyce, Esq.
          Rowena T. Parma, Esq.
          EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-2600

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Gina Stassi, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B. Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990


DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: D&Os Face 2nd Suit Over Sale to PwC
-------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Silverberg, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Adam J. Gutstein, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-37030 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. August 26, 2010), brings claims against the
board of directors of Diamond Management & Technology Consultants,
Inc., arising out of their efforts to sell Diamond via an unfair
process and at an unfairly low price of $12.50 per share to
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, given the Company's anticipated
continued revenue and earnings growth for the remainder of fiscal
2011.  The Merger values the Company at $378 million, provides for
a termination fee of $9 million, and its expected to close in the
fourth quarter of 2010.

Mr. Gutstein is Diamond's President and Chief Executive Officer.
Diamond is a Delaware management consulting services company.
Defendants Diamond and PwC are accused of aiding and abetting the
individual defendants breaches of their fiduciary duties.

Mr. Silverberg says that in agreeing to the Merger, the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of undivided loyalty,
independence or due care to the Company's public shareholders.
The transaction, Mr. Silverberg adds, also reaps personal
financial benefits for the individual defendants to the exclusion
of the Company's shareholders.

Mr. Silverberg relates the proposed Merger is flawed because, in
addition to the provision of the $9 million termination fee, it
allows PwC to match any offer and contains a no-solicitation
provision, effectively precluding other potential bids.
Furthermore, Adam Gutstein and directors Karl Bupp, Melvyn
Bergstein, Michael Mikolajczyk and Javier Rubio have agreed to
vote their shares of Diamond  common stock in favor of the Merger
and against any alternative transaction proposal.

The proposed transaction has been unanimously approved by the
boards of Diamond and PwC and is expected to close in the fourth
quarter of 2010, subject to customary closing conditions,
including the approval of Diamond's stockholders and antitrust
clearance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606-0500
          E-mail: Clint@krislovlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050


ECLIPSYS CORP: Defends Six Suits Over Planned Allscripts Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eclipsys Corp. defends six purported class action complaints in
connection with its merger with Allscripts-Misys Healthcare
Solutions, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On or about June 15, 2010, Rajesh Nama, on behalf of himself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a purported class
action complaint in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of
Georgia, captioned Nama v. Pead, et al.  The lawsuit names
Allscripts, Arsenal Merger Corp., Eclipsys, and each of the
directors of Eclipsys as defendants.

On or about June 17, 2010, John Scoggins, on behalf of himself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a second purported
class action complaint in the same court and against the same
defendants -- except not Arsenal -- captioned Scoggins v. Eclipsys
Corp., et al.

On or about June 18, 2010, Colleen Witmer, on behalf of herself
and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a third purported
class action complaint in the same court and against the same
defendants as the first case and captioned Witmer v. Casey, et al.

On or about June 22, 2010, Michael Hiers, on behalf of himself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fourth purported
class action complaint in the same court and against the same
parties as the first case and captioned Hiers v. Casey, et al.

On or about June 22, 2010, the Iron Workers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension Plan, on behalf of itself and the public
stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fifth purported class action
complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of
Georgia, and against the same defendants as the first case --
except not Allscripts or Arsenal -- and captioned Iron Workers of
W. Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Pead, et al.

On or about June 30, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case
dismissed its complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia and refiled its complaint in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia.  On or about July 9, 2010,
the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case filed an Amended Complaint.

On or about July 9, 2010, Jody Madala, individually and on behalf
of the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a sixth purported
class action complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
State of Georgia against the same defendants as the first case
(except not Allscripts or Arsenal) captioned Madala v. Pead et al.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Eclipsys
directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Eclipsys aided
and abetted those breaches.  The two lawsuits first filed in
Gwinnett County contain allegations that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus/information statement on Form S-4 filed by
Allscripts and Eclipsys with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the merger of the company with
Allscripts is materially misleading in certain respects, including
the alleged omission of information concerning certain financial
projections and whether or how the parties and their financial
advisors have accounted for certain proceeds to be paid to Misys
in the stock buyback.

The four lawsuits originally filed in DeKalb County also allege
that Allscripts aided and abetted such alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the directors of Eclipsys.  Based on these
allegations, the lawsuits seek, among other relief, injunctive
relief enjoining the merger, and certain lawsuits seek damages in
the alternative. They also purport to seek recovery of the costs
of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees.  Based on the
facts known to date, the defendants believe that the claims
asserted against them in these lawsuits are without merit, and the
defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against the
claims.

On or about July 12, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Nama and Scoggins
actions jointly filed an amended complaint containing additional
allegations including allegations concerning allegedly false and
misleading statements in the joint proxy statement/prospectus/
information statement on Form S-4 relating to, among other things,
financial projections, synergies, the financial analyses of the
parties' financial advisors, and the events leading up to the
transaction.

On or about July 16, 2010, the Superior Court of DeKalb County
ruled that it would transfer all related cases in DeKalb County to
the Gwinnett County Superior Court Business Case Division.

On July 22, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Iron Workers' amended complaint for failure to state a claim.  On
July 27, 2010, the Gwinnett County Superior Court Business Case
Division granted the defendants' motion and dismissed with
prejudice the Iron Workers' claims, finding that plaintiff had not
stated a colorable claim against any director for breach of
fiduciary duty. On July 28, 2010, the Iron Workers filed a motion
for reconsideration, which the Gwinnett County Superior Court
Business Case Division denied the same day.

On or about July 29, 2010, Iron Workers filed an appeal with the
Georgia Court of Appeals seeking to enjoin the meeting of the
company's stockholders scheduled for Aug. 13, 2010 to vote on the
merger of the company and Allscripts and to expedite the appeals
process.  The company filed an opposition brief on
Aug. 4, 2010.

Also on or about July 29, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Nama and
Scoggins actions jointly filed a motion with the Gwinnett County
Superior Court Business Case Division alleging inadequate
disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus/ information
statement and seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
meeting of the company's stockholders scheduled for Aug. 13, 2010
to vote on the merger of the Company and Allscripts unless and
until the defendants agree to provide additional disclosure.  The
company has opposed this motion.

Eclipsys Corp. -- http://www.eclipsys.com/-- is a leading
provider of advanced integrated clinical, revenue cycle and
performance management software, clinical content and professional
services that help healthcare organizations improve clinical,
financial and operational outcomes.


FACEBOOK INC: Breach of Contract Claims in Click Fraud Suit Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge in San Jose,
Calif., trimmed parts of a class action accusing Facebook of
overcharging advertisers for fraudulent or bogus clicks.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel granted Facebook's motion to
dismiss claims for breach of contract based on click fraud and for
unfair competition under California law.

Lead plaintiffs RootZoo, Steven Price and Matthew Smith advertised
on the social networking site on a "cost-per-click" basis, meaning
their fees were based on how many people clicked their ads.

They claimed Facebook improperly billed them for failed clicks,
due to "a glitch in Facebook's website," and for nonexistent
clicks.  Facebook also charged for "unintentional, multiple clicks
from a Facebook user in rapid succession," according to
advertisers, and for click fraud -- when someone tries to deplete
an advertiser's budget with invalid clicks.

"Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant has engaged in any
knowing or reckless misrepresentation or concealment of the
truth," Judge Fogel said of the click fraud claim.  "Instead, they
claim that Defendant has breached the contract by charging for
'fraud' committed by third parties."

He added that Facebook's disclaimers "state unambiguously that
Defendant will not be liable for 'click fraud.'"

He also tossed the advertisers' unfair competition claims as
"insufficiently specific."

"The motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Plaintiffs'
breach of contract claim based upon click fraud, claims under the
unfair prong of the UCL (California's unfair competition law)
based upon click fraud, and claims under the unlawful and
fraudulent prongs of the UCL," Judge Fogel wrote.  "The motion
otherwise will be denied."

He gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

A copy of the Honorable Jeremy Fogel's Order in In re: Facebook
PPC Advertising Litigation, Case Nos. 09-cv-03043, 09-cv-03519,
and 09-cv-03430 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/27/Facebook%20ruling.pdf


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Pictures of Minors
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, Central Division, alleging that Facebook is
misappropriating the names and pictures of minors for profit.

David A. Cohen, a minor, by and through Robin S. Cohen as Guardian
ad Litem; Shelby Orland, a minor, by and through Marcia J. Orland
as Guardian ad Litem; on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. Facebook, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. BC444482 (Calif. Super Ct., Los Angeles Cty.
August 26, 2010), alleges that Facebook encourages the
participation of teenagers on its social network.  Without any
attempt to obtain parental consent, Facebook sells the names and
likenesses of those minors for use by advertisers as an
endorsement of the advertisers' products or services.

Plaintiffs say that Facebook invites children to use its social
networking Web site to communicate with friends, then later
markets the names and likenesses of those children for use by
advertisers, representing to advertisers that the use of the name
and likeness of the child as an endorsement of the advertiser's
product can increase marketing returns by 400% compared to
advertising that does not include an endorsement from the name of
likeness of a child.  In so doing, Plaintiffs state that Facebook
violated Section 3344 of the Civil Code Section 3344, which
provides statutory damages in the sum of $750 per person for the
violation of its provision, or actual damages, whichever is
greater, plaintiffs' inalienable right of privacy under Article I,
section 1 of the California constitution, and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs Cohen and Orland are members of the Facebook social
networking site whose names and likenesses were appropriated by
Facebook for marketing and revenue generating purposes.

"When a teenager sees that their Facebook friends 'Like' an ad, it
piques their curiosity, making them more likely to click the ad or
visit the page," says Los Angeles plaintiff attorney John Torjesen
of John C. Torjesen & Associates. "We believe it is a clear case
of exploitation of children for the sake of profits."

"The consent of the minor for this commercial use of his or her
name and likeness is not obtained by Facebook," says plaintiff
attorney and co-counsel Antony Stuart of Stuart Law Firm. "Under
California law, the minor's consent cannot be obtained without the
consent of the parent or guardian. Facebook makes no effort to
obtain parental consent."

The class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all California
residents who are or were under the age of 18 and members of
Facebook from Aug. 26, 2007 to Aug. 26, 2010 whose likenesses or
names were used in a Facebook advertisement or landing page.

"Facebook's actions violate the inalienable right to privacy
guaranteed by the California Constitution," says Mr. Torjesen. "It
derives illegal profits by charging advertisers for the use of
children's names and photographs.  As the father of a teenager, I
view this to be exploitation of children."

Plaintiffs' lawyers can be reached at:

     John Torjesen, Esq.
     JOHN C. TORJESEN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
     612 N. Sepulveda Blvd., 2nd Fl.
     Los Angeles, CA
     Telephone: (310) 450-0005

          - and -

     Antony Stuart, Esq.
     STUART LAW FIRM
     801 South Grand Avenue, 11th floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: 213-612-0009
     Facsimile: 213-489-0225


FBL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion in "Tabares" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the matter
Tabares v. EquiTrust Life Insurance Company, et al, Case No.
BC39019, is pending, according to EquiTrust Life Insurance
Company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 5, 2008.

The Tabares suit is a purported California class action on behalf
of all persons who purchased these deferred annuities from
EquiTrust Life:

     -- MarketValue Index,
     -- MarketPower Bonus Index,
     -- MarketBooster Index, and
     -- the MarketTen Bonus Index.

The complaint asserts a sub-class of purchasers that were age 60
or older at the time of purchase.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all class members
under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq.; compensatory damages for breach of contract; and punitive
damages under a common law cause of action for fraud.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was heard on June 22,
2010, however the court has not yet issued its ruling.

FBL Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fblfinancial.com/-- sells
individual life and annuity products principally under the names,
Farm Bureau Financial Services and EquiTrust Financial Services.
These brand identities are represented by the distribution
channels of its subsidiaries, Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company
and EquiTrust Life Insurance Company.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the
company's Farm Bureau Life distribution channel consisted of 2,020
agents and agency managers.  These agents and agency managers sell
its products in the Midwestern and Western sections of the United
States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, its EquiTrust Life independent
distribution channel consisted of 20,195 independent agents.  The
company's product segments include Traditional Annuity - Exclusive
Distribution (Exclusive Annuity), Traditional Annuity -
Independent Distribution (Independent Annuity), Traditional and
Universal Life Insurance and Variable.


FBL FINANCIAL: Discovery in "Eller" Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the matter Eller, et al. v. EquiTrust Life Insurance
Company, et al, Case No. 4:09-cv-00029 DCB, is ongoing, according
to EquiTrust Life Insurance Company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The action was filed in U.S. District Court, District of Arizona,
on Jan. 12, 2009.

The Eller action is a purported national class action defined in
the pleadings to include all persons who purchased EquiTrust Life
index annuities.

Plaintiffs allege two sub-classes, one for all persons age 65 and
older that purchased an EquiTrust Life index annuity contract with
a maturity date beyond the annuitant's actuarial life expectancy;
and a 17-state multi-state class under various consumer protection
and unfair insurance practices statutes.

The Eller case seeks rescission and injunctive relief including
restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class
members, compensatory damages, unjust enrichment and punitive
damages.

Discovery continues through mid-December 2010 and Plaintiffs are
required to file their class certification motion no later than
Jan. 12, 2011.

FBL Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fblfinancial.com/-- sells
individual life and annuity products principally under the names,
Farm Bureau Financial Services and EquiTrust Financial Services.
These brand identities are represented by the distribution
channels of its subsidiaries, Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company
and EquiTrust Life Insurance Company.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the
company's Farm Bureau Life distribution channel consisted of 2,020
agents and agency managers.  These agents and agency managers sell
its products in the Midwestern and Western sections of the United
States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, its EquiTrust Life independent
distribution channel consisted of 20,195 independent agents.  The
company's product segments include Traditional Annuity - Exclusive
Distribution (Exclusive Annuity), Traditional Annuity -
Independent Distribution (Independent Annuity), Traditional and
Universal Life Insurance and Variable.


H&R BLOCK: Seeks Reargument of Basile Case in Pa. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel at The Legal Intelligencer reports that
in a class action's sixth time before the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania, the court ruled in an unpublished opinion last month
that class action treatment is warranted in a case alleging that
H&R Block Inc. abused its confidential relationships with class
members by not informing them that their "Rapid Refunds" were in
fact bank loans.

Defendant H&R Block is seeking reargument before the en banc
Superior Court and for the opinion to be published as a citable
opinion, said the company's counsel, William H. Lamb of Lamb
McErlane in West Chester, Pa.

The Superior Court panel of Judges Christine L. Donohue and Cheryl
Lynn Allen and Senior Judge James J. Fitzgerald said in their
July 23 non-precedential decision that class treatment would be
inappropriate if the case only involved individualized evidence
that proposed class representative Sandra Basile occupied an
inferior position to H&R Block and placed her complete trust in
H&R Block's advice.

However, the panel said that, as another panel noted in a 2001
decision in Basile v. H&R Block Inc., there was evidence
supporting class certification.

The evidence included deposition testimony from an H&R Block
executive that the company actively sought customer trust in its
services; company marketing data that the H&R Block customer base
involved the unemployed, the low-income and people with less than
a high school education; and company marketing data that suggested
many customers were confused about the "Rapid Refund" service, the
panel said.

Basile filed the action on behalf of Pennsylvania residents who
received H&R Block "Rapid Refunds" between 1990 to 1993 after
having their taxes done by H&R Block because the refunds were, in
fact, short-term loans from Mellon Bank and the fees for the Rapid
Refund program were actually interest rates on the loans.

If a fact-finder found such evidence to be truthful and
persuasive, the class members could prove that they were not
dealing with H&R Block on equal terms because "of their limited
educational backgrounds and their immediate financial need for
quick refunds," the panel said.

The panel also said the class members could show a fact-finder
that they had a high level of trust in H&R Block and that they did
not have an explicit understanding that the Rapid Refund program
was, in fact, a bank loan, the panel said.

The company's internal documentation "strongly suggests that the
members of the plaintiff class responded to Block's adverting
campaign 'by placing their trust in Block, both to prepare their
tax returns and to secure their tax refunds,'" the panel wrote.
"With respect to the Rapid Refund service in particular, the
members of the plaintiff class displayed their complete trust in
Block by utilizing the service even though Block's marketing data
reflect that its customers had no significant understanding of its
precise nature and would not have participated in it if they had
known it involved a bank loan."

A Philadelphia judge ruled in 2004 that class treatment was not
possible under the confidential relationship theory because the
fact-finder must determine for each proposed class member whether
he or she placed "'his or her complete trust'" in H&R Block's
expertise, the panel said.

The proposed plaintiffs' class also is pursing a claim under the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The court also said that if the class representative demonstrated
the existence of a confidential relationship between the class
members and H&R Block that the "reliance inherent in a finding of
fiduciary duty will be presumed for purposes of the fiduciary
claim of the plaintiff class under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law."

The plaintiffs' claims, however, are going to remain in the
appellate courts for the immediate future.

Plaintiffs' counsel Steven E. Angstreich, Esq., at Weir &
Partners, and Mr. Lamb said that they expect that H&R Block will
seek allocatur to go to the state Supreme Court for a fourth time,
depending upon how the Superior Court rules on the company's
petition for the latest decision to be reconsidered by an en banc
panel.

"The longer they delay this, the longer the people are without
compensation," Mr. Angstreich said.

Mr. Lamb argued that the Superior Court's latest decision
nullifies the trial court's decision that the case could not be
tried as a class action.

When the Supreme Court ruled on the case in June 2009, the court
determined that H&R Block was not required to file a protective
cross-appeal in order to preserve the issue of class certification
in the case. The Superior Court did not address H&R Block's cross-
appeal of the certification order because it was listed on a
separate docket from the company's cross-appeal of an earlier
order.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior Court yet
again for a determination on the merits of the trial court's later
decision to decertify the class.

In the prior 17 years of litigation, the class' theory of a breach
of fiduciary duty also was dismissed.

H&R Block's lawyer can be reached at:

     William H. Lamb, Esq.
     LAMB MCERLANE PC
     24 East Market Street, P.O. Box 565
     West Chester, PA 19381-0565
     Telephone: 610-430-8000
     Facsimile: 610-692-0877
     E-mail: wlamb@lambmcerlane.com

Plaintiffs' lawyer can be reached at:

     Steven E. Angstreich, Esq.
     WEIR & PARTNERS LLP
     The Widener Building, Suite 500
     1339 Chestnut St.
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone: 215-241-7741
     Facsimile: 215-665-8464
     E-mail: sangstreich@weirpartners.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery in Suit Over Budeprion XL Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated suit against IMPAX Laboratories, Inc.,
over its Budeprion XL drug is ongoing, according to the company's
Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In June 2009, the company was a co-defendant in class action
lawsuits filed in California state court in an action titled Kelly
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No. BC414812 (Calif.
Superior Crt. L.A. County).

Subsequently, additional class action lawsuits were filed in:

     -- Louisiana (Morgan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd,
        et al., No. 673880 (24th Dist Crt., Jefferson Parish,
        LA.)),

     -- North Carolina (Weber v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus.,
        Ltd., et al., No. 07 CV5002556, (N.C. Superior Crt.,
        Hanover County)),

     -- Pennsylvania (Rosenfeld v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
        Inc.. et al., No. 2:09-CV-2811 (E.D. Pa.)),

     -- Florida (Henchenski and Vogel v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
        Industries Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-CV-470-FLM-29SPC (M.D.
        Fla.)),

     -- Texas (Anderson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd.,
        et al., No. 3-09CV1200-M (N.D. Tex.)),

     -- Oklahoma (Brown et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inds.,
        Ltd., et al., No. 09-cv-649-TCK-PJC (N.D. OK)),

     -- Ohio (Latvala et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inds.,
        Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-cv-795 (S.D. OH)),

     -- Alabama (Jordan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd
        et al., No. CV09-709 (Ala. Cir. Crt. Baldwin County)),
        and

     -- Washington (Leighty v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd
        et al., No. CV09-01640 (W. D. Wa.)).

All of the complaints involve Budeprion XL, a generic version of
Wellbutrin XL(R) that is manufactured by the company and marketed
by Teva, and allege that, contrary to representations of Teva,
Budeprion XL is less effective in treating depression, and more
likely to cause dangerous side effects, than Wellbutrin XL(R).

The actions are brought on behalf of purchasers of Budeprion XL
and assert claims such as unfair competition, unfair trade
practices and negligent misrepresentation under state law.

Each lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount consisting of
the cost of Budeprion XL paid by class members, as well as any
applicable penalties imposed by state law, and disclaims damages
for personal injury.

The state court cases have been removed to federal court, and a
petition for multidistrict litigation to consolidate the cases in
federal court has been granted.

These cases and any subsequently filed cases will be heard under
the consolidated action entitled In re: Budeprion XL Marketing
Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2107,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to certify that
order for interlocutory appeal, both of which were denied.

Discovery is proceeding, and no trial date has been scheduled.

IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.impaxlabs.com/-- is a
technology based specialty pharmaceutical company applying its
formulation expertise and drug delivery technology to the
development of controlled-release and specialty generics in
addition to the development of branded products.


LAKESHORE LEARNING: Recalls 18,500 Magnetic Maze Boards
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lakeshore Learning Materials, of Carson, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 18,500 Magnetic maze boards.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The magnetic maze board's plastic wand can separate and expose a
magnet that can be a choking hazard to children.  Also, if a child
has more than one of these toys and the magnets detach and are
swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestinal
perforations or blockages, which can be fatal.

Lakeshore has received ten reports of wands separating and magnets
detaching.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves wooden magnetic maze boards.  The wooden
boards have a clear plastic sheet that covers small wooden or
plastic pieces located inside a maze.  A plastic wand containing a
magnet in its tip is attached to the board by a cord.  The wand is
used to move items inside the maze.  The top of the board reads:
"Who's Hiding in the Garden?," "Who's Hiding in the Ocean?,"
"Magnetic Counting Maze," "Magnetic Alphabet Board" or "My
Community Magnetic Board."  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10327.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Lakeshore Learning Materials stores nationwide, its catalogs and
online at http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/from January 2009
through May 2010 singly or in sets for between $30 and $40.

Consumers should immediately take this toy away from children and
contact Lakeshore to receive a free replacement product.  For
additional information, contact Lakeshore Learning Materials at
(800) 428-4414 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/


LANDWIN MANAGEMENT: Wyatt Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Law Offices of Andrew M. Wyatt,
representing investors who purchased Landwin Management, LLC, has
filed a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division, Michael
Kronk v. Landwin Group, LLC, et al., case number SACV 10-00242 CJC
(MLGx) on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all
purchasers of the securities of Landwin Management, LLC ("Landwin"
or the "Company") between February 1, 2005 and August 15, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") charges Landwin and certain of
the Company's executive officers and directors with violations of
federal securities laws, and other federal and state law claims.
Among other things, plaintiff claims defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's operations and prospects
caused Landwin's unit price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors. In 2005, Landwin, through its
managers, Sylvia, Inc. (Martin Landis), and SmithDennison Capital,
LLC (Sean Dennison), solicited investors to invest in a commercial
real estate management company with promises of over 400% return
over a ten year period. The FAC alleges throughout the Class
Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their
material statements concerning Landwin's financial performance and
prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the
FAC alleges defendants' statements failed to disclose or indicate
significant setbacks the Company was experiencing in attempting to
obtain adequate business growth to sustain the high expenses the
Company was incurring. The FAC further alleges the Company made
positive but misleading statements concerning its ability to
sustain the business without exhausting all of the initial $13.8
million invested. Despite claims of success and profitability
expenses exceeded revenues by $95,000 per month.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and
is represented by Law Offices of Andrew M. Wyatt. If you are a
member of the Class described above, you may move the Court, not
later than October 25, 2010, to serve as lead plaintiff, however,
you must meet certain legal requirements. To discuss this action,
obtain a copy of the complaint, or to ask questions concerning
this Notice, please contact:

     Andrew M. Wyatt, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW M. WYATT
     20750 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 440
     Woodland Hills, CA 91364
     Telephone: 818-710-3813
     E-mail: amwyatt2@juno.com


LITHIA MOTORS: Agrees to Conduct Arbitration with Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc., and plaintiffs in the matter Dunham, et al.
v. Lithia Support Services, et al., 3AN-06-6338 Civil, Superior
Court for the State of Alaska, have agreed to conduct arbitration,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On March 22, 2006, seven former employees in Alaska brought suit
against Lithia seeking overtime wages, additional liquidated
damages and attorney's fees.  The complaint was later amended to
include a total of 11 named plaintiffs.  The court ordered the
dispute to arbitration.

In February 2008, the arbitrator granted the plaintiffs' request
to establish a class of plaintiffs consisting of all present and
former service and parts department employees totaling
approximately 150 individuals who were paid on a commission basis.
The company has filed a motion requesting reconsideration of this
class certification, but the arbitrator died before issuing his
opinion.

The reconsideration sought a ruling whether these employees or
some of these employees are exempt from the applicable state law
that provides for the payment of overtime under certain
circumstances.

The replacement arbitrator has now been appointed and ruled to
remove approximately 30 service and parts managers from the case.
A class action opt-out notice was mailed to the service and parts
employees in October 2009.

Lithia and the plaintiffs have agreed to conduct the arbitration
in two parts.  The first arbitration will determine if liability
exists for Lithia.  This arbitration is scheduled for Sept. 27,
2010.  If the outcome of this arbitration determines that valid
claims exist, a second arbitration will be conducted to determine
the amount of damages, if any.

Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com/-- is the ninth
largest automotive retailer in the United States and a Fortune 800
company.  Lithia sells 26 brands of new and all brands of used
vehicles at 85 stores, which are located in 12 states.  Lithia
also sells used vehicles; arranges finance, warranty, and credit
insurance contracts; and provides vehicle parts, maintenance, and
repair services at all of its locations.


MANTLE OIL: Faces Class Action Over Blown Well Near Paincourtville
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports seeking
more than $5 million in damages, a class action has been filed
against the owners and operators of an oil and gas well that blew
out Aug. 11 near Paincourtville.

Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Eleanor
Sherman filed suit against Mantle Oil and Gas Aug. 18 in federal
court in New Orleans.

The oil and gas well was located in a sugar-cane field northwest
of Paincourtville. The blow out allegedly released oil, gas,
diesel-hydrocarbons, brine and other material. Residents within
miles of the well were required to evacuate, the suit claims.

The lawsuit claims that hundreds of individuals were exposed to
harmful substances known to cause serious health problems,
including respiratory problems, allergic reactions, irritations,
skin problems, burning and blistering of the skin, and burning or
irritation of the eyes.

The defendant is accused of breaching a legally-imposed duty of
reasonable care, failing to maintain its well, failing to operate
the well in a safe manner, and failing to follow its own
procedures to prohibit a release of oil, gas, diesel-hydrocarbons
and other toxic substances.

Mantle Oil and Gas is accused of willful, wanton, reckless and
gross negligence.

The lawsuit is seeking damages for inconvenience and trespass,
remediation and replacement of all affected personal and real
property, diminution of property value, loss of use, mental
anguish caused by property damages, business interruption, damages
for delayed return and access and for being required to shelter in
place, for damages to trees, shrubs, soil and crops, personal
injuries, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees and court
costs.

The proposed class is represented by Scott R. Bickford, Esq., and
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq., of Martzell & Bickford in New
Orleans and Ronnie Glynn Penton, Esq., in Bogalusa. A jury trial
is requested.

U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:10cv02774

Plaintiffs' lawyers can be reached at:

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
     MARTZELL & BICKFORD
     338 Lafayette St.
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Telephone: 504 581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635

          - and -

     Ronnie Glynn Penton, Esq.
     209 Hoppen Pl.
     Bogalusa, LA
     Telephone: 985.732.5651
     Toll Free: 800.419.9445
     Facsimile: 985.735.5579
     E-mail: rgp@rgplaw.com


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: High Court Grants Petition for Review
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court granted Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.'s
petition for certiorari review.  The petition comes after the U.S.
District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
ruling dismissing a consolidated class action against Matrixx,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

Two class action lawsuits were filed in April and May 2004 against
the company, its previous President and Chief Executive Officer,
Carl J. Johnson, and William J. Hemelt its Acting President, Chief
Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court
appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff.  The amended
complaint also includes the company's Vice President of Research
and Development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant and was filed
March 4, 2005.

The consolidated case is Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court,
District of Arizona, Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD.

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that between October 2003
and February 2004, the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy products,
including failing to adequately disclose to the public the details
of allegations that its products caused damage to the
sense of smell and of certain of the product liability lawsuits.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and, on
March 8, 2006, the company received an Order dated December 15,
2005 granting the motion to dismiss the case, without prejudice.

On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to the United
States District Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 2:04-CV-
886, and the parties made oral arguments to the Ninth Circuit
Court on June 9, 2009.

On Oct. 28, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court issued its opinion.  The
Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District
Court, District of Arizona, which had dismissed the case.

On Dec. 23, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition
for rehearing.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the Ninth Circuit granted Matrixx's request to
stay the issuance of a mandate while the company petitions the
U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari review.

On June 14, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari review and will hear the case during the Court's 2010-
2011 term.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better.  Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand.  The company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-Symptom
relief, and other cough/cold.  In addition, the company had sold
products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.  Its Zicam
products are marketed in the cough and cold market category.
During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal 2009), the
company's top 15 customers accounted for more than 80% of its net
sales and three customers each accounted for more than 10% of the
company's net sales.  In May 2008, the company formed Zicam
Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam products in Canada.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Motion for Lead Plaintiff Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel in a
putative class action against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., remains
pending, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

A putative class action was filed on July 17, 2009 against:

     -- the company;

     -- William J. Hemelt, President and Chief Executive Officer
        (previously Acting President, Chief Financial Office and
        Chief Operating Officer);

     -- Samuel C. Cowley, Vice President of Business
        Development, General Counsel and Secretary;

     -- Timothy L. Clarot, Vice President of Research &
        Development; and

     -- Carl J. Johnson, former President and Chief Executive
        Officer;

alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The suit is Shapiro et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al.,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case
No. 2:09-cv-01479-ECV.

The lawsuit alleges that the company and the named officers failed
to disclose to the Food and Drug Administration and to the public
information about adverse events regarding the Zicam Cold Remedy
nasal gel products and that the company and such officers made
false and misleading statements regarding the company's compliance
with FDA regulations.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better.  Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand.  The company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-Symptom
relief, and other cough/cold.  In addition, the company had sold
products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.  Its Zicam
products are marketed in the cough and cold market category.
During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal 2009), the
company's top 15 customers accounted for more than 80% of its net
sales and three customers each accounted for more than 10% of the
company's net sales.  In May 2008, the company formed Zicam
Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam products in Canada.


MERCK SHARP: 1,500 People Join Class Action Lawsuit Over Vioxx
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Hagan, writing for The Age, reports that a total of 1,500
people have come forward claiming they have had a heart attack
after taking the anti-arthritis drug Vioxx.

The potential claimants were ordered to register by last week with
the law firm Slater & Gordon, or directly with the Federal Court,
if they intended to join a class action against Merck Sharp &
Dohme (Australia), which sold the drug in Australia.

The order followed a ruling in the Federal Court in March, when
Justice Christopher Jessup found Vioxx doubled the risk of heart
attacks and the pharmaceutical company had breached the Trade
Practices Act by selling it.

The ruling awarded $287,000 to lead claimant Graeme Peterson, 59,
who had a heart attack in 2003 after taking Vioxx.

It established a basis for hundreds of other claims from members
of a class that includes every Australian who had heart attacks
after taking Vioxx between 1999 and 2004, when the drug was
withdrawn worldwide.


NEW LEAF: Still a Defendant in Suit Over Calif. Proposition 65
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Leaf Brands, Inc., remains a defendant in a class action
lawsuit under California Proposition 65.

On Jan. 29, 2009, New Leaf was named as a defendant, along with 54
other defendants, in a class action lawsuit under California
Proposition 65 for allegedly failing to disclose the amount of
lead in one of its products.

No updates or additional details regarding the matter were
reported in 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.

New Leaf Brands, Inc. -- http://www.newleafbrands.com/-- formerly
Baywood International, Inc., develops, markets and distributes
ready-to-drink (RTD) beverages and nutraceutical products.  The
company operates through the combination of a diversified
nutraceutical company (LifeTime brand) and a RTD tea company (New
Leaf brand).


NEWALLIANCE BANK: Shareholders File Suit Over First Niagara Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bass, writing for New Haven Independent, reports outraged
shareholders have gone to court to try to stop Peyton Patterson
from collecting $33.8 million by selling New Haven's NewAlliance
Bank to an out-of-state company.

Two shareholders filed class-action lawsuits [last] week in state
Superior Court in New Haven to try to stop the proposed $1.5
billion takeover of NewAlliance by Buffalo, N.Y.-based First
Niagara.

The proposed deal, announced [two weeks ago], provoked criticism
from New Haven's mayor as well as other local critics concerned
about losing a locally based lender.

The lawsuits add a second twist to the emerging opposition to the
deal; the charge by some shareholders that NewAlliance CEO
Patterson and her board engaged in an illegal "conspiracy" to sell
the bank to enrich themselves at the expense of shareholders, who
say they got a raw deal.

Cynthia Kos and Stanley P. Kops, an attorney in Bala Cynwyd,
Penn., filed their suits Aug. 23 and 25, respectively. They seek
class-action status on behalf of all shareholders. They're asking
the court to stop the sale to First Niagara. Their attorney is
Jonathan P. Whitcomb of the Stamford-based firm Diserio, Martin,
O'Connor & Castiglioni. The suits will probably be combined.

"We can't comment on" the suits, Paul McCraven, NewAlliance's
senior vice-president responsible for community development, said
Thursday. "It's our policy not to comment on any pending legal
actions."

"We are aware of the litigation filed in Connecticut Superior
Court," said First Niagara spokeswoman Leslie Garrity in an e-mail
Thursday afternoon. "It is typical of litigation commonly filed
when transactions of this nature are announced. We do not believe
it has any merit."

New Haven-based FirstAlliance, the publicly traded successor to
the old New Haven Savings mutual bank, has 87 branches and 1,200
employees throughout Connecticut and western Massachusetts.

Adding to the controversy, NewAlliance quietly filed a letter with
the federal Securities and Exchange Commission last week revealing
that CEO Patterson will collect a $16 million exit package,
whether or not she stays on with the new bank, since she won't be
serving as CEO of the combined entity.

Ms. Patterson and the board "conspired" to "recklessly violate
their fiduciary duties" and "stand on both sides of the
transaction, are engaging in self-dealing, are obtaining for
themselves personal benefits, including personal financial
benefits, not shared equally by plaintiff or the Class," the new
suit charges.

"In refusing to act in good faith and in accordance with the
fiduciary duties owed to its shareholders, the Company's Board
violated applicable law by directly breaching and aiding the other
Individual Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing.
Rather than acting in the best interests of the shareholders, as
their fiduciary duties mandate, the Individual Defendants --
without good faith consideration -- have elected to enter into the
Proposed Acquisition to secure benefits that accrue to themselves
at the expense of the interests of shareholders."

The class-action lawsuit focuses on the total $33.8 million Ms.
Patterson stands to take home in the deal, including cashed-out
shares of stock. Instead of fulfilling their legal duty to protect
shareholder value, the suit charges, Ms. Patterson and board
members made the deal to reap millions for themselves.

"The market did not view the Proposed Acquisition so generously,"
the complaint argues. It notes that NewAlliance shares rose "only"
12.5 percent the day of the proposed sale's announcement,
finishing at $12.78 share -- less than the $13.36 per share the
stock stood at on May 3.

The new shareholder suit quotes First Niagara CEO John R. Koelmel
as saying he wants to retain the NewAlliance "team" to run the new
bank's regional headquarters.

"In being retained by First Niagara, members of NewAlliance's
management get the best of both worlds: they can cash out their
equity holdings, but remain in their current positions without
being subject to the hassles and filing requirements of running a
publicly traded company," the suit charges.

The New York Times had estimated CEO Patterson's parachute at
$23.4 million assuming she leaves the company; it said that
package would top that given to any other exiting bank CEO,
including the head of the country's fourth-largest bank.

The parachute has outraged even the New Haven Register. When
NewAlliance first went public in 2003 -- and critics tried to stop
the deal, saying Ms. Patterson was enriching herself at the
expense of the community in order to set up an eventual sale to an
out-of-state bank -- the Register editorialized in favor of the
deal, saying it would benefit New Haven. Last Tuesday it changed
course when the predictions of critics came true, blasting the new
deal and Ms. Patterson's payout.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
     DISERIO, MARTIN, O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI LLP
     One Atlantic Street
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Telephone: (203) 358-0800 (Ext. 332)
     Facsimile: (203) 348-2321
     E-mail: jwhitcomb@dmoc.com


OGE ENERGY: Rehearing Request in Price I Denied by Kansas Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' for a rehearing of the denied class certification
in the matter Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et
al. (Price I), has been denied by the District Court of Stevens
County, Kansas, according to OGE Energy Corp.'s Aug. 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Sept. 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of the company were served
with a class action petition filed in the District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas by Quinque Operating Company and other
named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on
non-Federal lands.

On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order denying class
certification.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs -- now Will Price, Stixon
Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation,
on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners -- filed
a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and the
court granted the motion on July 28, 2003.

In its amended petition -- "Fourth Amended Petition" -- OG&E and
Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of the company's
other subsidiary entities remained as defendants.

The plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Petition seeks class certification
and alleges that approximately 60 defendants, including two of the
company's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the volume
of natural gas.  The Fourth Amended Petition asserts theories of
civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust
enrichment.  In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The plaintiffs also
reserved the right to seek punitive damages.

Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and the
parties fully briefed these same issues.  A hearing on class
certification issues was held April 1, 2005.  In May 2006, the
court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by
Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is claiming entitlement
to participate in the putative class action.  The court has not
yet ruled on the motion to intervene.

The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the
parties in 2005, and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of
law on class certification were filed in 2007.  On Sept. 18, 2009,
the court entered its order denying class certification.  On Oct.
2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's
denial of class certification.

On Feb. 10, 2010 the court heard arguments on the rehearing
request and by an order dated March 31, 2010, the court denied the
plaintiffs' request for rehearing.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy
services provider offering physical delivery and related services
for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south
central United States.  The company conducts its activities
through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas
transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing,
and natural gas marketing.  The electric utility segment
generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in
Oklahoma and western Arkansas.  Its operations are conducted
through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.


OGE ENERGY: Court Denies Rehearing Motion in Price II Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has denied the
plaintiffs' request for rehearing of the denied class
certification in the lawsuit, Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price II), according to OGE Energy
Corp.'s Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs -- Will Price, Stixon Petroleum,
Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf
of themselves and other royalty interest owners -- filed a new
class action petition in the District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas naming the same defendants and asserting substantially
identical legal and/or equitable theories as in the Fourth Amended
Petition of the Price I case.

OG&E and Enogex Inc. were not named in this case, but two
subsidiary entities of the company were named in this case.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants mismeasured the Btu
content of natural gas obtained from or measured for the
plaintiffs.  In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The plaintiffs also
reserved the right to seek punitive damages.

Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and the
parties fully briefed these same issues.  A hearing on class
certification issues was held April 1, 2005.  In May 2006, the
court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by
Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is claiming entitlement
to participate in the putative class action.  The court has not
yet ruled on the motion to intervene.

The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the
parties in 2005 and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of
law on class certification were filed in 2007.  On Sept. 18, 2009,
the court entered its order denying class certification.  On Oct.
2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's
denial of class certification. On Feb. 10, 2010 the court heard
arguments on the rehearing.

On Feb. 10, 2010 the court heard arguments on the rehearing
request and by an order dated March 31, 2010, the court denied the
plaintiffs' request for rehearing.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy
services provider offering physical delivery and related services
for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south
central United States.  The company conducts its activities
through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas
transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing,
and natural gas marketing.  The electric utility segment
generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in
Oklahoma and western Arkansas.  Its operations are conducted
through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.


OGE ENERGY: Files Writ of Prohibition with Oklahoma High Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
OGE Energy Corp. has filed a petition for a writ of prohibition
with the Oklahoma Supreme Court in connection with a putative
class action filed by two customers, according to the company's
Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 19, 2006, two OG&E customers brought a putative class
action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in the
District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, challenging certain
charges on OG&E's electric bills.

The plaintiffs claim that OG&E improperly charged sales tax based
on franchise fee charges paid by its customers.  The plaintiffs
also challenge certain franchise fee charges, contending that such
fees are more than is allowed under Oklahoma law.

OG&E's motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial judge.

OG&E filed a writ of prohibition at the Oklahoma Supreme Court
asking the court to direct the trial court to dismiss the class
action suit.

In January 2007, the Oklahoma Supreme Court "arrested" the
District Court action until, and if, the propriety of the
complaint of billing practices is determined by the OCC.

In September 2008, the plaintiffs filed an application with the
OCC asking the Commission to modify its order which authorizes
OG&E to collect the challenged franchise fee charges.

On March 10, 2009, the Oklahoma Attorney General, OG&E, OG&E
Shareholders Association and the Staff of the Public Utility
Division of the OCC all filed briefs arguing that the application
should be dismissed.

On Dec. 9, 2009 the OCC issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
request for a modification of the OCC order which authorizes OG&E
to collect and remit sales tax on franchise fee charges. In its
Dec. 9, 2009 order, the OCC advised the plaintiffs that the ruling
does not address the question of whether OG&E's collection and
remittance of such sales tax should be discontinued prospectively.

On Dec. 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion at the Oklahoma
Supreme Court asking the court to deny OG&E's writ of prohibition
and to remand the cause to the District Court.  On Dec. 29, 2009,
the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared the plaintiffs' motion moot.

On Jan. 27, 2010, the OCC Staff filed a motion asking the OCC to
dismiss the cause and close the cause at the OCC.  If the OCC
Staff's motion is granted, the plaintiffs would be required to
file a new cause in order to ask for prospective relief.  In its
motion, the OCC Staff stated that the plaintiff's counsel advised
the OCC Staff counsel that the plaintiffs have no desire to seek a
determination regarding prospective relief from the OCC.

On April 19, 2010, the OCC issued a final order dismissing with
prejudice the applicants' claims for recovery of previously paid
taxes on franchise fees and approving the closing of this matter.
On June 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the District
Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, asking the court to proceed with
the original class action.

On July 8, 2010, a hearing in this matter was held and the court
granted the plaintiffs motion to lift the stay of discovery
previously imposed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court but denied any
other specific relief pending further action by the court.

On Aug. 4, 2010, OG&E filed an application to assume original
jurisdiction and a petition for a writ of prohibition with the
Oklahoma Supreme Court.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy
services provider offering physical delivery and related services
for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south
central United States.  The company conducts its activities
through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas
transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing,
and natural gas marketing.  The electric utility segment
generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in
Oklahoma and western Arkansas.  Its operations are conducted
through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.


PACTIV CORP: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------
Local Union 373 U.A. Welfare, Pension & Annuity Funds,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Richard
L. Wambold, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-36437 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. August 24, 2010), seeks to enjoin certain officers and
directors of Pactiv Corporation from proceeding with the proposed
merger of the Company with Reynolds Holdings Limited, an affiliate
of Rank Group Limited, pursuant to which Reynolds will acquire the
Company for approximately $6 billion, including the assumption of
existing debt.  Under the Merger Agreement, Pactiv stockholders
will receive $33.25 in cash for each share of Pactive common stock
they hold.  Local Union 373 says the proposed transaction in
fundamentally unfair to the Company's shareholders and constitutes
a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith,
due care, and full and fair disclosure owed to Pactiv's public
shareholders.  The Complaint includes Reynolds and its wholly-
owned subsidiary and acquisition vehicle Reynolds Acquisition
Corporation as defendants for aiding and participating in the
individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.

Richard Wambold is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pactiv,
a Lake Forest, Ill-based company that is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of consumer and food service and packaging
products in the United States and internationally.  Local Union
373 is a shareholder of Pactiv.  Reynolds, a Chicago, Ill.-based
company, is a leading global manufacturer and supplier of consumer
food and beverage packaging and storage products.

Local Union 373 says the $33.25 offer per share of Pactiv common
stock is grossly unfair and inadequate, given the Company's
leadership position in the consumer and foodservice packaging
industry, and the Company's excellent prospects for future
financial growth.  In addition, Local Union 373 says that the
proposed offer undervalues the Company's corporate value "at a
time when the Company's stock price is trading below its inherent
worth and when it is poised to capitalize on its positive and
encouraging financial outlook".

Local Union 373 explains that the proposed offer does not
represent the highest possible price for the shares of the Company
and was arrived at an unfair process because it impedes potential
offers and reaps personal financial benefits for the directors and
officers of the Company not equally shared by the Company's public
shareholders.

The Complaint further cites certain instances which question the
impartiality of the Board in the negotiation process, including a
provision for a termination fee of $160 million, or roughly 3% of
the Proposed Transaction value, and a provision allowing Reynolds
to match any unsolicited acquisition proposal, which effectively
precludes other third parties from making potentially superior
offers.

Pactiv's Board has unanimously approved the Merger Agreement.  The
Proposed Transaction is expected to close by the end of 2010.
Completion of the Proposed Transaction is subject to customary
closing conditions, including approval by the holders of a
majority of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock
entitled to vote on the Merger and receipt of regulatory
approvals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          Heidi Vonderheide, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., continues to defend a second
consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act.

Par and certain of its former executive officers have been named
as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of Par between July 23, 2001
and July 5, 2006.

The lawsuits followed Par's July 5, 2006 announcement regarding
the restatement of certain of its financial statements and allege
that Par and certain members of its then management engaged in
violations of the Exchange Act, by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning Par's financial condition and results of
operations.

The class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

On June 24, 2008, the Court dismissed co-lead plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint without prejudice with leave to
re-file.

On July 24, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

Par and the individual defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 30, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all
claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the
company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff.

The company and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the
Amended complaint.

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

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. -- http://www.parpharm.com/
-- is a holding company that, principally through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., is in the business of
developing, manufacturing and distributing generic and branded
drugs in the United States.  The company is divided into two
business segments: generic pharmaceuticals and brand
pharmaceuticals.  The company is operating the brand
pharmaceutical segment under the name Strativa Pharmaceuticals.
In the brand segment, Par Pharmaceutical markets brand products
under trademarked brand names designed to create an association
between the products and their intended uses.  In June 2008, the
company entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with MonoSol
Rx under which it acquired the commercialization rights in the
United States to MonoSol's thin film formulation of ondansetron.


SKECHERS USA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims that Skechers pushes it "Shape-ups" shoes with false
claims about their health benefits, and that the shoes "have
actually injured some consumers."  The class claims that Skechers
claims through deceptive ads that people who wear the shoes can
"get in shape without setting foot in a gym," and that "these
purported benefits had been shown in 'four clinical studies.'"

Named plaintiff Venus Morga claims that Skechers' false ads, in
print, TV, and on the Internet, claimed "that wearing Shape-ups
would result in noticeable physiological benefits to consumers,
including weight loss, firmer muscles, reduced cellulite, improved
circulation, and improved posture.  Skechers claimed that as a
result of these benefits, users could 'get in shape without
setting foot in a gym.'  Skechers claimed these purported benefits
had been shown in 'four clinical studies.'"

These misleading ads helped Skechers "reap millions of dollars of
profit," the complaint states.  "Shape-ups provide no health
benefit to users beyond what any other ordinary sneaker provides.
Worse, Shape-ups have actually injured some consumers."

Skechers claims its shoes are made with a "unique kinetic wedge"
that is rounded instead of flat, to change the user's posture and
balance, according to the complaint.  An instructional DVD
included with the shoes tells the consumer, "Congratulations! With
Shape-ups you can finally get in shape, without going to the gym."

Skechers claims the shoes will roll the user forward in walking,
as weight is shifted to the center of the shoe, resulting in
"'stronger leg, buttock, back and abdominal muscles as you
stabilize your steps.'"

Since the Shape-ups are designed to constantly change the user's
balance, "they are unsuitable for users with flat feet, or those
who have pre-existing difficulties maintaining their balance," the
class claims.  It adds that people who are prone to hamstring or
ankle injuries may provoke an injury by using the shoes.

The class cites a Wall Street Journal article noting that a May
2009 study conducted by Skechers and posted on its website "didn't
have a control group and wasn't rigorously designed."  The study
purported to show "higher muscle activities at all speeds for
subjects wearing Shape-ups."

The Skechers Web site also claims that a June 2009 study reported
that volunteers lost an average of 3.25 pounds; that an August
2009 study reported that "muscles in the legs are used more with
Shape-ups than with standard sneakers;" and that a November 2009
study showed that volunteers lost an average of 2.78 pounds.

The class claims that none of the studies, allegedly commissioned
by Skechers, were "subjected to traditional scientific scrutiny,
in that none of them was conducted by impartial, double-blinded
third parties, and none were subjected to peer review or other
methods traditionally used by the scientific community to ensure
accurate results."

The class also cites a recent study by the University of Wisconsin
at La Crosse that showed that there were "no statistically
significant benefits to wearing Shape-ups."

Ms. Morga says she "did not experience any of the benefits
described in defendant's misleading ad campaign."

She seeks class certification, damages for unjust enrichment and
business and consumer law violations, and an order requiring
Skechers to stop misrepresenting the benefits of its Shape-ups.

A copy of the Complaint in Morga v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01780 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/27/Skechers.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-617-1200
          E-mail: jwesterman@milberg.com

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Roland Riggs, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: 212-594-5300
          E-mail: jpollack@milberg.com
                  rriggs@milberg.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880

               - and -

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Anthony E. Lacroix, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM, LLC
          1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-531-0033


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Judge Rejects Motion for Mistrial
-----------------------------------------------------
Matt Drange, writing for The Times-Standard, reports a Humboldt
County judge threw out a motion for a mistrial in the class action
lawsuit against Skilled Healthcare on Friday, signaling another
wild day for the company's stock.

The motion, filed earlier this month by defense attorneys, alleged
misconduct by one member of the jury that returned a $677 million
verdict against the company on July 6. Defense attorneys called
the amount, which remains the largest jury verdict in the United
States this year, "annihilating," and immediately took action to
have it overturned.

In response to the motion, plaintiffs' attorneys filed a handful
of declarations from other jury members dismissing the alleged
bias and serving as a basis for Judge Bruce Watson to deny the
motion. In his ruling, Watson stated that he found no evidence of
juror misconduct and no grounds for a mistrial, causing a flurry
of events on Wall Street, with shares dropping as low as $2.46,
down from $3.25 the day before.

The company -- one of the largest nursing home chains in the
country with 78 facilities and some 14,000 employees -- has seen
its stock decline since the lawsuit was brought to court last
November after documents showed the nursing facilities to be in
violation of statewide staffing requirements.

At the time, shares hovered around $7 apiece, and have since taken
numerous hits, including a single-day loss of more than 75 percent
the day the jury verdict was announced. SKH shares closed at $2.77
on Friday.

Health care industry analyst Sheryl Skolnick said the news should
not come as a surprise when the recent declarations filed by other
jurors, all of which denied any potential bias, are taken into
consideration.

"Proving misconduct is a tough thing to get done in a case like
this," said Ms. Skolnick, an analyst with CRT Capital Group in
Connecticut, who has been following the case closely. "I'm not
surprised at all."

In addition to the denial of the motion, the court issued a
permanent injunction that orders all Skilled Healthcare facilities
to comply with the minimum staffing requirements mandated by
California statute.  Effective immediately, each of the 22
facilities implicated in the suit is to maintain 3.2 nursing hours
per-patient, per-day.

A third party will be appointed to monitor that each facility
complies with the law, and any costs associated with that will be
paid by the defendants, according to court documents.

Plaintiffs' attorneys, based out of Eureka, would not comment on
the decision, except to say that it will not effect a scheduled
court date next week.  Phone calls to the office of defense
attorney Kippy Wroten in Southern California were not returned
before deadline.

The two teams of lawyers were due back in court on Tuesday, when
the court will hear additional arguments on motions filed earlier
this month.  Ms. Skolnick said that despite all the recent
filings, which include a motion to have Watson recused from the
case and a separate one seeking a new trial, the future for
Skilled Healthcare does not appear to look much different than it
did one month ago.

Parties in the case agreed to enter into mediation on July 15, and
will not say if a settlement has been reached.  Many in the
investing world have predicted the company will file for
bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code,
which would leave the future of Skilled Healthcare nursing homes
in California and elsewhere in question.

"At this point, the case looks like it's going forward," Ms.
Skolnick said, adding that a final judgment could be looming if a
settlement cannot be reached. "Once that happens, there really is
no other choice than to file for bankruptcy."

The case is entitled VINNIE LAVENDER, by and through her
Conservator, WANDA BAKER, WALTER SIMON; JACQUELYN VILCHINSKY vs.
SKILLED HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., et al, (and 22 individually-named
California nursing facilities receiving administrative services
from Skilled Healthcare, LLC).

                About Skilled Healthcare Group

Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. --
http://www.skilledhealthcaregroup.com/-- based in Foothill Ranch,
California, operates long-term care facilities and provides a
variety of post-acute care services.  The Company operates skilled
nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, hospice and home
health locations.  Further, the company provides ancillary
services such as physical, occupational and speech therapy in its
facilities and unaffiliated facilities and is a member of a joint
venture providing institutional pharmacy services in Texas.
Skilled Healthcare recognized revenues of approximately
$761 million for the trailing 12-month period ended March 31,
2010.

On July 7, 2010, the company announced that a jury in Humboldt
County, California returned a verdict against the company with
initial damages awarded to plaintiffs amounting to $671 million.
Reportedly, the $671 million is composed of $613 million in
statutory damages and $58 million in restitutionary damages.  The
case related to a California statute that requires nursing homes
to maintain 3.2 nursing hours per patient per day.  The total
damages were assessed at a rate of $500 per-patient per-day that
the 22 nursing facilities involved in the suit were in violation
of the law.

The Company's revenue of $759.8 million in 2009 resulted in a net
loss of $133.2 million.  For the first quarter of 2010, the
Company's net income was $8.9 million on revenue of $189.3
million.

The balance sheet at March 31 showed current assets of $131.4
million among total assets of $859 million.  Current liabilities
were $91.7 million.  Total liabilities were $574.7 million.

Following the verdict, S&P lowered the Company's corporate credit
rating to 'CCC' from 'B+'.  The Company carries a 'B2' corporate
family rating, under review for downgrade, from Moody's Investors
Service.


SLM CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Arthur" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation has reached a tentative settlement to resolve the
matter Mark A. Arthur et al. v. SLM Corporation, according to the
company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Feb. 2, 2010, a putative class action suit was filed by a
borrower in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The suit complains that Sallie Mae allegedly contacted "tens of
thousands" of consumers on their cellular telephones without their
prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, Section 227 et seq.

Each violation under the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory
damages ($1,500 if a willful violation is shown).

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, damages for willful violations,
attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

On April 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint changing the defendant from SLM Corporation to Sallie
Mae, Inc.  The parties in this matter have reached a tentative
settlement which is subject to court approval and other
conditions.

SLM Corporation, known as Sallie Mae -- http://www.salliemae.com/
-- is engaged in the business of originating, servicing and
collecting student loans and/or their parents to finance the cost
of their education.  The company provide funding, delivery and
servicing support for education loans in the United States through
the participation in the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP), as a servicer of loans for the Department of Education
(ED), and through its non-federally guaranteed Private Education
Loan programs.  The company provides services, including student
loan and guarantee servicing, loan default aversion and defaulted
loan collections, and providing processing capabilities and
information technology to educational institutions, through
Upromise Investments, Inc. (UII) and Upromise Investment Advisors,
LLC (UIA).  The company operates in three business segments:
Lending business segment, Asset Performance Group Business Segment
(APG) business segment, and Corporate and Other business segment.


SLM CORP: "Chae" Plaintiffs File Petition for Certiorari
--------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter Anne Chae et al. v. SLM Corporation
et al., have filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
Court after their petition for an "en banc" hearing ws denied,
according to SLM Corporation's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On April 6, 2007, the company was served with a putative class
action suit by several borrowers in U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Plaintiffs challenged under California common and statutory law
the company's Federal Family Education Loan Program billing
practices as they relate to the use of the simple daily interest
method for calculating interest, the charging of late fees while
charging simple daily interest, and setting the first payment date
at 60 days after loan disbursement for Consolidation and PLUS
Loans thereby alleging that the company effectively capitalizes
interest.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement of late fees, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable and
injunctive relief.

On June 16, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment to the
company on all counts on the basis of federal preemption.

The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Jan. 25, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
summary judgment on all counts on the basis of federal preemption.

On March 5, 2010, Plaintiffs/Appellants filed a petition for an
"en banc" hearing, which was subsequently denied by the court on
April 1, 2010.

On June 30, 2010, Plaintiffs/Appellants filed a petition for
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

SLM Corporation, known as Sallie Mae -- http://www.salliemae.com/
-- is engaged in the business of originating, servicing and
collecting student loans and/or their parents to finance the cost
of their education.  The company provide funding, delivery and
servicing support for education loans in the United States through
the participation in the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP), as a servicer of loans for the Department of Education
(ED), and through its non-federally guaranteed Private Education
Loan programs.  The company provides services, including student
loan and guarantee servicing, loan default aversion and defaulted
loan collections, and providing processing capabilities and
information technology to educational institutions, through
Upromise Investments, Inc. (UII) and Upromise Investment Advisors,
LLC (UIA).  The company operates in three business segments:
Lending business segment, Asset Performance Group Business Segment
(APG) business segment, and Corporate and Other business segment.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Continues to Seek Settlement of "Easement" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. continues to pursue a settlement to resolve
various actions in connection with its failure to obtain easements
from property owners during the installation of its fiber optic
network, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

A number of cases that allege Sprint Communications Company L.P.
failed to obtain easements from property owners during the
installation of its fiber optic network in the 1980's have been
filed in various courts.  Several of these cases sought
certification of nationwide classes, and in one case, a nationwide
class was certified.

In 2003, a nationwide settlement of these claims was approved by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, but
objectors appealed the preliminary approval order to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the settlement and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.  The
parties proceeded with litigation and/or settlement negotiations
on a state by state basis, and settlement negotiations have been
coordinated in all cases but those pending in Louisiana and
Tennessee.

The Louisiana claims have been separately settled for an amount
the company says is not material to its consolidated financial
position or results of operations, and that settlement was given
final approval by the Court, and the time to appeal that approval
has expired.

The company reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims
in all the other states, excluding Tennessee, for an amount not
material to its consolidated financial position or results of
operations.  The Court issued its preliminary approval of the
settlement on July 17, 2008, but on Sept. 10, 2009, the Court
announced that it would not approve the settlement.

The Court did not decide whether the settlement was fair or in the
best interest of class members, but denied on jurisdictional
grounds.

As a result, the agreement terminated, and the company relates it
intends to defend the matters vigorously, while the parties
continue their efforts to reach a settlement.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- offers a
comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications
services bringing the freedom of mobility to consumers, businesses
and government users.  Sprint Nextel served more than 48 million
customers at the end of the second quarter of 2010 and is widely
recognized for developing, engineering and deploying innovative
technologies, and is the first and only wireless 4G service from a
national carrier in the United States; offering industry-leading
mobile data services, leading prepaid brands including Virgin
Mobile, Boost Mobile, Common Cents Mobile and Assurance Wireless
and instant national and international push-to-talk capabilities;
and a global Tier 1 Internet backbone.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Motion for Summary Judgment Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp.'s motion for summary judgment of a shareholder
lawsuit remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In September 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging
that the company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and
misleading in violation of federal securities laws to the extent
they described new employment agreements with certain senior
executives without disclosing that, according to the allegations,
replacement of those executives was inevitable.

These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit
originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the company and
certain former officers and directors, and seek to recover any
decline in the value of our tracking stocks during the class
period.  The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as
a class action.

All defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations.

Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims
against the same defendants and the company's former independent
auditor, were dismissed by the Court in April 2004.  The company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied, and the
parties have completed discovery on all issues except those
relating to potential damages.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2010 and
that motion is pending.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- offers a
comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications
services bringing the freedom of mobility to consumers, businesses
and government users.  Sprint Nextel served more than 48 million
customers at the end of the second quarter of 2010 and is widely
recognized for developing, engineering and deploying innovative
technologies, and is the first and only wireless 4G service from a
national carrier in the United States; offering industry-leading
mobile data services, leading prepaid brands including Virgin
Mobile, Boost Mobile, Common Cents Mobile and Assurance Wireless
and instant national and international push-to-talk capabilities;
and a global Tier 1 Internet backbone.


SYNGENTA CROP: Judge Crowder to Rule on Motion to Quash Very Soon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports that
the University of Chicago, Illinois Farm Bureau and other big
trade groups are seeking to kill a series of subpoenas and
deposition notices filed in a class action against various makers
and distributors of atrazine.

At a hearing Wednesday in Madison County, attorneys for the
groups, which also include the Heartland Institute, Illinois
Fertilizer and Chemical Association (IFCA) and Chemical Council of
Illinois (CCI), argued that discovery requests and deposition
notices before them violate their First Amendment rights.

Lead plaintiff Holiday Shores countered that the groups cannot
claim everything is privileged under the First Amendment and that
it has a right to conduct depositions on issues raised by
affidavits the third parties filed to support the initial motions
to quash.

At the end of the hearing, Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder told the
parties she would try to rule as soon as possible.

Holiday Shores and the other named plaintiffs in the case are
seeking to lead a class action suit against Syngenta and others,
claiming that atrazine runs off farm fields, contaminates their
drinking water supplies and that it causes medical problems in
human beings.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that atrazine
is safe in drinking water up to three parts per billion.

The plaintiffs' suits allege that even smaller amounts cause the
health issues.

There are six such proposed class actions pending in Madison
County, and none of the 2004 cases have been certified as yet.

The Holiday Shores legal team, Stephen Tillery, Christie Deaton,
and Christine Moody, filed a nearly identical class action in
federal court in East St. Louis earlier this year.

That suit does not include the named plaintiffs in the Madison
County cases as class members -- yet.

It does however include claims by other Illinois water providers
as well as claims from Missouri, Kansas and other states.

Syngenta has asked Judge Crowder to either dismiss the Madison
County case or to stay it until the younger federal suit is
resolved.

Judge Crowder has had that move under advisement. As of Wednesday
morning, she had not entered an order resolving the issue.

The trade groups and Don Coursey, a University of Chicago faculty
member, received the initial subpoenas over the July 4 weekend.

They then moved, together with Syngenta, to quash.

Judge Crowder heard arguments on the matter July 19.

She gave the parties time to file supplemental materials to their
positions.

Mr. Tillery then issued the notices of depositions related to
affidavits of various employees of the groups.

The trade groups and Mr. Coursey moved to quash the notices of
depositions.

Mr. Tillery also moved for sanctions against the University of
Chicago earlier this month.

Syngenta attorney Kurtis Reeg told Judge Crowder at the Wednesday
hearing she could nip the issues in the bud by ruling on the
pending move to stay or dismiss the suits.

If the judge was not ready to do that, Mr. Reeg argued she should
rule on the motions to quash the third party subpoenas first in
order to prevent future problems.

"If we proceed with these depositions, we may well end up back
here right after the depositions had started," Mr. Reeg said.
"It's a procedural mess."

He cited the groups' rights under the First Amendment rights,
sentiments echoed by the trade groups' attorneys.

Edward Dwyer, Esq., representing the IFCA and CCI, told Judge
Crowder that it was unclear as to what way the plaintiff could get
around those constitutional protections.

"What does it cover in communications and for documents?" Mr.
Dwyer asked.

Mr. Tillery challenged their positions.

"They can't have it both ways," Mr. Tillery told Judge Crowder.

He argued that the deposition issue could be dealt with before she
ruled on the subpoenas because the depositions related to
materials filed to support the original motions to quash that were
hearsay.

"The way to clear that up is to take the depositions," Mr. Tillery
said. "These are all hearsay statements."

Mr. Tillery also blasted the trade groups' and Syngenta's
interpretation of the First Amendment protections.

"What they are doing here flies in the face of what Illinois rules
require," Mr. Tillery said. "They say that this First Amendment
right entitles them not to turn over anything. They can't say that
every single document is subject to the First Amendment. That's
ridiculous."

Mr. Tillery suggested that a protective order or privileged
disclosure for Crowder's review could fix the situation if needed.

When Judge Crowder questioned the trade groups' about their
positions as to the First Amendment protection's scope, Mr. Dwyer
told her that until the court gave his client direction, he would
claim its documents were all protected.

"So I'm just supposed to imagine what your client has in its
files?" the judge asked.

The hearing was rounded out with arguments from Mr. Tillery and
University of Chicago's attorney, Mary Lamb, over the university's
move to quash the requests related to the work of Don Coursey, a
faculty member.

Ms. Lamb argued that any work Mr. Coursey did on atrazine was done
in his role outside of the institution as a consultant for
Syngenta.

The University claims it does not own or control any of his work
products and therefore does not have to submit to Mr. Tillery's
requests.

"The plaintiff can get the information directly from Dr. Coursey,"
Ms. Lamb argued.

Ms. Lamb also told Judge Crowder Mr. Tillery's move for sanctions
was improper.

Mr. Tillery countered that he was not asking for sanctions because
the university didn't want to turn over the documents.

He told Judge Crowder he'd moved for the penalty because the
university wouldn't even look to see if the documents were on its
servers.

"She just absolutely refuses to do it," Mr. Tillery said of Ms.
Lamb.

Mr. Reeg represents Syngenta in both the state and federal class
action. He also represents United Agri-Products in another Madison
County atrazine suit.

Mr. Dwyer and Jennifer Martin of Hodge Dwyer & Driver of
Springfield represent both the CICI and IFCA.

Daniel Donahue and others represent Mr. Coursey and the Heartland
Institute.

Ms. Lamb represents the University of Chicago.

V Fluence, another third party in the suit, is represented by
Larry Helper, Esq.

Christopher Byron, Esq., represents the Farm Bureau.

Mr. Tillery and his team represent Holiday Shores and the proposed
classes in all of the Madison atrazine suits.

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

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

Defense counsel can be reached at:

     Kurtis B. Reeg, Esq.
     REEG LAWYERS, LLC
     One North Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 950
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Telephone: 314-446-3350
     Facsimile: 314-446-3360
     E-mail: kreeg@reeglawfirm.com

Lead Plaintiff's counsel can be reached at:

     Stephen Tillery, Esq.
     Christie Deaton, Esq.
     Christine Moody, Esq.
     KOREIN TILLERY LLC
     One U.S. Bank Plaza
     505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Telephone: 314-241-4844
     Facsimile: 314-241-3525
     E-mail: STillery@koreintillery.com
             CDeaton@koreintillery.com
             CMoody@koreintillery.com

Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association and Chemical Council
of Illinois are represented by:

     Edward W. Dwyer, Esq.
     Jennifer C. Martin, Esq.
     HODGE DWYER & DRIVER
     3150 Roland Avenue
     P.O. Box 5776
     Springfield, IL 62705-5776
     Telephone: (217) 523-4900 ext. 112
                (217) 523-4900 ext. 115
     E-mail: edwyer@hddattorneys.com
             jmartin@hddattorneys.com


UNISOURCE ENERGY: BIA Says Appeal Fails to Meet Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has found that the notice of appeal
filed by the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a putative class
action against Tucson Electric Power Co. failed to meet the
minimum requirements for the appeal of an administrative action
under federal law, according to UniSource Energy Corporation's
Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Tucson Electric is the principal subsidiary of UniSource Energy.

Tucson Electric is a defendant in a putative class action filed in
the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Feb. 11,
2009, by members of the Navajo Nation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the rights of ways
for defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were improperly
granted and that the compensation paid for such rights of way was
inadequate.

The plaintiffs are requesting, among other things, that the
transmission lines on these lands be removed.

In June 2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit on procedural grounds and in September 2009,
the plaintiffs filed responses.

In March 2010, the Court granted several of the defendants'
motions to dismiss and entered a final judgment dismissing the
case in April 2010.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs in May 2010, appealing the BIA's decision to grant the
rights of way that were the subject of the now-dismissed
complaint.  In June 2010, the BIA found that the Notice of Appeal
failed to meet the minimum requirements for the appeal of an
administrative action under federal law.

UniSource Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- is a
holding company that conducts its operations through its
subsidiaries.  UniSource Energy owns Tucson Electric Power Company
(TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), Millennium Energy
Holdings, Inc. (Millennium) and UniSource Energy Development
Company (UED).  The company conducts its business through three
segments: TEP, UNS Gas and UNS Electric.  TEP is an electric
utility that provides electric service to the community of Tucson,
Arizona.  UES, through its two operating subsidiaries, UNS Gas,
Inc. (UNS Gas) and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric), provides gas
and electric service to 30 communities in Northern and Southern
Arizona.  UED developed and owns the Black Mountain Generating
Station (BMGS), a natural gas-fired combustion turbine in Northern
Arizona that, through a power sales agreement provides energy to
UNS Electric.


UNITED WESTERN: U.C.C. Article 4-A Violations Claim Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has dismissed all claims alleging violations of the Uniform
Commercial Code Article 4-A against United Western Bancorp, Inc.,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

The Bank received a class action complaint styled Anita Hunter et
al. v. Citibank, N.A. et al. including United Western Bank, in
July of 2009 brought by seven named plaintiffs on behalf of a
class of approximately 330 similarly situated people residing
throughout the United States, each of whom lost substantial sums
of money (Exchange Funds) entrusted to seven qualified
intermediaries (QIs) to facilitate their respective Internal
Revenue Code Section 1031 Exchanges.

According to the complaint, the QIs were controlled by an
individual named Edward Okun and certain other individuals who
would gain access to the Exchange Funds and convert the Exchange
Funds for their own use for personal gain.

The plaintiffs seek class certification for all similarly situated
plaintiffs who lost Exchange Funds when they placed such funds
using the QIs.  One of the QIs maintained accounts at the Bank for
the purpose of holding Exchange Funds.

With respect to plaintiffs' claims against the Bank, plaintiffs
alleged, among other things, that the Bank knowingly aided and
abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Mr. Okun by facilitating
wire transfers of Exchange Funds from accounts at the QI at the
Bank to accounts controlled by Mr. Okun and his related entities
at other financial institutions.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss with the court
requesting the court to dismiss all plaintiffs' claims against the
Bank since the Bank successfully initiated the QI's wire
transfers, and therefore, the Bank cannot be held liable under
U.C.C. Article 4-A.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the court granted the Bank's Motion to Dismiss
agreeing with the Bank that the Bank cannot be held liable under
U.C.C. Article 4-A; and furthermore, that all common law claims
against the Bank are preempted by U.C.C Article 4-A.  While the
court dismissed the Bank from the action, it granted the
plaintiffs with leave to amend the complaint.

On March 3, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the court against the Bank and other defendants, making these
allegations specifically against the Bank:

     (i) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by means
         of non-electronic transfers;

    (ii) aiding and abetting fraud by means of non-electronic
         transfers;

   (iii) aiding and abetting fraud;

    (iv) conversion and aiding and abetting conversion by means
         of non-electronic transfers;

     (v) conversion;

    (vi) aiding and abetting a conversion;

   (vii) contractual interference;

  (viii) negligence and

    (ix) violations of U.C.C. Article 4-A.

On April 9, 2010, the Bank filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint.

On July 20, 2010, the court granted in part the Bank's Motion to
Dismiss ruling that all claims alleging violations of U.C.C.
Article 4-A are dismissed with prejudice and, to the extent the
aiding and abetting claims mentioned above are based on electronic
transfers of funds, then these claims are dismissed with prejudice
as well, however, the court granted the plaintiffs with leave to
amend the complaint with respect to non-electronic transfers.

United Western Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.uwbancorp.com/-- is a
unitary thrift holding company.  The company, through its
principal subsidiary, United Western Bank is focused on expanding
its community-based network across Colorado's Front Range market
and mountain communities.  The Colorado Front Range area spans the
eastern slope of Colorado's Rocky Mountains, from Pueblo to Fort
Collins, and includes the metropolitan Denver marketplace, as well
as certain mountain communities.  During the year ending Dec. 31,
2008, the company had seven full service banking locations in the
metropolitan Denver marketplace and a loan production office
servicing the Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley market areas.


VISTAPRINT USA: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Texas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vistaprint N.V., the company that provides high-impact
personalized products and services for small businesses and the
home, disclosed that on August 23, 2010, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the
August 2009 decision of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas that dismissed the purported class
action lawsuit against Vistaprint USA, Inc., Vistaprint Limited
and two third party merchants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit found that the District Court's "detailed analysis
is compelling in explaining that each claim is entirely without
merit."

The consolidated complaint had alleged that the defendants
violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and the Massachusetts Unfair Trade
Practices Act in connection with certain third party membership
discount programs offered to Vistaprint customers on
Vistaprint.com. The complaint also had sought recovery for certain
common law claims including unjust enrichment and "money had and
received." On August 18, 2009, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed Vistaprint Limited from the case and on August 31, 2009,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas dismissed all remaining claims against Vistaprint USA, Inc.
and the third party merchants, and ruled on substantive grounds
that the defendants had not violated any of the statutes or common
law claims cited by the plaintiffs. The District Court had found
"without reservation" that, as a matter of law, the web pages on
which the membership discount programs were offered on
Vistaprint.com were clearly written and not deceptive.

"We are very pleased that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has
affirmed the District Court's dismissal order," said Lawrence
Gold, senior vice president and general counsel of Vistaprint. "We
always maintained that the terms of the third party membership
programs were clearly stated and not deceptive, so we were
gratified when the District Court dismissed the purported class
action lawsuit against us. While we made a business decision in
November 2009 to terminate all third-party membership rewards and
similar programs on Vistaprint's websites, we are pleased that the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has now vindicated our position and
the District Court's ruling that the plaintiffs' claims against us
were entirely without merit."

                         About Vistaprint

Vistaprint N.V. -- http://www.vistaprint.com/-- empowers more
than 9 million micro businesses and consumers annually with
affordable, professional options to make an impression. With a
unique business model supported by proprietary technologies, high-
volume production facilities, and direct marketing expertise,
Vistaprint offers a wide variety of products and services that
micro businesses can use to expand their business. A global
company, Vistaprint employs approximately 2,200 people, operates
22 localized websites globally and ships to more than 120
countries around the world.

                           *********

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  * * *