CAR_Public/100906.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 6, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 175

                             Headlines

ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit Remains Pending in Florida
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Lampone Drops Consumer Claims
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Horsepower Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Defends Two Suits in Canada Over HP Labels
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Faces Suit by Retirees in Wisconsin

BURGER KING: Settlement in "Castenada" Gets Court's Final Nod
BURGER KING: Defends Consolidated Suit by Franchisees
BURGER KING: No Suit Yet from "Castenada" Law Firm
CHINA NATURAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CITICORP INC: Accused of Abetting Joseph Viola's Ponzi Fraud

CLARK HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in 2009 Multi-Media Suit
COGENT: Being Sold to 3M for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Accused of Defrauding Shareholders
CROSS COUNTRY: Approval of Settlement in Suit vs. Unit Pending
DAISO JAPAN: Sued for Selling Toys Containing Toxic Amount of Lead

DELL INC: Court Gives Final Approval to $40 Million Settlement
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Appeal in IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
EMULEX CORP: Continues to Defend "Chan" Lawsuit in Delaware
EMULEX CORP: Parties File Stipulation of Settlement
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Gets Final Okay of $8MM "Elias" Suit Settlement

EPL INTERMEDIATE: Awaits Court Okay of "Santana" Suit Settlement
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Awaits Court Okay of "Delgado" Suit Settlement
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Dismissal Pending
ISRAEL: Government Claims Solar Energy Tariffs Follow Global Norm
JACKSON HEWITT: Settles "Brown" Suit for De Minimis Amount

JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Litigate "Hunter" Lawsuit in W. Va.
JACKSON HEWITT: Class Certification Motion in "Wooley" Pending
JACKSON HEWITT: Appeal on Dismissal of "Gomez" Suit Pending
JACKSON HEWITT: Court Dismisses First Amended "Norris" Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Defend Appeal in "Fugate" Suit

JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Defend Appeal in "Thomas" Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Seeks to Dismiss "Carriere" Suit in Louisiana
JONES SODA: Decision in "Saltzman" Suit Appeal Remains Pending
LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Appeal of "Taylor" Suit Dismissal Is Pending
LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Wiles" Suit in Missouri

MAINE & MARITIME: Awaits Court OK of BHE-Related Suits Settlement
NATIONAL Security: Appeal of Class Certification in the Works
NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Pension Class Action Still Stayed
OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Court Denies Appeal in "Hines" Suit

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Various Parties Object to Settlement Pact
PLASTICS ADDITIVES: Class Certification Denied in Antitrust Suit
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Defending Class Suits in Nevada and Mass.
SCORES HOLDING: Continues to Defend 3rd Amended Complaint in NY
SENSIO INC: Recalls 25,000 Slow Cookers

SHARP ELECTRONICS: Recalls 9,000 Sharp 32-inch LCD-TVs
SMART ONLINE: Awaits Court Approval of "Gooden" Suit Settlement
SMURFIT-STONE: Expects ERISA Violations Suits to Be Consolidated
STATION CASINOS: Hearing on "Luckevich" Settlement Set for Oct. 25
SUNPOWER CORP: Hearing on Dismissal Motion Set for Nov. 4

TICKETMASTER: Appeals Court Allows Class Suit to Move Forward
TOYOTA MOTOR: Announces Corolla/Corolla Matrix Safety Recall
UNION FINANCIAL: Suit Over Planned Merger With DFSC Still Pending
VANGUARD HEALTH: "Maderazo" Suit in Texas Remains Stayed
VANGUARD HEALTH: Plaintiff's Certification Motion Still Pending

VCG HOLDING: Facing "Cohen" Suit in Colo. over Lowrie Proposal
VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued Over "Premium" Text Messages Charges
VIVENDI SA: Sees Benefit in Court Ruling; Reduces Reserve
WESCO FINANCIAL: Shares Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
WESTERN DIGITAL: Has Until Oct. 18 to Set Hearing on Certification

WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend Kottaras Antitrust Lawsuit
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint Pending
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Dewald" Suit Still Pending

                             *********

ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit Remains Pending in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit styled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB
Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709, remains pending in the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, according to ALP Liquidating Trust's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Effective Sept. 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (Partnership)
completed its liquidation by contributing all of its remaining
assets to ALP, subject to all of the Partnership's obligations
and liabilities.  Arvida Company, an affiliate of the general
partner of the Partnership, acts as Administrator (Administrator)
of ALP.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

In this suit that was originally filed on June 20, 2003,
plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out
of construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.  On
May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.

Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not
adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity
with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with
Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer
from improper shutter storm protection systems.  Plaintiffs have
filed a motion to expand the class to include other homes in
Weston.

The motion to expand the class has not yet been heard.  The
Arvida defendants intend to oppose the motion.

The matter hearing on a motion to certify the class was scheduled
on Dec. 21-22, 2009.

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint.

The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010.  The case did not
settle.  The matter is scheduled for a hearing on a motion to
certify the class on April 13, 2010.  The Arvida defendants have
filed their answer to the amended complaint.

This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance
carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company, for defense and
indemnity.  Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a
purported reservation of rights.  The Partnership has also
engaged other counsel in connection with this lawsuit.

ALP Liquidating Trust engages in liquidating the assets of
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. Arvida/JMB Partners transferred all of
its remaining assets to the trust at the time of its liquidation
in 2005.  Previously, Arvida/JMB Partners was engaged in the
development of resort and primary home communities for the middle
and upper income segments in the State of Florida, as well as in
Atlanta, Georgia, and Highlands, North Carolina.  ALP Liquidating
Trust was founded in 1987 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Lampone Drops Consumer Claims
----------------------------------------------
Nicholas Lampone dismissed his consumer claims against
Blockbuster, Inc., according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 4, 2010.

On May 20, 2009, Nicholas Lampone filed a putative class action in
the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California alleging
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program is a breach of contract and
violates California's consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes prohibiting unfair, unlawful and deceptive business
practices.

Plaintiff sought class certification, restitution, injunctive
relief, general damages, special damages, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees, interest, and
costs.  Blockbuster removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

On April 22, 2010, Mr. Lampone dismissed his claims with
prejudice.

Blockbuster Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a leading
global provider of rental and retail movie and game
entertainment. The company provides customers with convenient
access to media entertainment anywhere, any way they want it --
whether in-store, by-mail, through vending kiosks or digitally to
their homes and mobile devices. With a highly recognized brand
and a library of more than 125,000 movie and game titles,
Blockbuster leverages its multichannel presence to serve nearly
47 million global customers annually.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Horsepower Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin gave
its final approval to the settlement in the matter In Re:
Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. 2:08-md-01999, according to Briggs & Stratton
Corp.'s Aug. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010.

Starting with the first complaint in June 2004, various plaintiff
groups filed complaints in state and federal courts across the
country against the company and other engine and lawnmower
manufacturers alleging that the horsepower labels on the products
they purchased were inaccurate and that the company conspired with
other engine and lawnmower manufacturers to conceal the true
horsepower of these engines.

In May 2008, a putative nationwide class of plaintiffs pursuing
these claims was dismissed without prejudice by Judge Murphy of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Since that time plaintiffs filed 66 separate class actions in 49
states across the country seeking to certify 52 separate classes
of all persons in each of the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the
District of Columbia who purchased a lawnmower containing a
gasoline combustion engine up to 30 horsepower from 1994 to the
present (Horsepower Class Actions).  In these Horsepower Class
Actions, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs also filed
state and federal antitrust and RICO claims and seek a nationwide
class based on these claims.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the company, along with all other defendants,
filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
seeking to transfer all pending actions to a single federal court
for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  On Dec. 5, 2008, the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel granted the motion and transferred
the cases to Judge Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin (In Re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:08-md-01999).
On Jan. 27, 2009, Judge Adelman entered a stay of all litigation
so that the parties could conduct mediation in an effort to
resolve all outstanding litigation.

On Feb. 24, 2010, the company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement that, if given final court approval, will resolve all
of the Horsepower Class Actions.  Other parties to the Settlement
are Sears, Roebuck and Co., Sears Holdings Corporation, Kmart
Holdings Corporation, Deere & Company, Tecumseh Products Company,
The Toro Company, Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and Husqvarna
Outdoor Products, Inc. (now known as Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor
Products, N.A., Inc.).

All other defendants settled all claims separately.  As part of
the Settlement, the company denies any and all liability and seeks
resolution to avoid further protracted and expensive litigation.
If finally approved, the Settlement resolves all horsepower-
labeling claims brought by "all persons or entities in the United
States who, beginning January 1, 1994 through the date notice of
the Settlement is first given, purchased, for use and not for
resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30
horsepower provided that either the lawn mower or the engine of
the lawn mower was manufactured or sold by a Defendant."

As part of the Settlement, the Settling Defendants as a group
agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $51.0 million.  In addition,
the company, along with the other Settling Defendants, agreed to
injunctive relief regarding their future horsepower labeling, as
well as procedures that will allow purchasers of lawnmower engines
to seek a one-year extended warranty free of charge.

On Feb. 26, 2010, Judge Adelman preliminarily approved the
Settlement, certified a settlement class, appointed settlement
class counsel, and stayed all proceedings against all the Settling
Defendants.  On March 11, 2010, Judge Adelman entered an order
approving a notice plan for the Settlement, and set a final
approval hearing for June 22, 2010 to determine the fairness of
the Settlement, and whether final judgment should be entered
thereon.

On June 22, 2010, the Court conducted a hearing on the fairness of
the Settlement at which class counsel and the Settling Defendants
sought approval of the Settlement.  At this hearing numerous class
members appeared through counsel and presented objections to the
Settlement.

On Aug. 16, 2010 Judge Adelman issued an opinion and order that
finally approved the Settlement as well as separate orders that
finally approved the settlements of all defendants.  Judge
Adelman's opinion and order found all settlements to be in good
faith and dismissed the claims of all class members with
prejudice.

On Aug. 23, 2010 several class members filed a Notice of Appeal of
Judge Adelman's final approval orders to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Under the terms of the
Settlement, the balance of settlement funds will not be due, and
the one-year warranty extension program will not begin, until
after all appeals from Judge Adelman's order finally approving the
Settlement are resolved.

As a result of the pending Settlement, the company recorded a
total charge of $30.6 million in the third quarter of fiscal year
2010 representing the total of the Company's monetary portion of
the Settlement and the estimated costs of extending the warranty
period for one year.  The timing of payments required as a result
of the Settlement is not yet determined, but is not expected to be
within the next twelve months.  The amount has been included as a
Litigation Settlement expense reducing income from operations on
the Consolidated Statement of Earnings.

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, is the world's largest producer of gasoline engines for
outdoor power equipment.  Its wholly owned subsidiary Briggs &
Stratton Power Products Group LLC is North America's number one
manufacturer of portable generators and pressure washers, and is a
leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of lawn and garden and
turf care through its Simplicity(R), Snapper(R), Ferris(R) and
Murray(R) brands.  Briggs & Stratton products are designed,
manufactured, marketed and serviced in over 100 countries on six
continents.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Defends Two Suits in Canada Over HP Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation defends two complaints in Canada
over its the horsepower labels on the company's products,
according to the company's Aug. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 27, 2010.

On March 19, 2010, new plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears
Canada, Inc. et al., Docket No. 766-2010).  On May 3, 2010, other
plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Montreal Superior Court in
Canada (Eric Liverman, et al. v. Deere & Company, et al., Docket
No. 500-06-000507-109).

Both Canadian complaints contain allegations and seek relief under
Canadian law that are similar to the U.S. litigation.

The company is evaluating the complaints and has not yet filed an
answer or other responsive pleading to either one.

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, is the world's largest producer of gasoline engines for
outdoor power equipment.  Its wholly owned subsidiary Briggs &
Stratton Power Products Group LLC is North America's number one
manufacturer of portable generators and pressure washers, and is a
leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of lawn and garden and
turf care through its Simplicity(R), Snapper(R), Ferris(R) and
Murray(R) brands.  Briggs & Stratton products are designed,
manufactured, marketed and serviced in over 100 countries on six
continents.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Faces Suit by Retirees in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation faces suit captioned Merrill, Weber,
Carpenter, et al.; United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation;
Group Insurance Plan of Briggs & Stratton Corporation; and Does 1
through 20, Docket No. 10-C-0700, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's
Aug. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010.

On May 14, 2010, the company notified retirees and certain
retirement eligible employees of various changes to the company-
sponsored retiree medical plans.

The purpose of the amendments was to better align the plans
offered to both hourly and salaried retirees.

On Aug. 16, 2010, a putative class of retirees who retired prior
to Aug. 1, 2006 and the United Steel Workers filed a complaint in
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, contesting the company's right
to make these changes.

In addition to a request for class certification, the complaint
seeks an injunction preventing the alleged unilateral termination
or reduction in insurance coverage to the class of retirees, a
permanent injunction preventing defendants from ever making
changes to the retirees' insurance coverage, restitution with
interest (if applicable) and attorneys' fees and costs.

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, is the world's largest producer of gasoline engines for
outdoor power equipment.  Its wholly owned subsidiary Briggs &
Stratton Power Products Group LLC is North America's number one
manufacturer of portable generators and pressure washers, and is a
leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of lawn and garden and
turf care through its Simplicity(R), Snapper(R), Ferris(R) and
Murray(R) brands.  Briggs & Stratton products are designed,
manufactured, marketed and serviced in over 100 countries on six
continents.


BURGER KING: Settlement in "Castenada" Gets Court's Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving the
matter Castenada v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Holdings,
Inc., No. 08-cv-4262, for $7.5 million, according to Burger King
Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2010

On Sept. 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint alleged that all 92 Burger King restaurants in
California leased by the company and operated by franchisees
violate accessibility requirements under federal and state law.

In September 2009, the court issued a decision on the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  In its decision, the court
limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited by the
named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for each of
the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials.

In March 2010, the company agreed to settle this lawsuit with
respect to the 10 restaurants by agreeing to pay $7.5 million,
with the company funding $2.5 million and the balance funded by
the company's insurer.  The insurer will also reimburse the
company for $1.5 million in legal and consulting fees.

In July 2010, the court gave final approval to the settlement.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast food
hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2009, the company owned or
franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries and
United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were company
restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees.  Of these
restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States and
4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets.  BKH's
restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other
specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food
items.  The company generates revenues from three sources: retail
sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property
income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to
franchisees.  The company operates in three reportable segments:
the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.


BURGER KING: Defends Consolidated Suit by Franchisees
-----------------------------------------------------
Burger King Corp. is defending against a consolidated lawsuit in
connection with its setting maximum prices for products sold by
franchisees, according to Burger King Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010

The National Franchisee Association, Inc. and several individual
franchisees filed two class action lawsuits claiming to represent
Burger King franchisees.

The two suits are:

     (1) National Franchisee Association v. Burger King
         Corporation, No. 09-CV-23435, filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
         Nov. 10, 2009; and

     (2) Family Dining, Inc. v. Burger King Corporation,
         No. 10-CV-21964, filed in the U.S. District Court for
         the Southern District of Florida on June 15, 2010.

The lawsuits seek a judicial declaration that the franchise
agreements between BKC and its franchisees do not obligate the
franchisees to comply with maximum price points set by BKC for
products on the BK(R) Value Menu sold by the franchisees,
specifically the 1/4 lb. Double Cheeseburger and the Buck Double.

The Family Dining case also seeks monetary damages for financial
loss incurred by franchisees who were required to sell those
products for no more than $1.00.

In May 2010, the court entered an order in the NFA v. BKC case
granting in part BKC's motion to dismiss.  The court held that BKC
had the authority under its franchise agreements to set maximum
prices but that, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the NFA had
asserted a "plausible" claim that BKC's decision may not have been
made in good faith.

Both cases have been consolidated in front of the same judge.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast food
hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2009, the company owned or
franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries and
United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were company
restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees.  Of these
restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States and
4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets.  BKH's
restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other
specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food
items.  The company generates revenues from three sources: retail
sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property
income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to
franchisees.  The company operates in three reportable segments:
the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.


BURGER KING: No Suit Yet from "Castenada" Law Firm
--------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings, Inc., in its Aug. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2010, discloses that a suit has yet to be
filed by the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the matter
Castenada v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Holdings, Inc.

In April 2010, the company received a demand from the law firm
representing the plaintiffs in the matter Castenada v. Burger King
Corp. and Burger King Holdings, Inc., notifying the company that
the firm was prepared to bring a class action covering the other
restaurants.

In the Castenada suit, U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California had limited the class action to 10
restaurants.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast food
hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2009, the company owned or
franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries and
United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were company
restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees.  Of these
restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States and
4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets.  BKH's
restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other
specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food
items.  The company generates revenues from three sources: retail
sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property
income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to
franchisees.  The company operates in three reportable segments:
the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.


CHINA NATURAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm disclosed Wednesday that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of purchasers of China Natural Gas, Inc.,
common stock during the period from March 10, 2010 through
August 19, 2010.

To join the class action against China Natural Gas, go to the Web
site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653. You may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

The complaint asserts claims against China Natural Gas and its
officers and directors for violations of the federal securities
laws. The complaint alleges that China Natural Gas concealed the
existence of a $17.7 million loan liability on its balance sheet,
understated restricted cash by $17.7 million, improperly accounted
for $45.6 million in senior notes as short term liabilities,
rather than long term, and failed to disclose that it is in
default under the senior note indenture.

As a result of defendants' false statements about China Natural
Gas' financial condition, its stock traded at inflated prices --
as high as $10.78 per share -- during the Class Period.  On
August 13, 2010, the Company disclosed the existence of the $17.7
million loan liability, the default under the indenture and that
it would restate its financial statements to properly account for
these matters. On August 20, 2010, the Company filed its restated
financial statements. As a result, China Natural Gas' stock price
dropped substantially, causing stockholders to suffer losses in
their investments.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

If you wish to join the class action or to discuss your ability to
recover your investment losses, please contact Laurence Rosen,
Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll-free at 866-
767-3653 or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or
pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm has expertise in prosecuting investor
securities litigation and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors
throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions.

The firm can be reached at:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.,
     Phillip Kim, Esq.,
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
     Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
     New York, NY 10118
     Telephone: 212-686-1060
     Toll Free: 866-767-3653
     Facsimile: 212-202-3827
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


CITICORP INC: Accused of Abetting Joseph Viola's Ponzi Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Scala and Sebastian Scala, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Citicorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-03859 (N.D. Calif. August 27, 2010), accuse Citicorp of
providing former felon and escaped prisoner, Joseph "Giuseppe"
Viola, with a variety of banking services and directly assisting
Mr. Viola in recruiting victims for his Ponzi scheme,
notwithstanding the bank's knowledge of Mr. Viola's prior criminal
history.  In so doing, the Complaint says defendants aided and
abetted Mr. Viola's fraud, conversion of the Plaintiffs' money, as
a result of which the Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of
$20 million.

On March 10, 2010, Mr. Viola was arrested for jumping bail while
awaiting trial in 1990 in a separate fraud case in Maricopa
County, Arizona, where he remains incarcerated.

On August 3, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a criminal
indictment against Mr. Viola alleging he engaged in an illegal
investment scheme which defrauded dozens of investors of
approximately $7 million.  Plaintiffs believe the actual amount of
the loss is in excess of $20 million.  Mr. Viola's latest
fraudulent scheme began in 2000.

The Complaint alleges that in 1999, despite knowledge that Mr.
Viola had jumped bail, the defendants allowed Mr. Viola to open
new accounts under the name "Giuseppe" Viola, without requesting
appropriate identification, in violation of its own and federal
banking rules and regulations.  In addition, in 1999, defendants
allowed Mr. Viola to open an account with a now deceased
individual at defendants' 451 Montgomery St., San Francisco,
California branch, also without requesting or requiring
appropriate identification.

The Plaintiffs explain that defendants knew that Mr. Viola was
using false identification, that Mr. Viola was a convicted felon,
and that Mr. Viola's account violated federal banking rules and
regulations, but despite these and other irregularities, allowed
Mr. Viola's account activity to continue.  The Scalas said that
that defendants' substantial assistance gave Mr. Viola's scheme an
"aura of legitimacy" that allowed him to perpetrate his fraudulent
scheme on the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack W. Lee, Esq.
          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq.
          Liza Charbonneau, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
          360 Post Street, 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com
                  dhoward@minamitamaki.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
          Justin T. Berger, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY
          840 Not Come Rd., Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
                  jberger@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mulligan, Esq.
          Larry W. Gabriel, Esq.
          JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP
          10085 Carroll Canyon Rd., Suite 210
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (415) 982-8500
          E-mail: Dan@jmglawoffices.com
                  Lgabriel@jmglawoffices.com


CLARK HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in 2009 Multi-Media Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself in a complaint
commenced by Multi-Media International in July 2009, according to
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2010.

On or about July 10, 2009, Multi-Media International filed a
complaint against CGI and its subsidiaries, Clark Distribution
Systems, Inc., Highway Distribution Systems, Inc., Clark Worldwide
Transportation, Inc., and Evergreen Express Lines, seeking class
action status in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey by alleging, among other things:

   (i) common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent
       misrepresentation, conversion and unjust enrichment;

  (ii) violation of N.J. Stat. Section 56:8-2; and

(iii) breach of good faith and fair dealing, relating to alleged
       excessive fuel surcharges by the Subsidiaries.

The complaint alleges a class period from June 25, 2002 through
June 25, 2009.

On behalf of the punitive class, plaintiff seeks to recover the
alleged excessive fuel charges, enjoin the alleged improper
calculation of fuel charges by defendants and impose punitive
damages and attorney's fees.  The complaint did not specify an
amount of damages; however a prior complaint seeking similar
relief on behalf of the same class, which was withdrawn, sought
compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million and punitive
damages in the amount of $30 million.

On June 18, 2010, the U.S. Court for the District of New Jersey
issued a ruling in the Multi-Media International case that
substantially narrowed the case.  The Court granted CGI's motion
to dismiss the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim.  With regard
to the class action allegations, CGI's motion to disqualify MMI
and its lawyer from representing the class was rendered moot when
MMI withdrew its class allegations and filed a motion to convert
the case into an individual claim by MMI against CGI.  The Court
then granted MMI's motion to file the amended complaint and
proceed without the class action or the NJ Consumer Fraud
allegations.

As a result of these actions, CGI's potential liability is
substantially reduced.  The Company continues to believe that the
remaining allegations in the lawsuit are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself.  However, the ultimate outcome of
this action and the amount of liability that may result, if any,
is not presently determinable, the company said.

Clark Holdings Inc. -- http://www.glacteam.com/-- formerly
Global Logistics Acquisition Corporation, is a transportation
management and logistics services company whose core business is
the shipment of mass market consumer magazines throughout the
U.S. and between the United States and other countries.  The
company was a blank check company formed primarily to effect a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other
similar business combination with an operating business in the
transportation and logistics sector and related industries.  It
did not engage in any substantive commercial business until it
consummated its business combination with The Clark Group, Inc.
(Clark) on Feb. 12, 2008.  Clark owns Clark Distribution Systems
Inc. (CDS) and Highway Distribution Systems Inc., through which
the company conducts its domestic operations; and Clark
Worldwide Transportation Inc. (CWT), which carries out
operations overseas. Holdings is considered to be in the
development stage.


COGENT: Being Sold to 3M for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cogent is selling itself too
cheaply to 3M through an unfair process, for $943 million or
$10.50 a share, shareholders claim in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Cogent make fingerprint ID systems.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Accused of Defrauding Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Corinthian Colleges inflated
its share price through false and misleading statements, and its
stock fell by 48% after Congress announced its investigation of
"for-profit institutions such as Corinthian," according to a
shareholders class action in Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-06523 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/01/Corinthian.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Andy Sohrn Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-907-0700
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                  wreiss@labaton.com

                  Pomerantz Files Suit in Calif.

Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of
California against Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and certain of its
top officials.  The class action (Case No.: 10-6523) was filed on
behalf of purchasers of Corinthian securities during the period of
October 30, 2007 through and including August 19, 2010. The
Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is a post-secondary education company in
the United States and Canada. On August 3, 2010, the U.S. General
Accounting Office issued a report that concluded that for-profit
educational institutions such as Corinthian had engaged in an
illegal and fraudulent course of action designed to recruit
students and overcharge the federal government for the cost of
such education. Thereafter, a Congressional Committee launched an
investigation of such practices; the U.S. Department of Education
released data showing that the loan repayment rates for Corinthian
enrollees were well below the level required for federal loan
program eligibility; and the Company disclosed that its enrollee
default rates had significantly increased, and were continuing to
do so.

As a result of these revelations, the Company's stock fell from
$9.25 on August 3, 2010 to $4.49 on August 20, 2010.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose: (1)
the Company overstated its growth prospects by engaging in illicit
and improper recruiting activities, which also had the effect of
artificially inflating the Company's reported results and future
growth prospects; (2) the Company's financial results were
overstated in that the Company's colleges inflated tuition costs
and its student loan repayment rates were well below levels
required for participation in federal loan programs; (3) the
Company failed to maintain adequate systems of internal
operational or financial controls; and (4) based on the foregoing,
defendants lacked a basis for their positive statements about the
Company, its prospects and growth.

If you are a shareholder who purchased the Corinthian securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 1, 2010 to ask
the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy
of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Nicola Brown at info@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free. Those who inquire by e-
mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone
number.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Washington,
D.C., Columbus, Ohio and Burlingame, California --
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/-- is acknowledged as one of the
premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


CROSS COUNTRY: Approval of Settlement in Suit vs. Unit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., continues to await approval of the
settlement agreement resolving the matter Maureen Petray and
Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, 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 Feb. 18, 2005, the company's MedStaff subsidiary became the
subject of a purported class action lawsuit (Maureen Petray and
Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc.) filed in the Superior Court of
California in Riverside County.  The lawsuit relates to only
MedStaff corporate employees working in California.  The claims
alleged under this lawsuit are generally similar in nature to
those brought by Darrelyn Renee Henry in a lawsuit against the
company, which was dismissed (Darrelyn Renee Henry vs. MedStaff,
Inc., et al.).

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business and
Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and penalties.
MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate employees in
California.

The Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, purport to sue
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and
allege that MedStaff failed, under California law, to provide meal
periods and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods and
rest breaks; failed to compensate the employees for all hours
worked; failed to compensate the employees for working overtime;
failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of time worked;
failed to pay Plaintiffs and their purported class as required by
law.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining MedStaff
from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint and for
full restitution of all monies, for interest, for certain
penalties provided for by the California Labor Code and for
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Feb. 5, 2007, the court granted class certification.  On Oct.
16, 2008, MedStaff filed a Motion to Decertify the class which was
denied on Dec. 19, 2008.

Trial was scheduled to occur in the second quarter of 2010;
however, in December 2009, the company reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter.

As a result, the company accrued a pre-tax charge of $345,000
(approximately $209,000 after taxes) related to this lawsuit.  The
final settlement agreement will be subject to court approval.

Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. --
http://www.crosscountryhealthcare.com/-- is a diversified leader
in healthcare staffing services offering a comprehensive suite of
staffing and outsourcing services to the healthcare market that
include nurse and allied staffing, physician staffing, clinical
trials services and other human capital management services.  The
company believes it is one of the top two providers of travel
nurse and allied staffing services; one of the top three providers
of temporary physician staffing (locum tenens) services; a leading
provider of clinical trials staffing services and retained
physician search services; and a provider of educational seminars,
specifically for the healthcare marketplace.  On a company-wide
basis, Cross Country Healthcare has approximately 4,500 contracts
with hospitals and healthcare facilities, pharmaceutical and
biotechnology customers, and other healthcare organizations to
provide our healthcare staffing and outsourcing solutions.


DAISO JAPAN: Sued for Selling Toys Containing Toxic Amount of Lead
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Harrington, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Daiso Japan, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03876 (N.D. Calif.
August 30, 2010), brings claims against Daiso for violation of
California's Health and Safety Code and Breach of Implied Warranty
under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq. and the California Legal Remedies Act.  Ms. Harrington, who
is the mother of two daughters, says that she purchased toy
products from the Daiso store in Daly City, California, not
knowing that said toys had contained toxic amounts of lead.

According to the Complaint, Daiso knew or should have known that
its toys were painted using paint containing excessive amounts of
lead, a banned hazardous substance that is known to pose serious
risk to the health of those who have been exposed to it.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julio J. Ramos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JULIO J. RAMOS
          35 Grove Street, Suite 107
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 948-3015
          E-mail: ramosfortrustee@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Nunez, Esq.
          WARD & HAGEN, LLP
          440 Stevens Ave., Suite 350
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Telephone: (858) 847-0505
          E-mail: steve@wardhagen.com


DELL INC: Court Gives Final Approval to $40 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas gave its
final approval to the settlement agreement resolving a suit
against Dell Inc., for $40 million, according to the company's
Aug. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Four putative securities class actions filed between Sept. 13,
2006, and Jan. 31, 2007, in the Western District of Texas, Austin
Division, against Dell and certain of its current and former
directors and officers were consolidated as In re Dell Securities
Litigation, and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the court.

The lead plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a),
and 20A of the Exchange Act based on alleged false and misleading
disclosures or omissions regarding Dell's financial statements,
governmental investigations, internal controls, known battery
problems and business model, and based on insiders' sales of Dell
securities.  This action also included Dell's independent
registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as
a defendant.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims
with prejudice and without leave to amend.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Dell and
the officer defendants to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument on the appeal was
heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
Sept. 1, 2009.

On Nov. 20, 2009, the parties to the appeal entered into a written
settlement agreement whereby Dell would pay $40 million to the
proposed class and the plaintiff would dismiss the pending
litigation.

The settlement was preliminarily approved by the District Court on
Dec. 21, 2009.  The settlement was subject to certain conditions,
including opt-outs from the proposed class not exceeding a
specified percentage and final approval by the District Court.

During the first quarter of Fiscal 2011, the original opt-out
period in the notice approved by the District Court expired
without the specified percentage being exceeded.  The District
Court subsequently granted final approval for the settlement and
entered a final judgment on July 20, 2010.

Dell paid $40 million into an escrow account to satisfy this
settlement and discharged the liability during the second quarter
of Fiscal 2011.  Certain objectors to the settlement have filed
notices of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with
regard to approval of the settlement.

Dell Inc. http://www.dell.com/is a holding company, which
conducts its business globally, through its subsidiaries.  It
offers a range of product categories, including mobility products,
desktop personal computers (PCs), software and peripherals,
servers and networking, and storage.  The services include a range
of configurable information technology (IT) and business related
services, including infrastructure technology, consulting and
applications, and business process services.  The company operates
in four global business segments: Large Enterprise, Public, Small
and Medium Business, and Consumer.  On Nov. 3, 2009, Dell
completed the acquisition of Perot Systems Corporation (Perot
Systems).  In fiscal 2009, the company completed the acquisition
of The Networked Storage Company, MessageOne, Inc. and Allin
Corporation.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Appeal in IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal on the settlement of a consolidated securities class
action filed against Drugstore.com, Inc., remains pending,
according to the company's Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4,
2010.

A consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  It names drugstore.com as
a defendant, along with the underwriters and certain of our
present and former officers and directors (the Individual
Defendants), in connection with the company's July 27, 1999
initial public offering and March 15, 2000 secondary offering
(together, the Offerings).  The suit purports to be a class action
filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during
the period July 28, 1999 to December 6, 2000.

In general, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses through
which the company conducted the Offerings were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

    (i) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had solicited
        and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
        certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters
        allocated to those investors' material portions of the
        restricted number of shares issued in connection with the
        Offerings; and

   (ii) the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with
        customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
        drugstore.com shares to customers in the Offerings in
        exchange for which customers agreed to purchase additional
        drugstore.com shares in the after-market at predetermined
        prices.

The complaint asserts violations of various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief.  The action is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions
filed against other companies or their present and former officers
and directors.

On October 9, 2002, the District Court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice.  On December 5, 2006,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a
decision by the District Court granting class certification in six
of the coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as test, or
"focus," cases.  The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which do
not include the company.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied a petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs, but noted
that plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify more
narrow classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in drugstore.com's case, reached a settlement that was
approved by the District Court on October 5, 2009.  The insurers
for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the
settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including
drugstore.com.  A group of three objectors filed a petition to the
Second Circuit on or about October 26, 2009 seeking permission to
appeal the District Court's final approval order on the basis that
the settlement class is broader than the class previously rejected
by the Second Circuit in its December 5, 2006 order vacating the
District Court's order certifying classes in the focus cases.

Final judgment in the amount of the settlement amount was entered
on December 3, 2009.  Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the
petition.  Six notices of appeal to the Second Circuit have been
filed by different groups of objectors, including one notice filed
by the objectors who filed the petition to appeal.  Subject to
court approval, the objectors to the settlement will file their
briefs in the Second Circuit no later than October 6, 2010, and
answering briefs will be due no later than February 3, 2011.

Drugstore.com, Inc., is an online provider of health, beauty,
vision and pharmacy products. The Company offers health, beauty,
household and other non-prescription products and prescription
medications, through its Web store located at
http://www.drugstore.com/


EMULEX CORP: Continues to Defend "Chan" Lawsuit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corp. continues to defend a suit filed by a stockholder in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On May 7, 2009, Kamwai Fred Chan filed a lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of the
company.  The complaint names the members of the Board and the
company as defendants.

The complaint asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating to the
company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption of a new
stockholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights plan, and
amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements, and actions
in response to Broadcom's announcement of its proposal to acquire
the company.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, interest and costs, including attorneys' and
expert fees.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010.

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


EMULEX CORP: Parties File Stipulation of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
The parties in an amended class action filed a stipulation of
settlement and order of dismissal of action wherein Emulex Corp.'s
insurance carrier agreed to pay $3 million for plaintiffs' counsel
fees and expenses, according to the company's Aug. 26, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010.

                         Middleton Suit

On April 27, 2009, Reid Middleton filed a lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of the company and
derivatively on behalf of the company.  The original complaint
named the members of the Board as defendants and the company as a
nominal defendant.

The complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of shares of the company's
common stock and a derivative claim for devaluation of the company
stemming from the company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws,
adoption of a new stockholder rights plan to replace its expiring
rights plan, and amendments to its Key Employee Retention
Agreements, and actions in response to Broadcom's announcement of
its unsolicited April 21, 2009 takeover proposal to acquire the
company.  The original complaint sought declaratory and injunctive
relief, compensatory damages, interest and costs, including
attorneys' and expert fees.

On May 11, 2009, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
granted plaintiff Reid Middleton's motion to expedite proceedings
and set a trial date in the three foregoing Delaware lawsuits
beginning on July 8, 2009.  On July 6, 2009, the Court of Chancery
continued the July 8, 2009 trial date indefinitely.

On Dec. 3, 2009, the plaintiff's attorneys filed an application
for an award of attorney's fees and expenses.  The Court rejected
the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees on Dec. 18, 2009.

                         Pipefitters Suit

On May 11, 2009, Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan
filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders
of the company and derivatively on behalf of the company.  The
original complaint named the members of the company's Board as
defendants and the company as a nominal defendant.

The complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating to the
company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption of a new
shareholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights plan,
amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements, and actions
in response to Broadcom's announcement of its proposal to acquire
the company.  The original complaint also asserted a derivative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the same actions.
The original complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief,
including mandatory injunctive relief, and costs, including
attorneys' and expert fees.

                           Norfolk Suit

On May 12, 2009, Norfolk County Retirement System filed a lawsuit
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of the
company.  The original complaint named the members of the
company's Board and the Company as defendants.

The original complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty on behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating
to the company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption
of a new shareholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights
plan, and amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements, and
actions in response to Broadcom's announcement of its proposal to
acquire the company.  The original complaint sought declaratory
and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest and costs,
including attorneys' and expert fees.

                       Amended Class Action

On Sept. 17, 2009, Reid Middleton, Pipefitters Local No. 636
Defined Benefit Plan and Norfolk County Retirement System filed a
Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The amended complaint is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated stockholders of the company and,
alternatively, derivatively on behalf of the company.  The
complaint names the members of the Board as defendants and the
company as a nominal defendant.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares and,
alternatively, a derivative claim for devaluation of the company
stemming from the company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws,
adoption of a new stockholder rights plan to replace its expiring
rights plan, and amendments to its Key Employee Retention
Agreements, and actions in response to Broadcom's announcement of
its proposal to acquire the company.

The complaint seeks declaratory relief, compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including attorneys' and expert fees.

On Oct. 13, 2009, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.

On Dec. 3, 2009, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed an application
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Court rejected the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees as
premature on Dec. 18, 2009.

On Feb. 4, 2010, the Court of Chancery granted a Scheduling Order
setting a trial date for December 6-10, 2010.

On July 9, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and
order of dismissal of action wherein Emulex's insurance carrier
agreed to pay $3,000,000 for plaintiffs' counsel fees and
expenses, subject to the Court's final approval.

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


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Gets Final Okay of $8MM "Elias" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, granted final approval to an agreement resolving a
purported class-action lawsuit against EPL Intermediate,
Inc., for $8 million, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

The Company entered into an agreement in the fourth quarter of
2009 to settle for $8 million a purported class action lawsuit
brought by former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco Ramirez and Javier
Rivera.  The Company funded the settlement on January 14, 2010,
and the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, granted final approval of the class-wide settlement and
entered Final Judgment at a hearing on April 20, 2010.  This
settlement also included and settled the previously disclosed
purported class action complaint filed by Salvador Amezcua.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Awaits Court Okay of "Santana" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of an
$800,000 settlement regarding an action filed by Dora Santana,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In April 2007, Dora Santana filed a purported class action in
state court in Los Angeles County on behalf of all "Assistant
Shift Managers."  Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations
including working off the clock, failure to pay overtime, and meal
break violations on behalf of the purported class, currently
defined as all Assistant Managers from April 2003 to present.  The
parties have agreed to settle this matter for approximately $0.8
million and have executed a Settlement Agreement.  This amount has
been fully accrued for during the prior year and is included in
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets in accounts
payable as of June 30, 2010.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
February 25, 2010.  A hearing for final court approval was held
August 16, 2010.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Awaits Court Okay of "Delgado" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------- -----------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of its
$1.7 million settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by
Jeannette Delgado, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

On May 30, 2008, Jeannette Delgado, a former Assistant Manager
filed a purported class action on behalf of all hourly employees
of EPL in state court in Los Angeles County alleging violations of
certain California labor laws and the California Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal periods and rest periods and unfair business
practices.  By statute, the purported class extends back four
years, to May 30, 2004.

Plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.  The parties have agreed to settle this
matter for approximately $1.7 million and have executed a
Settlement Agreement.  This amount has been fully accrued for
during the prior year and is included in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheets in accounts payable as of
June 30, 2010.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
February 25, 2010, and the hearing for final court approval was
held August 20, 2010.

                       "Penaloza" Lawsuit

The parties in a purported class action filed on behalf of all
non-exempt employees against EPL Intermediate, Inc., are engaged
in settlement negotiations.

Martin Penaloza, a former Assistant Manager, filed a purported
class action on May 26, 2009, in Superior Court in Orange County,
California.  The claims, requested remedies, and potential class
in this case overlap those in the Delgado lawsuit and will be
included in that settlement, the company said its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
amended complaint against International Rectifier Corporation,
remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 26, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010.

In August 2008, shortly after the company's disclosure that Vishay
Intertechnology Inc., had made an unsolicited, non-binding
proposal to acquire all outstanding shares of the company, a
purported class action complaint captioned Hui Zhao v.
International Rectifier Corporation, No. BC396461, was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles.

The complaint named as defendants the company and all of its
directors and alleged that the Vishay proposal was unfair and that
acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach of fiduciary
duty by the Board.  In October 2008, the case was consolidated
with five other substantially similar complaints seeking the same
relief.

In October 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
purporting to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf
of a putative class of investors based on the theory that the
Board breached its fiduciary duty by rejecting the Vishay
proposal.  In April 2009, the Court sustained with prejudice the
company's demurrer to the amended complaint and ordered the action
to be dismissed with prejudice.

In June 2009, plaintiffs in Zhao filed a notice of appeal from the
final judgment of dismissal and in March 2010, plaintiffs-
appellants filed their opening brief.  Defendants-respondents'
brief was filed on June 7, 2010, and on August 12, the Court
granted plaintiff-appellants' request for a thirty day extension
of the deadline to file their reply brief to Sept. 27, 2010.

International Rectifier Corporation -- http://www.irf.com/-- is a
world leader in power management technology.  IR's analog,
digital, and mixed signal ICs, and other advanced power management
products, enable high performance computing and save energy in a
wide variety of business and consumer applications.  Leading
manufacturers of computers, energy efficient appliances, lighting,
automobiles, satellites, aircraft, and defense systems rely on
IR's power management solutions to power their next generation
products.


ISRAEL: Government Claims Solar Energy Tariffs Follow Global Norm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amiram Barkat, writing for GLOBES, reports electricity subsidies
for solar energy producers in Israel do not differ from the global
norm, claims the government in its statement of response to a
request to recognize a class action lawsuit against the government
over the so-called green electricity subsidies.  "Globes" obtained
a copy of the statement of response.

The government rejects the claim that electricity rates must
reflect only the cost of production. The government says that it
has the right, when setting electricity rates, to include the
interest of encouraging electricity production from clean energy
sources, which is accepted practice in other countries.

Since last year, Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) (TASE:
ELEC.B22) has been purchasing power from solar energy producers at
a rate (feed-in tariff) that was preset for 20 years by the Public
Utilities Authority (Electricity). The rate is several time higher
than the cost of producing electricity from conventional sources
(coal, natural gas, diesel, and heavy industrial oil), and is
intended to encourage the development of electricity production
from renewable and environmentally friendly sources.

This policy is in line with the cabinet decision, which set a
target of 10% of electricity production from renewable sources by
2020. The Public Utilities Authority earlier estimated in an
internal report that the cost of achieving this target will result
in a 14% increase in electricity rates, amounting to NIS3.85
billion.

In February, a private citizen petitioned the Jerusalem
Administrative Court for a NIS12 billion class action lawsuit on
behalf of two million IEC customers. The claimant wants an
injunction against continued payment of the subsidy paid to
private power producers, and a court order voiding all contracts
signed with them. The claimant also wants the government to refund
NIS 56 million to consumers for direct and indirect damages which
he claims was caused to them by the subsidized electricity tariffs
up to the date of the filing of the petition.


JACKSON HEWITT: Settles "Brown" Suit for De Minimis Amount
----------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. entered into a settlement with
Willie Brown for a de minimis amount regarding a purported class
action complaint filed in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
County, according to the company's Form 10-K/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On September 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class
action complaint against the Company in the Ohio Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County, on behalf of Ohio customers who obtained
RALs facilitated by the Company, for an alleged failure to comply
with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and for alleged
unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On November 10, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or
alternatively, to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration.  On
May 5, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay
proceedings and to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff's
claims, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  On
October 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, seeking
reversal of the lower Court's order.

On June 7, 2010, the parties settled the matter on an individual
basis for a de minimis amount, agreed to dismiss the matter with
prejudice, and, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing,
filed a settlement stipulation with the Court of Appeals.  On June
9, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal pursuant to the
settlement stipulation.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Litigate "Hunter" Lawsuit in W. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. continues to litigate a purported
class action complaint filed by Linda Hunter in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
according to the company's Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 30, 2006, Linda Hunter (now substituted by Christian
Harper and Elizabeth Harper as proposed class representatives)
brought a purported class action complaint against the Company in
the United States District Court, Southern District of West
Virginia, on behalf of West Virginia customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the Company, seeking damages for an alleged breach
of fiduciary duty, for alleged breach of West Virginia's Credit
Service Organization Act, for alleged breach of contract, and for
alleged unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with
the Company's RAL facilitation activities.

On March 13, 2008, the Court granted the Company's partial motion
for summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.  On
July 15, 2008, the Company answered the first amended complaint.
On February 10, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class.  The Company opposed that motion.  On February 11, 2009,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment.  On
February 11, 2009, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment.  On March 6, 2009, the Company opposed Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment.  On September 29, 2009, the
Court denied the summary judgment motions without prejudice.  A
decision by the Court on the class certification motion is
currently pending.  On April 7, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking the certifications of four legal questions to the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

On November 12, 2009, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
ordered the review of those four certified legal questions.  The
case is in its pretrial stage.  Following a decision by the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the Company will continue to
litigate this matter vigorously in the United States District
Court, Southern District of West Virginia.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Class Certification Motion in "Wooley" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A decision by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, whether or not to grant class certification
on a purported class action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax
Service Inc., et al., is currently pending, according to the
company's Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought a purported class action
complaint against the Company and certain unknown franchisees in
the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint, which was subsequently amended, was brought on
behalf of customers who obtained tax return preparation services
that allegedly included false deductions without support by the
customer that resulted in penalties being assessed by the IRS
against the taxpayer for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Racketeering and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and alleging unjust enrichment and breach of
contract, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, restitution,
and attorneys' fees.  The alleged violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act relate to
representations regarding tax return preparation, Basic Guarantee
and Gold Guarantee coverage and denial of Gold Guarantee claims.

Following dispositive motions, on December 24, 2008, the Company
answered Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint with respect to the
remaining breach of contract claim.

On January 29, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint.
On February 12, 2010, the Company Answered the Fifth Amended
Complaint.

On April 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Company opposed that motion.  A decision by
the Court is currently pending.  The case is in its pretrial
stage.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and is
contesting this matter vigorously.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Appeal on Dismissal of "Gomez" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of Alicia Gomez on the dismissal of her purported
class-action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.,
remains pending in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals,
according to the company's Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 16, 2009, Alicia Gomez brought a purported class
action complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of
Maryland, Montgomery County, on behalf of Maryland customers who
obtained RALs facilitated by the Company, for an alleged failure
to comply with Maryland's Credit Services Businesses Act, and for
an alleged violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, and
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On March 18, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 18, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.

On July 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Maryland Court
of Special Appeals.  The Company believes it has meritorious
arguments in opposing the appeal and will continue to contest this
matter vigorously.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Court Dismisses First Amended "Norris" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Indiana, Marion County, dismissed an amended
complaint filed by Quiana Norris against Jackson Hewitt Tax
Service Inc., according to the company's Form 10-K/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 14, 2009, Quiana Norris brought a purported class action
complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of Indiana,
Marion County, on behalf of Indiana customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the Company, for an alleged failure to comply with
Indiana's Credit Services Organization Act, and seeking damages
and injunctive relief.

On May 1, 2009, the Company filed a notice removing the complaint
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.

On June 8, 2009 the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On
December 7, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.

On January 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On
February 4, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint.

On June 28, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiff has the right to appeal.  If
Plaintiff appeals the Court's decision, the Company will continue
to contest this matter vigorously.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Defend Appeal in "Fugate" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. continues to defend an appeal
filed by Sherita Fugate regarding the Circuit Court of Missouri's
order dismissing a purported class action complaint, according to
the company's Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On April 29, 2009, Sherita Fugate brought a purported class action
complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of Missouri,
Jackson County, on behalf of Missouri customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the Company, for an alleged failure to comply with
Missouri's Credit Services Organization Act, for an alleged
violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act, and seeking
damages and injunctive relief.

On May 29, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On
March 10, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
in all respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.

On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.  The
Company believes it has meritorious arguments in opposing this
appeal and will continue to contest this matter vigorously.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Defend Appeal in "Thomas" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., continues to defend an appeal
regarding dismissal of a purported class action in the Ohio Court
of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, according to the company's Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On September 2, 2009, Nancee Thomas brought a purported class
action complaint against the Company in the Ohio Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County, on behalf of Ohio customers who obtained
RALs facilitated by the Company, for an alleged failure to comply
with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and seeking damages
and injunctive relief.

On October 15, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On
December 8, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
adding Paul Thomas as an additional plaintiff.

On March 25, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss.

On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.  The
Company believes it has meritorious arguments in opposing the
appeal and will continue to contest this matter vigorously.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Seeks to Dismiss "Carriere" Suit in Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., has been named defendant in a
purported class action complaint filed against it in the District
Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana, according to the
company's Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On April 29, 2010, Cecile Carriere brought a purported class
action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. in the
District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana, on behalf
of Louisiana customers who obtained RALs and other loans
facilitated by the Company, for an alleged failure to comply with
Louisiana loan broker statutes, for rescission, payment of a thing
not owed, and seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief.

On June 16, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will continue
to contest this matter vigorously, according to the company's Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission..

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JONES SODA: Decision in "Saltzman" Suit Appeal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A decision on the appeal regarding the dismissal of a consolidated
class action lawsuit against Jones Soda Co. remains pending,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On September 4, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company, its then serving chief executive officer, and
its then serving chief financial officer in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The case
was entitled Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al., Case No. 07-
cv-1366-RSL, and purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of our common stock during the period March 9, 2007 to
August 2, 2007.

Six substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in
the same court, some of which alleged claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period
November 1, 2006 to August 2, 2007.  Some of the subsequently
filed complaints added as defendants certain current and former
directors and another former officer of the Company.  The
complaints generally alleged violations of federal securities laws
based on, among other things, false and misleading statements and
omissions about the company's financial results and business
prospects.  The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

On October 26, 2007, these seven lawsuits were consolidated as a
single action entitled In re Jones Soda Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL.  On March 5, 2008, the Court
appointed Robert Burrell lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities case.  On May 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a First
Amended Consolidated Complaint, which purports to allege claims on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period of January 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the
Company and Peter van Stolk, its former Chief Executive Officer,
former Chairman of the Board, and former director.  The First
Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges violations of
federal securities laws based on, among other things, false and
misleading statements and omissions about our agreements with
retailers, allocation of resources, and business prospects.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 7, 2008.  After hearing oral argument on February 3, 2009,
the Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety on
February 9, 2009.  Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to
amend their complaint on March 25, 2009.  On June 22, 2009, the
Court issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend and dismissed the case with prejudice.  On July 7, 2009, the
Court entered judgment in favor of the Company and Mr. van Stolk.
On August 5, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's orders dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend, and the resulting July 7, 2009
judgment.

The parties' briefing on the appeal was completed on March 4,
2010, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument
on July 15, 2010.  No decision has been issued.

Jones Soda Co. -- http://www.myjones.com/-- develops, produces,
markets and distributes a range of beverages, which includes Jones
Pure Cane Soda, a carbonated soft drink; Jones 24C, a water
beverage; Jones GABA, a tea juice blend; Jones Organics, a ready-
to-drink organic tea; Jones Naturals, a non-carbonated juice and
tea, and Whoop Ass Energy Drink, a citrus energy drink.  The
company sells and distributes its products primarily throughout
the United States and Canada through its network of independent
distributors, national retail accounts, as well as through
licensing and distribution arrangements. It also sells various
products online.


LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Appeal of "Taylor" Suit Dismissal Is Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the order dismissing the suit Sharon Taylor, et al.
v. Biometric Access Company, et al., C.A. No. 2:07-CV-00018,
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

Sharon Taylor filed the action against Biometric Access Company,
et al., C.A. No. 2:07-CV-00018, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.  The matter is styled as a class action
suit brought by the plaintiff class against a group of defendant
companies under the Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section
2721 et seq.

The defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss which was granted
by the Court.  The plaintiff class has filed an appeal of the
dismissal of the case, which is being vigorously opposed.  The
likelihood of success of the defendants' opposition to the appeal
is excellent while the potential for loss is negligible, the
company said in its filing.

LocatePLUS Holdings Corporation -- https://www.locateplus.com/ --
along with its wholly owned subsidiaries, LocatePLUS Corporation,
Worldwide Information, Inc. and Entersect Corporation, is a
business-to-business, business-to-government and business-to-
consumer providers of public information via its data integration
solutions.  The company's LocatePLUS product contains searchable
and cross-referenced public information on individuals throughout
the United States, including individuals' names, addresses, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, prior residences, and, in
certain circumstances, real estate holdings, recorded
bankruptcies, liens, judgments, drivers' license information and
motor vehicle records.


LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Wiles" Suit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LocatePLUS Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself in the
matter of Sam Wiles, Carol Watkins, Jackson Wills and Sarah Smith,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, C.A.
No. 09-4164-CV-C-NKL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

The matter is styled as a class action suit brought by the
plaintiff class against the Company, alleging a violation of the
Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2721, et. seq., and
is one of several similar actions brought by the class against a
number of companies in the same industry as the Company.

The Company is vigorously defending the suit, and believes that
its defenses to the plaintiff class's claims are strong.

LocatePLUS Holdings Corporation -- https://www.locateplus.com/ --
along with its wholly owned subsidiaries, LocatePLUS Corporation,
Worldwide Information, Inc. and Entersect Corporation, is a
business-to-business, business-to-government and business-to-
consumer providers of public information via its data integration
solutions.  The company's LocatePLUS product contains searchable
and cross-referenced public information on individuals throughout
the United States, including individuals' names, addresses, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, prior residences, and, in
certain circumstances, real estate holdings, recorded
bankruptcies, liens, judgments, drivers' license information and
motor vehicle records.


MAINE & MARITIME: Awaits Court OK of BHE-Related Suits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maine & Maritimes Corp. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of two purported class action complaints relating to
the proposed acquisition of the company by BHE Holdings Inc.,
according to Maine & Maritimes Corp.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

On March 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit related to the
proposed acquisition of MAM by BHE Holdings Inc., captioned
Duplisea v. Maine & Maritimes Corporation, et al., was filed in
the Maine Superior Court, Aroostook County, against MAM and each
of its directors individually, alleging breach of fiduciary duty
in connection with the Acquisition.  The State Action attempted to
enjoin the proposed sale, but did not seek financial penalties
from the Company.

A second purported class action lawsuit relating to the
Acquisition, captioned Johnson-Gee v. Maine & Maritimes
Corporation, et. al., was filed on April 16, 2010 in U.S. District
Court in Maine, against MAM, each of its directors individually,
BHE Holdings Inc., and BHE Holdings Sub One Inc.  The Federal
Action asserted nearly identical claims and was based on generally
the same allegations as the State Action.  The Federal Action also
attempted to enjoin the Acquisition.

The Company and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle these
complaints, and are awaiting court approval of the settlement
agreement.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company's $500,000 deductible under its
directors' and officers' insurance policy was paid or accrued
through a combination of legal expenses and the settlement
agreement, and no additional expenses are expected as a result of
these complaints.

Maine & Maritimes Corporation -- http://www.maineandmaritimes.com/
-- is the parent company of Maine Public Service Company, a
regulated electric transmission and distribution utility serving
approximately 36,000 electricity customer accounts in Northern
Maine.  MAM is also the parent company of MAM Utility Services
Group, an unregulated corporation that provides electrical
services, including transmission line and substation design and
construction. Corporate headquarters are located in Presque Isle,
Maine.


NATIONAL Security: Appeal of Class Certification in the Works
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Security Group, Inc., plans to appeal a trial court's
decision certifying a class in a putative class action filed in
Alabama, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

National Security has been sued in a putative class action in the
State of Alabama.  The Plaintiff alleges entitlement to, but did
not receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit in
the proceeds received from the Company concerning the repair of
the Plaintiff's home.  Plaintiff alleges that the failure to
include GCOP is a material breach by the Company of the terms of
its contract of insurance with Plaintiff and seeks monetary
damages in the form of contractual damages.

A class certification hearing was held on March 1, 2010, with the
trial court taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
under advisement.  On May 10, 2010, the trial court issued its
ruling granting Plaintiff's motion to certify the class.  The
Company plans to immediately appeal the trial court's ruling in
this matter.

The Company denies Plaintiff's allegations and intends to
vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. --
http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding
company.  The company, through its property and casualty
subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage, including
dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile homeowners and
personal non-standard automobile lines of insurance in 11 states.
The company, through its life insurance subsidiary, offers a basic
line of life, and health and accident insurance products in six
states.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Pension Class Action Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian class action lawsuit filed against Nortel Networks
Corporation over pension benefits is still pending, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 24, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against NNC and Nortel Networks Limited in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Ottawa, Canada alleging, among other things,
that certain recent changes related to Nortel's pension plan did
not comply with the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario) or common law
notification requirements.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and equitable relief, and
unspecified monetary damages.

On January 14, 2009, after extensive consideration of all other
alternatives, with the unanimous authorization of the Nortel board
of directors after thorough consultation with advisors, certain
Nortel entities, including NNC and NNL, initiated creditor
protection proceedings in multiple jurisdictions under the
respective restructuring regimes of Canada, the U.S., the U.K.,
and subsequently in Israel and France

As a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings, this lawsuit
has been stayed.

Nortel Networks -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a recognized
leader in delivering communications capabilities that make the
promise of Business Made Simple a reality for customers.  The
company's next generation technologies, for both service provider
and enterprise networks, support multimedia and business critical
applications.  Nortel's technologies are designed to help
eliminate today's barriers to efficiency, speed and performance by
simplifying networks and connecting people to the information they
need, when they need it.  Nortel does business in more than 150
countries around the world.


OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc., continues to defend a purported
class-action complaint alleging violations of state and federal
wage and hour law.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the purported class-action complaint styled
Ervin, et al. v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc., was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.  This
lawsuit alleges violations of state and federal wage and
hour law in connection with tipped employees and overtime
compensation and seeks relief in the form of unspecified back pay
and attorney fees.  The complaint alleges a class-action under
state law and a collective action under federal law.

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

However, the company says at this time, it can reasonably estimate
that the range of possible loss for the litigation is immaterial.

OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com/-- which was formerly known
as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant
company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-wide
restaurants.  The company operates in all 50 states and in 20
countries internationally, predominantly through company-owned
stores, but it also operates under a variety of partnerships and
franchises.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Court Denies Appeal in "Hines" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
denied Overstock.com, Inc.'s appeal relating to the denial of its
motion to dismiss a class action filed by Cynthia Hines, 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 10, 2009, the company was sued in a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Cynthia Hines is the nominative plaintiff.  Ms. Hines alleges the
company failed to properly disclose its returns policy to her and
that it improperly imposed a "restocking" charge on her return of
a vacuum cleaner.  The nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for
breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud
laws.

The company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that
the company's agreement with its customers requires all such
actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Alternatively,
the company asked that the case be transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may
be compelled in that district.

On Sept. 8, 2009 the motion to dismiss was denied, the court
stating that the company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient
under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to
arbitrate disputes in Utah.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the company filed a Notice of Appeal of the
court's ruling.

The appeal was denied.

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online
retailer offering brand-name merchandise at discount prices.  The
company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains
conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative
inventory distribution channel.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Various Parties Object to Settlement Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of various parties on the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California's ruling approving the proposed
settlement resolving a class action suit against Overstock.com,
Inc., is 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.

On Aug. 12, 2008, the company along with seven other defendants,
was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other individuals, on
their own behalf and for others similarly in a class action suit,
alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and
California's Consumer legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law.

The complaint relates to the company's use of a product known as
Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the company by Facebook,
Inc.  Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to
share purchasing data among their Facebook friends.

The parties extended by agreement the time for defendants' answer,
including the company's answer, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and
Facebook proposed a stipulated settlement to the court for
approval, which would resolve the case without requirement of
financial contribution from the company.

On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the
court accepted the proposed settlement.

Various parties objecting to the settlement have appealed and
their appeal is now pending.

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online
retailer offering brand-name merchandise at discount prices.  The
company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains
conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative
inventory distribution channel.


PLASTICS ADDITIVES: Class Certification Denied in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC secured another
significant class action victory.  On August 31, 2010, a federal
district court in Philadelphia denied a plaintiff motion for class
certification in In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litigation.
The 40-page decision comes roughly four years after the same court
initially granted class certification, but that ruling was
overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit following
its landmark class certification decision in In re Hydrogen
Peroxide Antitrust Decision -- a case itself argued successfully
by Steven E. Bizar of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney.

After the initial certification was overturned on appeal, the
Plastics Additives plaintiffs sought certification of two classes:
purchasers of organotin heat stabilizers and expoxidized soybean
oil, respectively, between January 1, 1990 and January 31, 2003.
Taking direction from the Hydrogen Peroxide decision, the district
court undertook a serious inquiry into the evidence as to the
suitability of those classes for certification. The court accepted
extensive additional written submissions and presided over a
three-day class certification hearing, at which both sides
presented evidence, including the live testimony of experts.

In its opinion denying class certification as to both classes, the
court agreed with defendants that the plaintiffs had failed to
meet their burden to show that the element of antitrust injury (or
"impact") is capable of proof through evidence common to the
class. In particular, the court found that the plaintiffs'
expert's descriptions of the market characteristics of the
organotin stabilizer and ESBO industries were simply inaccurate
and therefore incapable of being used to prove impact. The many
products at issue were not interchangeable, the court found, and
purchasers were free to negotiate lower prices from defendant and
non-defendant producers. The plaintiffs' expert's reliance on
customer pricing was also inadequate to prove impact across the
class, because individual pricing frequently bore no relationship
to "list" prices or price increase announcements, and generally
did not move "similarly" over time. Finally, the court agreed with
defendants that the plaintiffs' expert's proffered regression
analyses were incapable of proving impact for class members
because the analyses "tell us nothing about individual class
member experiences."

The opinion will likely be looked at as a guidepost for future
courts seeking to apply the teachings of Hydrogen Peroxide at the
district court level.

Steven E. Bizar, Howard D. Scher, Francis X. Taney, Jr., Thomas P.
Manning, Landon Y. Jones, and Jill R. Spiker of Buchanan Ingersoll
& Rooney PC in Philadelphia represented a defendant producer of
plastics additives in both the District Court and the Court of
Appeals. The attorneys can be reached at:

          Steven E. Bizar, Esq.
          Howard D. Scher, Esq.
          Francis X. Taney, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas P. Manning, Esq.
          Landon Y. Jones, Esq.
          Jill R. Spiker, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          Two Liberty Place
          50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2555
          Telephone: 215 665 8700
          Facsimile: 215 665 8760
          E-mail: steven.bizar@bipc.com
                  howard.scher@bipc.com
                  francis.taney@bipc.com
                  thomas.manning@bipc.com
                  landon.jones@bipc.com
                  jill.spiker@bipc.com

The case is captioned In re Plastics Additives Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-2038 (E.D. Pa.).  As noted, Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney attorneys also represented the successful
appellants in Hydrogen Peroxide.

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC --
http://www.buchananingersoll.com/-- has more than 450 attorneys
and government relations professionals practicing throughout the
United States, with multiple offices in California, Florida, New
Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, as well as offices in Delaware,
Virginia and Washington, D.C. Buchanan's Commercial Litigation
Practice represents major corporations in high stakes litigation.
Spanning all of the firm's offices, Buchanan's Antitrust and Trade
Regulation practice represents major corporations in high stakes
litigation, including class action defense, white-collar criminal
defense, government investigations and merger compliance.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Defending Class Suits in Nevada and Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Prudential Insurance Company of America is facing two class
action lawsuits over its retained asset accounts, according to
Pruco Life Insurance Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Prudential Insurance, a subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc.,
is the parent company of Pruco Life.

In April 2010, a purported state-wide class action was filed
against Prudential Insurance in Nevada state court alleging that
Prudential Insurance delayed payment of death benefits and
improperly retained undisclosed profits by placing death benefits
in retained asset accounts.

An earlier case by the same plaintiff making substantially the
same allegations was filed in federal court.

In July 2010, a purported nationwide class action was filed in
Massachusetts against Prudential Insurance relating to retained
asset accounts associated with life insurance covering U.S.
service members and veterans.

The company says additional investigations, information requests,
hearings, claims or litigation may arise with respect to the
retained asset accounts.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had
approximately $616 billion of assets under management. Through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an array of
financial products and services, including life insurance, mutual
funds, annuities, pension and retirement-related services and
administration, asset management, banking and trust services,
real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a
joint venture, retail securities brokerage services.


SCORES HOLDING: Continues to Defend 3rd Amended Complaint in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed in New York alleging wage and hour
violations.

On Oct. 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a
purported class action and collective action on behalf of all
tipped employees against the company and other defendants alleging
violations of federal and state wage and hour laws (Siri Diaz et
al. v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc.
a/k/a Scores West Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a
Scores East Side, Case No. 07 Civ. 8718 (Southern District of New
York, Judge Richard M. Berman)).

On Nov. 6, 2007, plaintiffs served an amended purported class
action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and servers
as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same violations of
federal and state wage/hour laws.

On or about Feb. 21, 2008, plaintiffs served a second amended
complaint adding two additional party defendants, but limiting the
action to persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs.  The
amended complaint alleged that we and the other defendants are "an
integrated enterprise" and that we jointly employ the plaintiffs,
subjecting all of the defendants to liability for the alleged wage
and hour violations.

On behalf of the company and the other defendants the company
filed a motion to dismiss that portion of the Complaint that
asserted State law class action allegations; the company also
moved to dismiss the claims of two of the named plaintiffs for
failure to appear for depositions.  At the same time plaintiffs
moved for conditional certification under the federal law for a
class of the servers, bartenders and dancers; the company opposed
that motion.

On May 9, 2008, the Court issued its decision, denying the motion
to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a class of
servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers who have
worked at Scores East since October 2004.  On May 29, 2008, the
company filed an answer to plaintiff's' second amended complaint.

On or about Sept. 5, 2009, plaintiffs served their third amended
complaint adding in two individual defendants who are alleged to
be employers under the state and federal wage claims.

The company disputes that it is a proper defendant in this action
and it disputes that it violated the federal and state labor laws,
and further disputes that the dancers are "employees" subject to
the federal and state wage and hour laws.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Tammy Marzigliano, Esq.
         Outten & Golden Law Firm
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005
         E-mail: tm@outtengolden.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq.
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-801-9209
         Fax: 212-805-9209
         E-mail: GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com


SENSIO INC: Recalls 25,000 Slow Cookers
---------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sensio Inc. of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, announced a voluntary
recall of about 25,000 Slow Cookers.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The slow cooker's control panel can overheat and melt, posing a
fire hazard.

Sensio Inc. has received 60 reports of the control panels of the
slow cookers smoking, melting and sparking and three reports of
panels catching fire.  Fourteen incidents resulted in minor damage
to countertops.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Bella Kitchen 5-quart programmable slow
cookers.  Only slow cookers with model number WJ-5000DE and date
codes 0907 or 0909 are included in this recall.  The slow cookers
are black and "Bella Kitchen" is marked on the control panel.  The
model number and the four-digit date code are printed on a label
on the underside.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10328.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Kohl's Department stores from July 2009 through December 2009 for
between $20 and $40.

Consumers should stop using the slow cooker immediately, unplug it
and contact Sensio for information on receiving a full refund.

For additional information, contact Sensio toll-free at (888) 296-
9675 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.acbpromotions.com/sensiorecall/


SHARP ELECTRONICS: Recalls 9,000 Sharp 32-inch LCD-TVs
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sharp Electronics Corporation, of Mahwah, N.J., announced a
voluntary recall of about 9,000 Sharp 32-inch LCD-TVs.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The TV stand's neck support can break and cause the TV to tip-
over, posing a risk of injury to the consumer.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves involves Sharp 32-inch LCD-TVs with model
number LC-32SB28UT.  The model number, serial number and
manufacture dates of March 2010 through April 2010, are printed on
a label on the back of the unit.  Serial numbers included in the
recall are:

     Serial Number Range
     -------------------

  0028 32837 through 002835190
  0048 57501 through 0048 59020
  0048 61401 through 0048 64020
  0048 72001 through 0048 78800

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10329.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
major retail stores nationwide from March 2010 through August 2010
for about $550.

Consumers should immediately contact Sharp to arrange for a free
replacement stand neck support.  For additional information,
contact Sharp at (800) 291-4289 anytime, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.sharpusa.com/


SMART ONLINE: Awaits Court Approval of "Gooden" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Online, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a securities suit pending in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On October 18, 2007, Robyn L. Gooden filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina naming the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, Maxim Group, LLC, Jesup
& Lamont Securities Corp. and Sherb & Co. as defendants.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased the Company's securities from May 2, 2005
through September 28, 2007 and were damaged.  The complaint
asserted violations of federal securities laws, including
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5.  The complaint asserted that the
defendants made material and misleading statements with the intent
to mislead the investing public and conspired in a fraudulent
scheme to manipulate trading in the Company's stock, allegedly
causing plaintiffs to purchase the stock at an inflated price.
The complaint requested certification of the plaintiff as class
representative and seeks, among other relief, unspecified
compensatory damages including interest, plus reasonable costs and
expenses including counsel fees and expert fees.

On June 24, 2008, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff for the class action.  On September 8, 2008, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added additional
defendants who had served as directors or officers of the Company
during the class period as well as the Company's independent
auditor.

On June 18, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with the lead plaintiff in the pending
securities class action.  Also included in the settlement are all
the current and former officers, directors, shareholders and
employees of the Company who had also been named as defendants in
the securities class action, as well as Maxim Group.

The Stipulation provides for the settlement of the securities
class action.  The settlement is subject to preliminary and final
approval of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, which the Company anticipates will
occur in the second half of this year.  The Stipulation provides
for the certification of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's publicly-traded securities between May 2,
2005 and September 28, 2007, inclusive.  The settlement class will
receive total consideration of a cash payment of $350,000 to be
made by the Company, a cash payment of $112,500 to be made by
Maxim Group, the transfer from Henry Nouri to the class of 25,000
shares of Company common stock and the issuance by the Company to
the class of 1,475,000 shares of Company common stock.  Under the
terms of the Stipulation, counsel for the settlement class may
sell some or all of the common stock received in the settlement
before distribution to the class, subject to the limitation that
it cannot sell more than 10,000 shares on one day or 50,000 shares
in 30 calendar days.  All claims against the settling defendants
will be dismissed with prejudice.  The claims of the lead
plaintiff against Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp. and the
Company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Sherb & Co., are not being dismissed and will continue.  The
Stipulation contains no admission of fault or wrongdoing by the
Company or the other settling defendants.

Smart Online, Inc. -- http://www.smartonline.com/-- develops and
markets software products and services targeted to small
businesses that are delivered via a software-as-a-service (SaaS)
model.  The company also provides Website consulting services,
primarily in the e-commerce retail industry.  The company's
principal products and services include SaaS applications for
business management, Web marketing and e-commerce; software
business tools that assist customers in developing written
content, and services that are designed to complement the
company's product offerings and allow it to create custom
business solutions that fit its end users' and channel partners'
needs.  Smart Online reaches small businesses primarily through
arrangements with channel partners that private label the
company's software applications and market them to their customer
bases through their corporate Websites.  Smart Online also offers
its products directly to end-user small businesses through its
OneBiz-branded Website.


SMURFIT-STONE: Expects ERISA Violations Suits to Be Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation's executives face
class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In May 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the four
individual committee members of the Administrative Committee of
the Company's savings plans and Patrick Moore, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer.  The suit alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act between January 2008 and the date
it was filed.  The plaintiffs in the 2009 ERISA Case brought the
complaint on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated participants and beneficiaries of four of the Company's
savings plans.  The plaintiffs assert that the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the Savings Plans' participants and
beneficiaries by allegedly making imprudent investments with the
Savings Plans' assets, making misrepresentations and failing to
disclose material adverse facts concerning the Company's business
conditions, debt management and viability, and not taking
appropriate action to protect the Savings Plans' assets.  Even
though the Company is not a named defendant in the 2009 ERISA
Case, management believes that any indemnification obligations to
the Defendants would be covered by applicable insurance.

During the first quarter of 2010, two ERISA class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri and one in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware.  The defendants in these cases are
the individual committee members of the Administrative Committee,
several other of the Company's executives and the individual
members of its Board of Directors.

The suits have similar allegations as the 2009 ERISA Case pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
with the addition of breach of fiduciary duty claims related to
the Company's pension plans.

The Company expects that all of these matters will be consolidated
in some manner as they purport to represent a similar class of
employees and former employees and seek recovery under similar
allegations and any of the Company's indemnification obligations
would be covered by applicable insurance.

Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation -- http://www.smurfit-
stone.com/ -- is one of the industry's leading integrated
containerboard and corrugated packaging producers, and one of the
world's largest paper recyclers.  The company is a member of the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative(R) and the Chicago Climate
Exchange.  Smurfit-Stone generated revenue of $5.57 billion in
2009; has led the industry in safety every year since 2001; and
conducts its business in compliance with the environmental,
health, and safety principles of the American Forest & Paper
Association.


STATION CASINOS: Hearing on "Luckevich" Settlement Set for Oct. 25
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in a class
action lawsuit filed by Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St.
Cyr against Station Casinos, Inc., is scheduled for October 25,
2010, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On February 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr
filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV-00141.  The plaintiffs are
all former employees of the Company or its subsidiaries.  The
complaint alleged that the Company (i) failed to pay its employees
for all hours worked, (ii) failed to pay overtime, (iii) failed to
timely pay wages and (iv) unlawfully converted certain earned
wages.  The complaint in the Federal Court Action sought, among
other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory
damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.

On October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings.  During a hearing on that motion, the Court
questioned whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
After briefing regarding the jurisdiction question, on May 16,
2009, the Court dismissed the Federal Court Action for lack of
jurisdiction and entered a judgment in the Company's favor.

Subsequently, on July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case
No. A-09-595614-C.  The complaint in the State Court Action
alleges substantially the same claims that were alleged in the
complaint in the Federal Court Action.

On August 19, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the
Company, filed an answer responding to the complaint.
Subsequently, on August 27, 2009, the corporate defendants, other
than the Company, filed a motion to stay the State Court Action
pending the resolution of the Company's bankruptcy petition.  That
motion was granted on September 30, 2009.

On or about April 30, 2010, the Company and the plaintiffs reached
an agreement to settle all claims asserted or that could have been
asserted in the State Court Action.  Subject to final approval by
the Bankruptcy Court, the principal terms of the settlement are:

   a. Persons who were employed by the Company or its subsidiaries
      at any time between February 4, 2005 and January 28, 2009
      will have an aggregate allowed $5 million general unsecured
      claim in the Company's bankruptcy.

   b. The Company will set aside $1.2 million in escrow.  After
      the deduction of fees, costs and other expenses associated
      with the settlement, the remaining proceeds will be
      distributed equally to all persons who were employed by the
      Company or its subsidiaries at any time between January 29,
      2009 and the date of the preliminary approval of the
      settlement by the Bankruptcy Court.

On June 17, 2010, the State Court Action was removed to United
States District Court for the District of Nevada.  On July 16,
2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and directed the parties to provide notice to the
current and former employees covered by the State Court Action of
their right to object to the settlement or be excluded therefrom.

A hearing is currently scheduled on October 25, 2010, for the
Bankruptcy Court to grant final approval of the settlement.

Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- is a
gaming and entertainment company that currently owns and
operates nine major hotel/casino properties (one of which is 50%
owned) and eight smaller casino properties (three of which are
50% owned), in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as
manages a casino for a Native American tribe.


SUNPOWER CORP: Hearing on Dismissal Motion Set for Nov. 4
---------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation and other parties have sought dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in California,
according to SunPower's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired SunPower Corp. securities from April 17, 2008,
through November 16, 2009.

The cases were consolidated as Plichta v. SunPower Corp. et al.,
Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010.

The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's
financial results for 2008 and 2009, seeks an unspecified amount
of damages, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The Company said it believes it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
August 5, 2010, which are scheduled to be heard on November 4,
2010.

The Company said it is currently unable to determine if the
resolution of these matters will have an adverse effect on its
financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

SunPower Corporation (Nasdaq: SPWRA and SPWRB) --
http://us.sunpowercorp.com/-- designs, manufactures and delivers
high-performance solar electric systems worldwide for residential,
commercial and utility-scale power plant customers. SunPower high-
efficiency solar cells and solar panels generate up to 50 percent
more power than conventional solar technologies and have a
uniquely attractive, all-black appearance. With headquarters in
San Jose, Calif., SunPower has offices in North America, Europe,
Australia and Asia.


TICKETMASTER: Appeals Court Allows Class Suit to Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Ellis, staff writer for Metropolitan News-Enterprise,
reports that the California Court of Appeal Second District ruled
Tuesday that a nationwide class action alleging that Ticketmaster
misled customers who used its Web site into believing certain
charges were passed through, rather than being a profit source for
the company, can go forward in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Div. Two, in an unpublished opinion, held that Ticketmaster's
requirement that all online purchasers agree that any dispute be
resolved by courts in California and governed by California law
established sufficient contacts to give the Superior Court
jurisdiction.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenneth R. Freeman previously
ruled that only California residents could be part of the class
action seeking damages under California's Unfair Competition Law
and False Advertising Law for an "Order Processing Charge" and a
"UPS Delivery" fee Ticketmaster imposed.

Illinois resident Curt Schlesinger and New York resident Peter
LoRe claimed that Ticketmaster's Web site led customers to believe
that the "Order Processing Charge" and the "UPS Delivery" fee --
which carried charges ranging from $14.50 to $25 depending on the
speed of delivery -- were merely costs passed on to consumers. In
addition to the two fees, Ticketmaster charges online consumers a
"Building/Facility Charge" and a "Convenience Charge," but allows
customers the option of choosing standard U.S. Mail for delivery,
which carries no additional charge.

Messrs. Schlesinger and LoRe claimed they would not have purchased
tickets to events in Illinois and New Jersey, or would have
elected a different delivery method, had they thought the fees
were sources of profit for Ticketmaster. They sought to certify a
nationwide class of purchasers through the Web site who paid the
fees from Oct. 21, 1999 onward, pointing to a choice of law
provision and a forum selection clause appearing on Ticketmaster's
Web site.

The company argued in opposition that the UCL and FLA did not
apply to claims by non-California residents. It also contended
that it would be arbitrary and unfair to apply California law to
claims of out-of-state class members who never went through an
Internet server located in California and whose tickets were
processed, shipped and paid for outside of California.

Ticketmaster, a Delaware corporation based in Los Angeles, noted
that regional centers around the country handled such operations
until 2005. Since that time, it added, regional centers in
Illinois and California had been responsible for data storage and
order processing, while tickets had been sent out from West
Virginia.

Judge Freeman certified a class consisting of customers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's Web site from Oct. 21,
1999 through Feb. 5, 2010, but limited it to Californians. He
reasoned that the plaintiffs did not present enough evidence to
show jurisdiction over a nationwide class, and that Ticketmaster
raised the possibility of a factual attack on jurisdiction.

On the plaintiff's motion for a writ of mandate to the Court of
Appeal, however, Justice Kathryn Doi Todd wrote that Tickemaster's
presence in California and the choice of law provision and forum
selection clause gave the state sufficient contacts over all
claims such that the exercise of jurisdiction in California would
not offend due process.

The justice also rejected the company's argument that non-
California resident's claims would go beyond the reach of the UCL
and the FAL, pointing out that the statutes contain "no such
express geographic restriction."

Justices Judith M. Ashmann-Gerst and Victoria M. Chavez joined
Justice Doi Todd in her opinion.

The case is Schlesinger v. Superior Court (Ticketmaster), B224880.

Ticketmaster was represented by:

          Frank E. Merideth Jr., Esq.
          Jeff E. Scott, Esq.
          Gregory A. Nylen, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: 310-586-7700
          Facsimile: 310-586-7800
          E-mail: meridethf@gtlaw.com
                  scottj@gtlaw.com
                  nyleng@gtlaw.com

The plaintiffs were represented by:

          William Michael Hensley, Esq.
          Robert J. Stein III, Esq.
          Marc D. Alexander, Esq.
          Claire M. Schmidt, Esq.
          ADORNO YOSS ALVARADO & SMITH
          1 MacArthur Place, Suite 200
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Telephone: (714) 852-6800
          Facsimile: (714) 852-6899
          E-mail: mhensley@adorno.com
                  rstein@adorno.com
                  malexander@adorno.com
                  cshmidt@adorno.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Blonder, Esq.
          MUCH SHELIST DENENBERG AMENT & RUBENSTEIN
          191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606-1615
          Telephone: 312-521-2402
          Facsimile: 312-521-2302
          E-mail: sblonder@muchshelist.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Announces Corolla/Corolla Matrix Safety Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., on August 26 announced that it
will conduct a voluntary safety recall involving approximately
1.13 million 2005-2008 Model Year Toyota Corolla and Corolla
Matrix vehicles sold in the United States to address some Engine
Control Modules that may have been improperly manufactured. No
other Toyota or Lexus vehicles are involved in this recall.

On vehicles equipped with the 1ZZ-FE engine and two-wheel drive,
there is a possibility that a crack may develop at certain solder
points or on the electronic component used to protect circuits
against excessive voltage (varistor), on the ECM's circuit board.
In most cases, if a crack occurs at certain solder points or on
certain varistors, the check engine may illuminate, harsh shifting
could result, or the engine may not start. In limited instances,
if cracking occurs on particular solder points or varistors, the
engine could stop while the vehicle is being driven.

There are three unconfirmed accidents alleged to be related to
this condition, one of which reported a minor injury.

Steve St. Angelo, Toyota chief quality officer for North America,
said, "This recall is an example of our commitment to standing by
our products and being responsive to our customers. Our goal is to
help ensure that Toyota drivers are completely confident in the
safety and reliability of their vehicles."

As part of the recall, the ECM on involved vehicles will be
replaced at no charge to the owner. Beginning in mid-September
2010, Toyota will mail an interim notification to advise owners of
this recall and the fact that they will receive a future notice
when parts become available to complete the repairs. Owners who
have previously paid for replacement of the ECM to address this
specific condition should refer to the owner letter for
reimbursement consideration instructions.

Detailed information and answers to questions are available to
customers at http://www.toyota.com/recalland at the Toyota
Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331, Monday through
Friday, 5 a.m. to 6 p.m., or Saturday 7 a.m. through 4 p.m. PDT.


UNION FINANCIAL: Suit Over Planned Merger With DFSC Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action stemming from Union National Financial
Corporation's planned merger with Donegal Financial Services
Corporation is still pending in Pennsylvania Court, according to
the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Union National entered into an agreement and plan of merger on
April 19, 2010, with Donegal Financial Services Corporation
(DFSC), the parent company of Province Bank FSB, and certain
affiliated entities of DFSC, pursuant to which Union National will
merge with and into DFSC.  DFSC is wholly owned by Donegal Mutual
Insurance Company and Donegal Group Inc.

Union National, DFSC, and Donegal Mutual, jointly reported they
have become aware of the filing of a complaint on June 14, 2010,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
against Union National, each of the directors of Union National,
DFSC and certain affiliated entities of DFSC.

The complaint purports to be a class action filed on behalf of the
holders of Union National common stock arising from certain
alleged actions by Union National and its board of directors in
connection with the previously announced proposed merger of Union
National with and into DFSC.

Union National and the Donegal Parties believe the factual
allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to
defend vigorously against the allegations in the complaint.

Union National has not accrued a contingent liability related to
this litigation.

Union National Financial Corporation, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Union National Community Bank, provides a full range of
financial services for both retail and business customers, and
offers insurance, retirement plan services and wealth management
services through Union National Advisors.  Union National
Community Bank has ten full-service offices in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania.


VANGUARD HEALTH: "Maderazo" Suit in Texas Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
The matter Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P.
d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00535,
remains stayed pending a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filed
in San Antonio, Texas against the Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.'s
Baptist Health System subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two
other large hospital systems in San Antonio.  In the complaint,
plaintiffs allege that the three hospital system defendants
conspired with each other and with other unidentified San Antonio
area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of registered
nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the San Antonio
area by engaging in certain activities that violated the federal
antitrust laws.

The complaint alleges two separate claims:

     -- the first count asserts that the defendant hospitals
        violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which
        prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain
        competition, by conspiring to depress nurses'
        compensation; and

     -- the second count alleges that the defendant hospital
        systems also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by
        participating in wage, salary and benefits surveys for
        the purpose, and having the effect, of depressing
        registered nurses' compensation or limiting competition
        for nurses based on their compensation.

The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is
alleged to comprise all registered nurses employed by the
defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002.  The suit seeks
unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amount pursuant to
federal law, interest, costs and attorneys fees.

An amended suit was filed on Aug. 29, 2006.

From 2006 through April 2008, the company and the plaintiffs
worked on producing documents to each other relating to, and
supplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, the issue of
whether the court will certify a class in this suit.  In April
2008 the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 26, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.vanguardhealth.com/--
owns and operates 17 acute care hospitals and complementary
facilities and services in Chicago, Illinois; Phoenix, Arizona;
San Antonio, Texas; and Massachusetts. Vanguard's strategy is to
develop locally branded, comprehensive healthcare delivery
networks in urban markets.  Vanguard will pursue acquisitions
where there are opportunities to partner with leading delivery
systems in new urban markets or to increase its presence in
existing markets.  Upon acquiring a facility or network of
facilities, Vanguard implements strategic and operational
improvement initiatives including expanding services,
strengthening relationships with physicians and managed care
organizations, recruiting new physicians and upgrading information
systems and other capital equipment.  These strategies improve
quality and network coverage in a cost effective and accessible
manner for the communities Vanguard serves.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Plaintiff's Certification Motion Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a putative class
action lawsuit where Detroit Medical Center is a defendant remains
pending, according to Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.'s Aug. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.  On June 10,
2010, the company had entered into a definitive agreement to
purchase DMC.

On the same date in 2006 that the suit Maderazo, et al v. VHS San
Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., was
filed against the company in federal district court in San
Antonio, the same attorneys filed three other substantially
similar putative class action lawsuits in federal district courts
in Chicago, Illinois, Albany, New York and Memphis, Tennessee
against some of the hospitals or hospital systems in those cities
(none of such hospitals or hospital systems being owned by the
company).  The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in all four
of these cases said in June 2006 that they may file similar
complaints in other jurisdictions and in December 2006 they
brought a substantially similar class action lawsuit against eight
hospitals or hospital systems in the Detroit, Michigan
metropolitan area, one of which systems is Detroit Medical Center
(DMC).

Since representatives of the Service Employees International Union
joined plaintiffs' attorneys in announcing the filing of all four
complaints on June 20, 2006, and as has been reported in the
media, the company believes that SEIU's involvement in these
actions appears to be part of a corporate campaign to attempt to
organize nurses in these cities, including San Antonio.  The
nurses in the company's hospitals in San Antonio are currently not
members of any union.

Of the four other similar cases filed in 2006, only the Chicago
case has been concluded, following the court's denial of
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, with the plaintiffs not
appealing the court's ruling denying class certification and then
the parties settling the case, with all but one of the defendant
hospitals or health systems paying $10,000 each to the two
plaintiffs while expressly denying any liability or wrongdoing.

In the suit in Detroit, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for
class certification and DMC has filed a motion for summary
judgment and both motions are currently pending before the trial
judge.

The other two suits have progressed at somewhat different paces
and remain pending.

Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.vanguardhealth.com/--
owns and operates 17 acute care hospitals and complementary
facilities and services in Chicago, Illinois; Phoenix, Arizona;
San Antonio, Texas; and Massachusetts. Vanguard's strategy is to
develop locally branded, comprehensive healthcare delivery
networks in urban markets.  Vanguard will pursue acquisitions
where there are opportunities to partner with leading delivery
systems in new urban markets or to increase its presence in
existing markets.  Upon acquiring a facility or network of
facilities, Vanguard implements strategic and operational
improvement initiatives including expanding services,
strengthening relationships with physicians and managed care
organizations, recruiting new physicians and upgrading information
systems and other capital equipment.  These strategies improve
quality and network coverage in a cost effective and accessible
manner for the communities Vanguard serves.


VCG HOLDING: Facing "Cohen" Suit in Colo. over Lowrie Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp. is facing a complaint over an agreement entered
into in connection with Troy Lowrie's proposal to acquire all of
the outstanding shares of common stock of the company, according
to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On July 22, 2010, the Company received an offer from Family Dog,
LLC, an entity affiliated with the Company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Troy Lowrie, and Lowrie Management, LLLP to
acquire all of the outstanding common stock of the Company (other
than the shares held by Lowrie, its affiliates and certain other
investors) for $2.10 per share in cash.

In response, the Company's Board of Directors formed a Special
Committee, consisting solely of directors who are independent
under the NASDAQ independence rules and disinterested with respect
to the Proposal, to evaluate the Proposal, to properly and fairly
represent the best interests of the Company's shareholders with
respect to the Proposal and to fully and diligently evaluate the
Proposal and any alternatives thereto in order to maximize
shareholder value.

On August 13, 2010, the Company received a complaint filed in
District Court in Jefferson County, Colorado challenging the
Proposal.  The Complaint was brought by David Cohen, Timothy
Cunningham, Gene Harris, Dean R. Jakubczak and William C.
Steppacher, Jr. against Lowrie, each of the individual members of
the Board and the Company.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs
purport to bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated shareholders and derivatively on
behalf of the Company.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the individual Board
members breached their fiduciary duties under Colorado law and
that Lowrie has conflicts of interest in connection with the
Proposal.  Among other relief, Plaintiffs seek certification of
the lawsuit as a class action with Plaintiffs as class
representatives, an injunction preventing the Board from accepting
the Proposal, an order requiring the Board members to fulfill
their fiduciary duties, an accounting of alleged damages if the
Board accepts the Proposal, and an award of Plaintiffs' attorneys'
and experts' fees.

The Company believes that the allegations set forth in the
Complaint are baseless and intends to mount a vigorous defense.

VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is in the business
of acquiring, owning and operating nightclubs, which provide live
adult entertainment, restaurant and beverage services.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued Over "Premium" Text Messages Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon charged cell phone
subscribers 99 cents a call for sending "premium" text messages
"for gambling and/or illegal lotteries," a class action claims in
Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Greenwood, et al. v. Verizon Wireless
Telecom, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-06518 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/01/VerizonCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUBLAW, LLC
          1818 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 610-453-6551
          E-mail: shublaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          ARBOGAST & BERNS
          6303 Owensmouth Ave., 10th Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2263
          Telephone: 818-961-2000
          E-mail: jberns@law111.com

               - and -

          Paul Weiss, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS
          111 West Washington, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-220-0000


VIVENDI SA: Sees Benefit in Court Ruling; Reduces Reserve
---------------------------------------------------------
Simon Kennedy at MarketWatch reports Vivendi SA disclosed that it
is set to benefit from a recent U.S. court ruling over long-
running class action lawsuits. The ruling stated that shareholders
have no recourse to U.S. securities law against a foreign company
unless they bought their shares on a U.S. exchange.

Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy told analysts on a conference
call that this ruling should disqualify many of the shareholders
involved in class-action suits and that the firm therefore expects
to reduce the EUR550 million reserve it took in 2009 to cover any
potential payouts.


WESCO FINANCIAL: Shares Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wesco Financial is selling
the 20% of its shares that Berkshire Hathaway does not already
own, too cheaply through an unfair process to Warren Buffet's
company, in a stock swap that values Wesco stock at only $353 a
share, shareholders claim in a class action in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Has Until Oct. 18 to Set Hearing on Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Technologies, Inc., has until October 18, 2010, to
schedule a hearing on whether the complaint filed by Ghazala H.
Durrani should be certified as a class action, according to
Western Digital Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 2, 2010.

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff Ghazala H. Durrani, a former employee
of Western Digital Corporation, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Alameda County (California) Superior Court.  The
complaint alleges that certain of the Company's engineers have
been misclassified as exempt employees under California state law
and are, therefore, due unspecified amounts for unpaid hourly
overtime wages and other amounts, as well as penalties for
allegedly missed meal and rest periods.

By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was transferred to
the Orange County (California) Superior Court, where it is now
pending.

On or about June 16, 2009, the Company was dismissed from the case
without prejudice by stipulation, leaving Western Digital
Technologies, Inc., as the sole remaining defendant.

On or about June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its answer to the complaint,
denying the substantive allegations thereof and raising several
affirmative defenses.

Formal discovery has commenced, and the court has set October 18,
2010, as the last date for the parties to schedule a hearing on
whether the case should be certified as a class action.

The parties participated in a mediation of the case on June 3,
2010 before a former federal magistrate, which may lead to a
settlement of the case.  No formal settlement agreement has been
entered into, however, and there is no assurance that settlement
will be reached.  Any such settlement would require court approval
before it can become final.  If the matter is settled on the terms
presently under consideration, the Company expects that the
financial impact of the settlement would not be material to the
Company.  If the matter is not settled, and the Company is
unsuccessful in its defense of this matter, potential liability
could include unpaid wages, interest, penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs. Absent settlement, the Company intends to continue to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Western Digital Corporation -- http://www.westerndigital.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and sells hard drives.  It sells
its products worldwide to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
and original design manufactures (ODMs) for use in
computer systems, subsystems or consumer electronics (CE)
devices, and to distributors, resellers and retailers.  The
company's hard drives are used in desktop computers, notebook
computers and enterprise applications, such as servers,
workstations, network attached storage, storage area networks and
video surveillance equipment.  Additionally, its hard drives are
used in CE applications, such as digital video recorders, and
satellite and cable set-top boxes.  It markets its hard drives
under brand names, including WD Caviar, WD Raptor, WD
VelociRaptor, WD Scorpio, WD Elements, My Passport, My Book, My
DVR Expander and GreenPower.


WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend Kottaras Antitrust Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market, Inc., continues to defend a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Kottaras in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 4, 2010.

On October 27, 2008, Whole Foods Market was served with the
complaint Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

The Class Action seeks treble damages, equitable, injunctive, and
declaratory relief, and alleges that the acquisition and merger
between Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats violates various
provisions of the federal antitrust laws.

The case is in the preliminary stages.

Whole Foods Market says it cannot at this time predict the likely
outcome of the judicial proceeding or estimate the amount or range
of loss or possible loss that may arise from it.

The Company relates that it has not accrued any loss related to
the outcome of the Kottaras Complaint as of July 4, 2010.

Whole Foods Market -- http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/--
headquartered in Austin, Texas, is a leading supermarket retailer
which emphasizes natural and organic foods.  The company has 295
stores in the U.S., Canada and U.K., and had approximately $8
billion in revenues over the last 12 months.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs for leave to amend the consolidated
complaint in the matter Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719
Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al., remains pending.

On Aug. 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana naming the company and two of
its executive officers as defendants.  The complaint related to a
putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common stock between Jan. 29, 2008, and July 22, 2008.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose developments
relating to its orthopaedic surgical products manufacturing
operations in Dover, Ohio and the Durom Cup.  The plaintiff sought
unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other
relief.

On Dec. 24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint that alleged the same claims and related to the same
time period.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on Feb. 23, 2009.  On Dec. 1, 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated complaint.  That motion is pending.

No updates were reported in 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.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic
implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma
products and related orthopaedic surgical products.  The company's
products include joint and dental reconstructive orthopaedic
implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and related
orthopaedic surgical products.  Its related orthopaedic surgical
products include surgical supplies and instruments designed to aid
in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post-operation
rehabilitation.  Orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons use spinal
implants in the treatment of degenerative diseases, deformities
and trauma.  Trauma products are used primarily to reattach or
stabilize damaged bone and tissue to support the body's natural
healing process.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Dewald" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter Dewald v.
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al., is pending.

On Nov. 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana naming the company and
certain of its current and former directors and employees as
defendants.  The complaint relates to a putative class action on
behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of
the company's U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs
between Oct. 5, 2007, and the date of filing and whose accounts
included investments in the company's common stock.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing
to offer Zimmer stock as an investment option in the plans when
the stock purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that
defendants failed to provide plan participants with complete and
accurate information sufficient to advise them of the risks of
investing their retirement savings in Zimmer stock.  The plaintiff
seeks an unspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive and
equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is
Oct. 5, 2007, through Sept. 2, 2008.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 23, 2009.  The motion to dismiss is pending with the court.

On June 12, 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring the Dewald case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the matter
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer
Holdings, Inc., et al.

No updates were reported in 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.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic
implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma
products and related orthopaedic surgical products.  The company's
products include joint and dental reconstructive orthopaedic
implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and related
orthopaedic surgical products.  Its related orthopaedic surgical
products include surgical supplies and instruments designed to aid
in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post-operation
rehabilitation.  Orthopaedic surgeons and
neurosurgeons use spinal implants in the treatment of degenerative
diseases, deformities and trauma.  Trauma products are used
primarily to reattach or stabilize damaged bone and tissue to
support the body's natural healing process.

                           *********

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  * * *