CAR_Public/100907.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 7, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 176

                             Headlines

1031 TAX GROUP: Court OKs $200,000 Wave II Settlement
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses "Hollinger" Suit in Texas
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Johnson Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Court Denies Dismissal of Illinois Suit
AMERICAN OIL: Faces Suits in Colorado & Nevada over Hess Merger

APAC CUSTOMER: Awaits Approval of $4MM FLSA Action Settlement
APACHE CORP: Awaits Court Okay of Pacts Settling Suits Over Merger
APOLLO GROUP: Gets Copy of Class Action Complaint Filed in Arizona
AROTECH CORP: Court Approves $2.9 Million Class Action Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Claims in $150 Mil. Settlement Due By Nov. 12

BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Paid $240,000 Under Suit Settlement
BOIRON USA: Accused in California Suit of False Advertising
BOISE CASCADE: Expects to Receive Future Payment in OSB Suit
CALIFORNIA: Redflex to Defend Against Claims Over Red-Light Cams
CALIFORNIA: 9th Circuit Bars Inmate From Bringing Class Action

CANADIAN GAS COS: Contesting Class Suit or Out-of-Court Settlement
CAPITAL ONE: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of "Rubio" Suit
CHINA NATURAL: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CHINA NATURAL: Shapiro Haber Files Class Action in Delaware
DELAWARE: State Retiree Files Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Leak

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued for Selling Defective Hip Implant Devices
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Agreement in Ontario Suit Final
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Pact in British Columbia Suit OK'd
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlements in Three Suits Get Approval
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Dismissed as Defendant in "Young"

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: No Class Certified in "Day" Suit
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Money Mart Continues to Defend Manitoba Suit
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Pact in "Bufil" Suit Approved
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Sept. 17 Settlement Hearing Set in Fitzgibbons
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Missouri

DOLLAR GENERAL: Defends "Richter" Complaint in Alabama
DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Brickey" in New York
DOLLAR GENERAL: Plea to Decertify Equal Pay Act Class Denied
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Gross" Complaint in Mississippi
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Amended Texas Securities Action Still Pending

GAMING PARTNERS: Kaplan's Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
GOOGLE INC: Faces Breach of Contract Class Suit Over 3G Problems
GUAM: Lawyer Takes Suit Over Tiyan Land Swap Law to Superior Court
HOT: Says Most Termination Requests Aren't Serious
IPAYMENT INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit

JP MORGAN CHASE: 5th Circuit Holds Order v. "Hassinger" Plaintiffs
JAFFE & ASHER: Suit Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices
KADANT INC: Dismissal of Massachusetts Class Action Becomes Final
KADANT INC: Expects Dismissal of Suits in Maryland & Washington
KOMPAN INC: Recalls 700 Swing Sets

LEE'S SUMMIT HONDA: Mo. Supreme Court Holds Denial of Arbitration
LOWER MERION: School District Ordered to Pay $260,000 to Lawyer
LSB CORP: Continues Defense of Class Suit Over River Bank Merger
MATHSTAR INC: Court Dismisses Complaint Against Tiberius Capital
MICHIGAN: Five Communities Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Flooding

MISSOURI TITLE: Mo. Supreme Court Reverses Order Severing Waiver
MISTRAS GROUP: Agrees to Mediation in "Quiroz" & "Ballard" Suits
MONTREAL INSTITUTE: Religious Order Faces Potential Class Action
NEWALLIANCE BANK: Shareholders File Suits Over First Niagara Sale
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Massachusetts Suit

QUEST ENERGY: Reaches Settlement in Securities Class Action
RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Suit Remains Stayed Pending Court Review
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Seeks to Include Additional Defenses
ROCK OF AGES: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Swenson Proposal
ROUTE 22: NJ Superior Court Affirms Decertification of Class

SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Commences Monopoly Class Action
SANDISK CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Class Certification Denial
SPARK NETWORKS: Gets Dismissed From "Great Hill Buyout" Suit
TELENAV INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over IPO in California
TICKETMASTER: Appeals Court Allows Class Suit to Move Forward

TIM HORTONS: Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion Set for Nov. 29
TOSHIBA CORP: Recalls 41,000 Laptops on Overheating Concerns
TRANS-SIERRA: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Certification Denial
TRIAD GUARANTY: Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Phillips" Suit
UNITEK GLOBAL: Continues Defense of Class Action in Tennessee

USA: At Least 4 Law Firms Represent Disabled Workers in SSA Case
UTSTARCOM INC: Court Certifies Class for Settlement
VESTIN FUND: Court Approves Settlement of Post-Judgment Rights
VIANDA LLC: Accused in California of Deceptive Business Practice
VIVENDI SA: Sees Benefit in Court Ruling; Reduces Reserve

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Accused in Calif. Suit of False Advertising
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hearing on $49 Million Settlement Is on Nov. 5
WELLS REAL: Trial Date in Georgia Class Action Suit Still Pending
WET SEAL: Final Hearing for $300,000 Settlement Set in September
WET SEAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for October 8

WET SEAL: Discovery in San Francisco Employees' Suit Ongoing
WET SEAL: Pays Preliminary Amount Under Settlement Agreement
XFONE INC: Parties Negotiate on Scope of Class Action
XO HOLDINGS: Delaware Court Dismisses "Hillenmeyer" Suit
XO HOLDINGS: "Zheng" Class Action Is Under Consideration

ZUMIEZ INC: Increases Class Suit Settlement to $2.1 Million

                             *********

1031 TAX GROUP: Court OKs $200,000 Wave II Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California certified a settlement class in In Re Edward H. Okun
Internal Revenue Service Section 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange
Litigation on August 31, 2010.

The Court approved a settlement between the Plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, and, Gerard A.
McHale, Jr., PA, Liquidation Trustee for the 1031 Debtors
Liquidation Trust pursuant to the plan of reorganization confirmed
in the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases for the 1031 Tax Group, LLC, et
al., on the one hand, and Defendant Todd Pajonas, on the other.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100831e01


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses "Hollinger" Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
dismissed Toni Hollinger's complaint against Affirmative Insurance
Company and other defendants, according to Affirmative Insurance
Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In September 2009, plaintiff Toni Hollinger filed a putative class
action against several county mutual insurance companies and
reinsurance companies, including Affirmative Insurance Company.
The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in unfair
discrimination and violated the Texas Insurance Code by charging
different policy fees for the same class and hazard of insurance
written through county mutual insurance companies.

On August 5, 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing
plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers.  The
company offers insurance directly to individual consumers through
retail stores in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Alabama,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas and Wisconsin),
including its franchised stores in Florida and distributing its
own insurance policies through 8,000 independent agents or brokers
in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, California, Michigan,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina and New Mexico).


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Johnson Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dalton Johnson is appealing the dismissal of his
putative class action against Affirmative Insurance Company filed
in Florida, according to Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In October 2009, plaintiff Dalton Johnson filed a putative class
action against Affirmative Insurance Company.  The complaint
alleges that Affirmative failed to apply a statutorily-permitted
fee schedule for hospital emergency care and services enacted into
law in January 2008, thereby exhausting prematurely the PIP
benefits available to Affirmative's insureds.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in March 2010, which was
dismissed with prejudice on May 14, 2010.

On June 4, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal.

The Company believes that this claim lacks merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers.  The
company offers insurance directly to individual consumers through
retail stores in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Alabama,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas and Wisconsin),
including its franchised stores in Florida and distributing its
own insurance policies through 8,000 independent agents or brokers
in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, California, Michigan,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina and New Mexico).


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Court Denies Dismissal of Illinois Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, dismissed a breach of
contract count in a class action against Affirmative Insurance
Company, but denied Affirmative's motion to dismiss as to all
other counts, according to Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In January 2010, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
granted plaintiff Valerie Thomas leave to amend her complaint to
assert a putative class action against Affirmative Insurance
Company.  The complaint alleges that Affirmative failed to provide
a statutory 5% premium discount to insureds who had anti-theft
devices installed as standard equipment on their vehicles even
when the insureds did not disclose the existence of such devices
to Affirmative.  The case has been consolidated with several
identical class actions against other insurance companies.

On June 14, 2010, the court dismissed plaintiff's breach of
contract count, but denied Affirmative's motion to dismiss as to
all remaining counts.

On July 19, 2010, Affirmative filed its answer to the amended
complaint.  The parties will proceed to discovery.

The Company believes that this claim lacks merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers.  The
company offers insurance directly to individual consumers through
retail stores in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Alabama,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas and Wisconsin),
including its franchised stores in Florida and distributing its
own insurance policies through 8,000 independent agents or brokers
in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, California, Michigan,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina and New Mexico).


AMERICAN OIL: Faces Suits in Colorado & Nevada over Hess Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Oil & Gas Inc., its board and Hess Investment Corp. are
facing several lawsuits in Colorado and Nevada to stop or rescind
the company's plan to merge with Hess, according to the company's
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Hess Corp. has agreed to acquire American pursuant to a July 27,
2010 merger agreement approved by the Boards of Directors of both
companies in an all-stock transaction, subject to approval by
American's stockholders.

American Oil & Gas Inc., the members of American Oil's board of
directors and Hess Investment Corp. are named as defendants in
putative class action lawsuits brought by certain American Oil
stockholders challenging the company's proposed merger with Hess.

The lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts in Colorado
and in state court in Nevada.  The lawsuits generally allege that
the members of the company's board of directors, aided and abetted
by American Oil and Hess, breached their fiduciary duties to the
company's stockholders by entering into the agreement and plan of
merger for the sale of the company to Hess for what plaintiffs
claim to be inadequate consideration and pursuant to what
plaintiffs claim to be an inadequate process.

The lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants
from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms or to
rescind the merger to the extent already implemented.

American Oil & Gas Inc., is an independent energy company engaged
in the exploration, development, acquisition and sale of crude oil
and natural gas reserves and production in the western United
States.  Its operations are currently focused in North Dakota. It
owns a wholly-owned subsidiary, Tower American Corporation, for
conducting oil and gas exploration and production operations in
Colorado.


APAC CUSTOMER: Awaits Approval of $4MM FLSA Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
APAC Customer Services, Inc., is awaiting approval from the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin of its
settlement of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 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 27, 2009, a purported class action complaint captioned
Tiffany Sharpe, et al. v. APAC Customer Services, Inc., was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.  On behalf of the plaintiff, a non-exempt call center
employee, and other similarly situated individuals, the complaint
asserted violations under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
related to overtime compensation and wage records.  The complaint
also asserted violations under Wisconsin Wage Payment and Overtime
Compensation Laws based upon the same alleged facts.  The
complaint purported to allege claims as a nationwide collective
action under federal law, as well as a class action under
Wisconsin state law.  The complaint sought various forms of
relief, including injunctive relief, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 8, 2010, the court entered an order which conditionally
certified the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

In March 2010, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve
the collective action.  Under the terms of the agreement, which is
subject to final definitive documentation and court approval, the
Company agreed to pay a maximum amount of $4 million to resolve
claims by eligible class members, including payments to class
members and payments for plaintiff attorneys' fees.

As a result, the Company has recorded a charge of $2.4 million for
the thirteen weeks ended April 4, 2010, which represents its
estimate of the costs to be incurred for attorneys' fees and
claims, based on expected opt-in rates for claimants in similar
actions.  The final amount which will ultimately be paid by the
Company under the agreement will be determined based on the
participation from eligible class members.

The Company denied and continues to deny the allegations in the
complaint and contends that its policies and practices regarding
compensation were proper and in compliance with the law at all
times.  The Company denies all liability and wrongdoing in this
case, but has chosen to settle this lawsuit in order to avoid the
distraction and additional legal expenses that would otherwise be
incurred.

APAC Customer Services, Inc. --
http://www.apaccustomerservices.com/-- is a provider of customer
care services and solutions to market leaders in the healthcare,
business services, communications, publishing, travel and
entertainment and financial services industries.  As of December
28, 2008, the Company operated 13 customer care centers in the
United States, two of which are client-owned facilities and four
off-shore customer care centers in the Philippines.  As of
December 28, 2008, the domestic operations consisted of
approximately 4,700 workstations and the off-shore operations
consisted of approximately 3,300 workstations.  The Company
provides service through multiple communication channels,
including telephone, Internet, email, fax, mail correspondence and
automated response generated through technology.


APACHE CORP: Awaits Court Okay of Pacts Settling Suits Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corporation disclosed that two shareholder lawsuits in
Texas against Mariner Energy, Inc., and its directors have been
settled and are pending court approval, according to the company's
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In connection with the company's merger with Mariner, two
shareholder lawsuits styled as class actions have been filed
against Mariner and its board of directors.  The lawsuits are
entitled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs.
Mariner Energy, Inc, et al., (filed April 16, 2010 in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas), and Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, vs. Scott D. Josey, et.al., (filed April 21,
2010 in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware).  The
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority lawsuit also
names Apache and its wholly owned subsidiary, ZMZ Acquisitions LLC
(the Merger Sub) as defendants.

The complaints generally allege that (1) Mariner's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the
Merger and by administering a sale process that failed to maximize
shareholder value and (2) Mariner, and in the case of the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority complaint,
Apache and the Merger Sub, aided and abetted Mariner's directors
in breaching their fiduciary duties.

The City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System complaint also
alleges that Mariner's directors and executives stand to receive
substantial financial benefits if the transaction is consummated
on its current terms.

Pending court approval, these lawsuits have been settled, in
principle and are not expected to have a material impact on
Apache.

Apache Corporation and Mariner Energy are headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


APOLLO GROUP: Gets Copy of Class Action Complaint Filed in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., disclosed last week Tuesday with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it has received a copy of
a complaint in a purported class action lawsuit naming Apollo
Group and several current senior executives as defendants.

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, alleges that Apollo Group and the other named
defendants made materially false and misleading statements between
December 7, 2009 and August 3, 2010 about Apollo Group and its
business in violation of federal securities laws, and that these
statements artificially inflated the trading price of the Apollo
common stock to the detriment of shareholders who purchased shares
during that time. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the
purported class. The complaint is captioned, Douglas N. Gaer v.
Apollo Group, Inc., John Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B.
Edelstein, Gregory J. Iverson, Joseph L. D'Amico and Brian L.
Swartz.

Apollo Group takes its disclosure obligations very seriously and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


AROTECH CORP: Court Approves $2.9 Million Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
approved the $2.9 million settlement resolving a consolidated
class action complaint against Arotech Corporation, 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 2007, two purported class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.  The two cases were consolidated in June 2007.

In January 2010, the company reached an agreement with lead
plaintiffs to settle the Class Action Complaint.  The agreement,
providing for settlement of all claims for a monetary payment of
$2.9 million funded entirely from insurance proceeds, was approved
by the District Court on June 23, 2010, and accordingly the
lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.  The company and all its
current and former officers and directors named in the complaint
have received a full and complete release of all claims asserted
against them in the litigation, as well as any related claims that
could have been asserted.

Arotech Corporation -- http://www.arotech.com/-- is a defense and
security products and services company, engaged in three business
areas: armoring for military and non-military air and ground
vehicles; simulation for military, law enforcement and commercial
markets, and batteries and charging systems for the military.  The
company operates primarily through its 100%-owned subsidiaries,
which it has organized into three divisions: Training and
Simulation Division, Armor Division and Battery and Power Systems
Division.


BANK OF AMERICA: Claims in $150 Mil. Settlement Due By Nov. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Jed Rakoff approved a $150 million settlement pact
in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bank of America
Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6829 (S.D.N.Y.), related to the SEC's
allegations that Bank of America failed to properly disclose
employee bonuses and financial losses at Merrill Lynch before
shareholders approved the merger of the companies in Dec. 2008.
Shareholders who owned Bank of America stock on Jan. 16, 2009,
must file claims by Nov. 12, 2010, to share in the $150 million
settlement.  Stockholders who received BAC shares in exchange for
their shares in Merrill Lynch are not included in the $150 million
settlement.

Claim forms and additional information about the settlement are
available at http://secbacfairfund.com/(hosted by Rust
Consulting, Inc.) or by calling (877) 788-4952.


BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Paid $240,000 Under Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Biosante Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has paid $240,000 as required
under the terms of a settlement resolving a consolidated class
action complaint filed in California, 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 July 1, 2009, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
concerning the Company's then proposed merger with Cell Genesys
was filed in California Superior Court in San Mateo County naming
Cell Genesys, its officers and directors, and the Company as
defendants.  On July 6, 2009, a second putative shareholder class
action lawsuit naming the same parties and containing essentially
identical allegations was filed in California Superior Court in
San Mateo County.  On July 8, 2009, a third putative shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in San
Mateo County, which also named the same parties and contained
essentially identical allegations as the two prior lawsuits.

On July 15, 2009, the Court consolidated these three lawsuits into
one action and appointed interim lead counsel.  On August 13,
2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and aided
and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties owed to Cell Genesys
stockholders in connection with the then proposed merger,
including by failing to engage in a fair sales process, failing to
obtain a fair price for the sale of Cell Genesys, and failing to
provide Cell Genesys stockholders with material information
regarding the merger.  Plaintiffs sought an order certifying the
lawsuit as a class action, injunctive relief to enjoin the merger
or, in the event the then pending merger was completed, a
rescission of the merger or rescissory damages.  Plaintiffs
further sought an accounting for all damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, on September 18, 2009, the Company and Cell Genesys
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs'
counsel in the San Mateo County action pursuant to which the
Company, Cell Genesys, the other named defendants and the
plaintiffs agreed to settle the lawsuits subject to court
approval.

Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, plaintiffs' counsel
conducted confirmatory discovery to confirm the fairness and
adequacy of the settlement.  The parties filed a stipulation of
settlement with the Court and moved the Court for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which was granted.

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order of Class Action
Settlement dated April 1, 2010, notice of the settlement was
provided to all persons or entities of record, who bought or held
shares of Cell Genesys common stock between June 30, 2009, and
October 14, 2009.

On June 9, 2010, the Court approved the settlement, including a
payment to the plaintiffs' counsel of $240,000 in attorneys' fees
and costs, and dismissed all claims with prejudice pursuant to the
parties' stipulation.

The Company recorded a liability of $240,000 during 2009 and paid
the $240,000 required under the terms of the settlement during the
second quarter of 2010.


BOIRON USA: Accused in California Suit of False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Boiron USA claims its
"Children's Coldcalm" pellets will provide relief from colds and
sore throats, but "the product is nothing more than a sugar
tablet," a class action claims in Orange County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in dela Rosa v. Boiron USA, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 30-2010-0040-404262 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)
(Velasquez, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/02/SnakeOil.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          610 Newport Center Dr., Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949-706-6464


BOISE CASCADE: Expects to Receive Future Payment in OSB Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Boise Cascade Holdings, L.L.C., expects to receive a future
payment as a class participant in a class action litigation
regarding oriented-strand-board pricing, 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 was and continues to be a major purchaser of OSB.  At
this time, the Company does not have definitive information
regarding its share of the industry settlement nor the timing of
the receipt of any settlement amounts and thus, the Company has
not recorded any amount related to the potential settlement in its
financial statements.  The Company believes the determination may
occur before the end of 2010.

Boise Cascade Holdings (BCH) manufactures and distributes lumber,
plywood, particleboard, and engineered products such as wood I-
joists and laminated lumber. It also operates about 30 wholesale
building material distribution centers throughout the US that sell
a broad line of building materials, including those made by the
company. To better focus on its core wood products and building
materials distribution businesses, the firm sold its paper,
packaging, and newsprint businesses in 2008. Formerly part of
Boise Cascade Corporation (now OfficeMax), BCH is controlled by
private investment firm Madison Dearborn Partners through Forest
Products Holdings.


CALIFORNIA: Redflex to Defend Against Claims Over Red-Light Cams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce L. Simon at theNewspaper.com reports a team of experienced
class action lawyers is taking on California's red light camera
industry, and photo enforcement companies are expressing unease.
Last month, the law firm of Pearson Simon Warshaw and Penny, LLP,
filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court arguing that tickets
issued throughout the Golden State since January 1, 2004, should
be refunded where the photo enforcement contracts violated a state
law mandating flat-rate compensation to companies like Redflex
Traffic Systems. Redflex referred to the case as a particular
business risk in an August 25 filing with the Australian
Securities Exchange.

"The level of litigation industry-wide has continued to be
widespread with the majority of suits testing the
constitutionality or administrative legitimacy of road safety
enforcement programs," Redflex explained. "A number of class
action lawsuits involving others in our industry and Redflex have
been filed challenging the pricing models used in several states
alleging violation of cost neutrality laws as well as the
admissibility of business records in court. We continue to
aggressively defend against these claims."

An aggressive defense will not come cheap. The firm spent $4.3
million to fend off a lawsuit filed by competitor American Traffic
Solutions (ATS), even though the Australian firm won the case.
Should this class action make it to trial, Redflex and co-
defendant ATS could end up financially responsible for contracts
in the fifty-nine jurisdictions identified as having the
questionable language.

In the city of San Mateo, for example, Redflex is paid $120 for
each $446 ticket issued at each red light camera intersection up
to a monthly cap of $6030 per intersection. This so-called cost
neutrality arrangement allows the city to have a guarantee that
the cameras will never under any circumstances lose money. The
class action suit argues that such clauses violate a state law
prohibiting per-ticket compensation arrangements for automated
ticketing contracts.

"Through their employees and agents, RTS, ATS and the Doe
defendants . . . entered into illegal contracts with public
entities in California, operated automated traffic enforcement
equipment in California and caused tickets to be issued to
plaintiff and class members throughout California," attorneys
Bruce L. Simon and William J. Newsom wrote in the court filing.

The suit does not ask that existing convictions be overturned, but
that Redflex and ATS pay damages for the amount of revenue the
companies have collected from their unlawful business practices.
The appellate divisions of both Orange County and San Mateo County
courts have already ruled "cost neutral" contract provisions are
illegal, but the decisions have not been published. Only a handful
of cities like San Mateo and San Carlos have dropped the cost
neutral provisions. Contractors in these cities would still be
sued for the amount of revenue generated prior to the contract
revisions.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare all cost neutral contracts
illegal and issue an injunction against all programs operating
under such arrangements. It also asks for a full refund of all
fines paid, plus appropriate punitive damages.


CALIFORNIA: 9th Circuit Bars Inmate From Bringing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
a district court's ruling that Michael Lenoir Smith, a California
state prisoner, cannot bring a class action against California
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al., or otherwise appear on
behalf of other inmates.

Mr. Smith had appealed pro se from the district court's judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to a serious risk to his health.

However, the Appeals Court instructed the district court to allow
Mr. Smith to amend his complaint to allege facts demonstrating
that the defendants are aware of a substantial risk to Smith's
health and no actions were taken to prevent or minimize that risk.

A copy of the memorandum is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100830207


CANADIAN GAS COS: Contesting Class Suit or Out-of-Court Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
ctvmontreal.ca reports the price-fixing scandal that rocked the
Eastern Townships and other parts of Quebec took a dramatic turn
at the Sherbrooke courthouse Wednesday when an army of lawyers
banded together to shut down a class-action lawsuit or out-of-
court settlement.

The Automobile Protection Association launched a multi-million
dollar class-action suit earlier this year against at least 30 gas
stations and distributors involved in the price-fixing scheme in
Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog and Sherbrooke.

The APA was set Wednesday to settle the class-action out of court
with one retailer, in exchange for their cooperation, when 27
lawyers representing petroleum companies arrived in court to try
to stop not only the class-action, but also to prevent anyone from
settling out of court with the APA.

"We have never seen so many luminaries in one room from so many
big firms and not-so-big firms. It's an extraordinary case," said
George Iny, president of the APA.

The hearing into the case continued throughout last week at the
Sherbrooke courthouse.

A decision isn't expected to be rendered for several months.


CAPITAL ONE: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of "Rubio" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
dismissal of a class action against Capital One Bank (USA),
National Association, according to Capital One Multi Asset
Execution Trust's Form 10-D filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the monthly reporting period from July 1,
2010, to July 31, 2010.

In July 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed a dismissal entered in favor of the Capital One
Bank (USA), National Association in Rubio v. Capital One Bank,
which was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in 2007.

The plaintiff in Rubio alleged in a putative class action that
COBNA breached its contractual obligations and violated the Truth
In Lending Act and California's Unfair Competition Law when it
raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts.  The
District Court granted COBNA's motion to dismiss all claims as a
matter of law prior to any discovery.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's
dismissal with respect to the TILA and UCL claims, remanding the
case back to the District Court for further proceedings.  The
Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of
contract claim, finding that COBNA was contractually allowed to
increase interest rates.

Because of the uncertainty around whether a class will ultimately
be certified, the dimensions of any class, and the range of
remedies that might be sought on any certified claims, COBNA said
it is not in a position at this time to provide a meaningful range
of reasonably possible loss with respect to the litigation.


CHINA NATURAL: Rosen Files 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


CHINA NATURAL: Shapiro Haber Files Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a class action alleging
securities fraud in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware against China Natural Gas, Inc., and certain
of its officers and directors. The case was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of China Natural Gas during the
period from March 10, 2010 through August 19, 2010 (the "Class
Period"). The case is entitled Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas,
Inc., C.A. No. 1:10-cv-00728-SLR.

If you purchased China Natural Gas common stock during the Class
Period, and you suffered damages, you may move the court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff no later than 60 days from today.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading public
statements in its Annual Report for the year ended December 31,
2009 and its Quarterly Report for the quarter ended March 31,
2010, specifically that the defendants failed to disclose and
properly account for a $17.7 million loan it had entered on
February 26, 2010 ("the Bank Loan"). The Complaint further alleges
that the defendants failed to disclose that the Bank Loan violated
an Indenture for senior notes and warrants of the Company, placing
China Natural Gas in default under the Indenture. As a result of
the Bank Loan and the resulting default under the Indenture, China
Natural Gas was required to reclassify approximately $45 million
in long term liabilities to short term liabilities, increasing the
company's short term liabilities as originally reported by over
700% and increasing the company's short term liabilities as
originally reported by over 600%.

On August 13, 2010, after the close of the market, China Natural
Gas disclosed that the company would be amending its annual and
quarterly reports because of its failure to disclose the Bank Loan
and the resulting need to reclassify certain long term liabilities
to short term liabilities. On August 19, 2010, China Natural Gas
filed a Form 8-K in which it disclosed that its prior financial
statements should not be relied upon. The Complaint alleges that
Plaintiff and other Class members were damaged because they
purchased stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period as a result of the defendants' fraudulent conduct.

The factual and legal bases for the Plaintiffs' claims are set
forth in greater detail in the Complaint. A copy of the Complaint
can be obtained from the office of the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, 844 N. King Street,
Unit 18, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 573-6170. A copy of the
Complaint can also be obtained, without any obligation, from
counsel for the plaintiff:

           SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
           53 State Street
           Boston, MA 02109
           Telephone: (800) 287-8119
                      (617) 439-3939
           E-mail: cases@shulaw.com


DELAWARE: State Retiree Files Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cris Barrish at The News Journal reports the fallout from the
posting of the Social Security numbers and birth dates of 22,000
Delaware government retirees on a state Web site continued
Wednesday when one woman filed a class-action lawsuit against the
state's benefits consultant.

"I feel aggrieved. It's something we're going to have worry about
for the rest of our lives," said plaintiff Gail Slaughter, a
Milton resident who retired in 2007 after 33 years with the state
finance department and Sussex Technical School District.

Class-action status, allowing others to join the Superior Court
lawsuit, would have to be approved by a judge.

Attorneys for Ms. Slaughter filed the lawsuit against Aon
Consulting of New Jersey and its parent companies. Aon is a
multinational corporation with offices in more than 120 countries.

"She's expressed the same feelings that people have been saying"
since the disclosure was revealed Monday, said attorney Bruce L.
Hudson, who brought the case with colleague Mark M. Billion.
"There's nothing she or anybody else can do to change the fact
that their information has been made public. She's always going to
have to live with the fear that her identity could be stolen."

Contacted about the lawsuit, Aon spokesman Joe Micucci said, "We
do not comment on pending litigation."

The sensitive identifying information -- including the person's
gender but no name -- was posted on the state's procurement
website on Aug. 16 as part of a request for proposals from
insurance companies interested in providing vision coverage to
workers and retirees.

Brenda Lakeman, Delaware's director of statewide benefits, said
earlier versions of the request for proposals were reviewed
internally, and none contained the confidential information. The
final version did, but Mr. Lakeman said no one in her office
spotted it. Mr. Micucci said the information was "inadvertently
included" in the final version sent to the state.

The privacy breach went undetected for four days, however. It was
removed on Aug. 20 immediately after being discovered by a budget
office employee, Mr. Lakeman said.

Since the disclosure of the error, furious pensioners have swamped
Aon's phone lines with questions.

For many, Aon's offer of one year of free credit monitoring with
the credit bureau Experian was not a satisfactory solution.

Ms. Slaughter decided to sue, and her attorneys predict many other
retirees will join the case.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. Mr. Billion said the losses
could be in the thousands of dollars for employees, who might not
be able to afford the expense of a lawsuit. By banding together in
a class action, plaintiffs can share expenses.

Although the state budget office posted the information on its Web
site, Mr. Hudson said, the government has sovereign immunity from
such a lawsuit.

In an e-mail sent Wednesday to lawmakers, state budget Director
Ann Visalli said the state wants Aon to extend the credit
monitoring beyond one year.

"I very much share the concern and frustration that you, your
colleagues and our retirees have expressed," Ms. Visalli told
lawmakers. "I also agree that we need a more aggressive response
by Aon Consulting."

Ms. Slaughter's suit charges Aon and its parent entities, Aon
Corp. and Aon Consulting Worldwide, of negligence and breach of
contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing.

"Gail Slaughter's identity is likely for sale on the Internet
right now," the suit said. "For a minimal fee, hackers throughout
the world can use her Social Security number and birth date to
secure credit cards, cell phones, and alike.  Ms. Slaughter finds
herself in this position not because of anything that she did, but
because the state's benefit consultant could not be counted on to
scrub the personal information of nearly 22,000 state retirees
before posting the data online."

Because of Aon's actions, Ms. Slaughter must "assiduously monitor
her credit reports to protect her identity and to insulate herself
from any claims made by subsequent victims who are duped by a
criminal using her stolen identity."


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued for Selling Defective Hip Implant Devices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Brigham, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-03886 (N.D. Calif. August 30, 2010), brings claims against
the orthopaedic devices provider for, among others, false
advertising, intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent
concealment, in violation of the California Bus. & Prof. Code.
Mr. Brigham says DePuy and Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc.,
marketed their ASR Hip Implant Devices as safe and effective when
all the while they knew or should have known that the devices were
faulty and would give rise to pain, swelling, inflammation and
damage to surrounding muscle and tissue, and an inability to walk,
and would require a subsequent revision within less than five
years of implantation to replace the devices.

Mr. Brigham says that all of this could have been avoided had
defendants given appropriate warning about the dangers of their
hip implant devices in 2007 when complaints started to be made to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about the devices'
manufacturing and design defects.  DePuy, a Johnson & Johnson
company, only announced the voluntary recall of its ASR XL
Acetabular System and ASR Hip Resurfacing Platform on August 26,
2010.  The recall relied on British data in March 2010 showing
that metal-on-metal implants, including the defendants' Hip ASR
Hip Implant Devices, are potentially dangerous because they can
generate large amounts of metallic debris as they wear over time.
The Complaint further states that unpublished data from the
National Joint Registry of England and Wales shows the five year
revision rate for the ASR Hip Resurfacing System is roughly 12%,
and roughly 13% for the ASR XL Acetabular System, when under
generally accepted standards no more than 5% of patients should
have a revision surgery within five years of implantation.

Plaintiff is a 50 year old former equipment operator who underwent
hip replacement surgery in 2007, and who is now unable to work due
to his defective hip implant device.  In August 2010 he required
surgery to remove one of the hip implant devices but due to severe
infection of the surrounding tissue and bone, no replacement
device has been implanted since the explant surgery, and he is
currently bedridden and unable to walk.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dana B. Taschner, Esq.
          Lee A. Cirsch, Esq.
          LANIER LAW FIRM
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 1940
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-5100
          E-mail: dbt@lanierlawfirm.com
                  lec@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          6810 FM 1960 West
          Houston, TX 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Agreement in Ontario Suit Final
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement resolving a class action filed in Ontario against
Dollar Financial Corp. became final after the appeal period
expired, according to the company's Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

In 2003, a former customer in Ontario, Canada, Margaret Smith,
commenced an action against Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and the
company's indirect wholly owned Canadian subsidiary, National
Money Mart Company, on behalf of a purported class of Ontario
borrowers who, Smith claimed, were subjected to usurious charges
in payday-loan transactions.

The action alleged violations of a Canadian federal law
proscribing usury and sought restitution and damages, including
punitive damages, and injunctive relief prohibiting further
alleged usurious charges.  Effective March 3, 2010, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice approved a settlement of the Ontario
Litigation, and the settlement became final upon the expiration of
a 30-day appeal period.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs of
these customers, the company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Pact in British Columbia Suit OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement resolving a class action filed in British
Columbia against National Money Mart Company has received approval
from the court, according to Dollar Financial Corp.'s Aug. 31,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

Money Mart is an indirect wholly owned Canadian subsidiary of
Dollar Financial.

In 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced an action
against Money Mart and 26 other Canadian lenders on behalf of a
purported class of British Columbia residents.

The allegations were substantially similar to the suit filed in
Ontario.  The Ontario action alleged that the company violated a
Canadian federal law proscribing usury.  The action sought
restitution and damages, including punitive damages, and
injunctive relief prohibiting further alleged usurious charges.

Under the terms of the settlement, Money Mart will create a
settlement fund in an amount of C$24.8 million, consisting of
C$12.4 million in cash and C$12.4 million in vouchers.  Fees
payable to plaintiffs' counsel will be paid from this fund.

The settlement is set forth in a definitive settlement agreement
executed on May 7, 2010 which received final court approval on
July 19, 2010.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs of
these customers, the company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlements in Three Suits Get Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The courts in the provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and
Nova Scotia, approved settlements resolving a class action against
National Money Mart Company, according to Dollar Financial Corp.'s
Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

Money Mart is an indirect wholly owned Canadian subsidiary of
Dollar Financial.

The three actions, collectively called Maritimes Litigation,
alleged that the company violated a Canadian federal law
proscribing usury and sought restitution and damages, including
punitive damages, and injunctive relief prohibiting further
alleged usurious charges.

The actions were commenced against Money Mart in New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.  Effective May 26, 2010, courts in
those three provinces approved settlements of all of the Maritimes
Litigation, and those settlements became final upon the expiration
of a 30-day appeal period.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs of
these customers, the company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Dismissed as Defendant in "Young"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc., has been dismissed as a defendant in
the suit filed by Gareth Young, according to Dollar Financial
Corp.'s Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

In 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
representative action against National Money Mart Company, Dollar
Financial Group, Inc. and two other individual defendants in the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of
consumers.  The allegations are substantially similar to the
Ontario and British Columbia Litigation.  The action seeks
restitution and damages, including punitive damages.

In 2004, Money Mart served Mr. Young a demand for arbitration.  In
July 2010, Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and the individual
defendants in the case were dismissed.

The Young action has not been certified to date as a class action.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs of
these customers, the company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: No Class Certified in "Day" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
No class has been certified in the action filed by H. Craig Day,
according to Dollar Financial Corp.'s Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

In 2006, a former customer, H. Craig Day, commenced a purported
class action against Dollar Financial Group, Inc., National Money
Mart Company and several of the company's franchisees in the Court
of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who obtained short-term loans from Money Mart in
Alberta.

The allegations and relief sought in the Day Litigation action are
substantially the same as those in the litigation filed by Gareth
Young, but relate to a claim period that commences before and ends
after the claim period in the Young Litigation and excludes the
claim period described in the Young Litigation.

In 2007, a demand for arbitration was served on the Day action
plaintiffs; in April 2010, plaintiffs' indicated that they would
proceed with the claims.

Money Mart and the franchisees intend to file motions to enforce
the arbitration clause and to stay the actions in the immediate
future.

The Day action has not been certified to date as a class action.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs of
these customers, the company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Money Mart Continues to Defend Manitoba Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Money Mart Company continues to defend a suit filed in
Manitoba, according to Dollar Financial Corp.'s Aug. 31, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

In 2004, an action was filed against Money Mart in Manitoba on
behalf of a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term
loans from Money Mart.

The allegations are substantially similar to the suits filed in
Ontario and British Columbia.

The action has not been certified to date as a class action.  If
the action proceeds, Money Mart intends to seek a stay of the
action on the grounds that the plaintiff entered into an
arbitration and mediation agreement with Money Mart with respect
to the matters which are the subject of this action.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs of
these customers, the company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Pact in "Bufil" Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement resolving a class action against Dollar
Financial Group, Inc., has received final approval from the court,
according to Dollar Financial Corp.'s Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

In 2006, Caren Bufil commenced a lawsuit against Dollar Financial
Group, Inc. and obtained class certification of the action
alleging that Dollar Financial Group, Inc. failed to provide non-
management employees with meal and rest breaks required under
California law.

In September 2009, the parties agreed to settle the action; court
approval of the settlement became final on May 10, 2010.

The company has recorded an aggregate charge of approximately $1.5
million with respect to the Bufil settlement, in the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs of
these customers, the company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Sept. 17 Settlement Hearing Set in Fitzgibbons
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 17, 2010, hearing has been set to consider final approval
of a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit against We The
People USA, Inc., and Dollar Financial Group, Inc., according to
Dollar Financial Corp.'s Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2010.

In September 2007, Jacqueline Fitzgibbons, a former customer of a
WTP store, commenced a lawsuit against WTP and Dollar Financial
Group, Inc. and others in California Superior Court for Alameda
County.  In January 2009, an individual named Robert Blau replaced
Fitzgibbons as lead plaintiff.

The suit alleges on behalf of a class of consumers and senior
citizens that, from 2003 to 2007, WTP violated California law by
advertising and selling living trusts and wills to certain
California residents.  A motion to certify the class was heard and
the court granted class certification of the claim that WTP's
business model violates certain unfair competition laws in
California.

On April 8, 2010, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
case with a settlement fund to be funded by Dollar Financial
Group, Inc.

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, the company recorded a
charge of $4.0 million in relation to the pending settlement. In
June 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved the terms of the
settlement in so far as the terms affected the We The People USA,
Inc. and We The People LLC bankruptcy estates.

Moreover, in June 2010, the trial court gave preliminary approval
to the terms of the class settlement.  The final settlement
approval hearing before the superior court is scheduled for Sept.
17, 2010. There is no assurance, however, that the settlement will
receive such final trial court approval.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs of
these customers, the company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend a suit filed in
St. Louis County, Missouri, according to Dollar Financial Corp.'s
Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

In January 2009, former WTP customers, Philip Jones and Carol
Martin, on behalf of a punitive class of Missouri customers, filed
a lawsuit in St. Louis County, Missouri against Dollar Financial
Group, Inc., We The People USA, Inc. and a St. Louis based WTP
franchisee alleging that, from 2002 to the present, defendants
violated Missouri law by engaging in:

     i) an unauthorized law business;

    ii) the unauthorized practice of law; and

   iii) unlawful merchandising practices in the sale of its
        legal documents.

The plaintiffs are seeking, on behalf of the purported class,
prohibition of the defendants' unlawful business practices,
disgorgement of all monies and profits obtained from unlawful
business practices, attorney's fees, and statutory and treble
damages pursuant to various Missouri consumer protection codes.
As a result of the WTP Bankruptcy Proceedings, all matters
relating to We The People USA, Inc. and We The People LLC have
been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court.  The plaintiffs are, however,
pursuing their claims against the company and a WTP franchisee.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs of
these customers, the company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Defends "Richter" Complaint in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation continues to defend the suit entitled
Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
7:06-cv-01537-LSC, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

The suit was filed on Aug. 7, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.  Plaintiff alleges that she and
other current and former Dollar General store managers were
improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which
she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and
former store managers.  The company opposed the plaintiff's
motion.  On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a
nationwide class.

On May 30, 2007, the court stayed all proceedings in the case,
including the sending of a notice to the class, to evaluate, among
other things, certain appeals pending in the Eleventh Circuit
involving claims similar to those raised in this action.  During
the stay, the statute of limitations was tolled for potential
class members.  The stay was extended on several occasions, the
last of which expired on Oct. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or
former Dollar General store managers, and approximately 3,860
individuals opted into the lawsuit.

The company believes that its store managers are and have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that
this action is not appropriate for collective action treatment.
The company intends to vigorously defend this action and expects
to ask the court to decertify the class at the conclusion of the
discovery period.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is
a discount retailer.  As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877
stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern,
southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.  The company
offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables,
seasonal, home products and apparel.  Its merchandise includes
national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter &
Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills,
Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand
selections.  The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a
limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding
common stock.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Brickey" in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation continues to defend a lawsuit entitled
Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and
Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General
Corporation, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-DGL, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.

On May 18, 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit entitled
Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and
Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General
Corporation (Western District of New York, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-
DGL, originally filed on Feb. 9, 2006 and amended on May 12, 2006.

The Brickey plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the FLSA
and as a class under New York, Ohio, Maryland and North Carolina
wage and hour statutes on behalf of, among others, assistant store
managers who claim to be owed wages (including overtime wages)
under those statutes.  At this time, it is not possible to predict
whether the court will permit this action to proceed collectively
or as a class.

However, the company believes that this action is not appropriate
for either collective or class treatment and that the company's
wage and hour policies and practices comply with both federal and
state law.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is
a discount retailer.  As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877
stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern,
southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.  The company
offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables,
seasonal, home products and apparel.  Its merchandise includes
national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter &
Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills,
Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand
selections.  The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a
limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding
common stock.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Plea to Decertify Equal Pay Act Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has
denied Dollar General Corporation's motion to decertify the Equal
Pay Act class as premature, according to the company's Aug. 31,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit is Janet Calvert v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00465-VEH.

On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama in which the plaintiff, a
former store manager, alleged that she was paid less than male
store managers because of her sex, in violation of the Equal Pay
Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional
plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males
because of their sex, and to add allegations that the company's
compensation practices disparately impact females.  Under the
amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under
the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back
wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages,
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked
the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of current
and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act.  The
company opposed plaintiffs' motion.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide
class of females under the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar
General as store managers between Nov. 30, 2004 and Nov. 30, 2007.

The notice was issued on Jan. 11, 2008, and persons to whom the
notice was sent were required to opt into the suit by March 11,
2008.  Approximately 2,100 individuals have opted into the
lawsuit.

On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for class certification
relating to their Title VII claims.  The company filed its
response to the certification motion in June 2010, and will move
for decertification of the Equal Pay Act class.

Briefing has closed, and the parties are awaiting a ruling.  The
company's motion to decertify the Equal Pay Act class was denied
as premature. The Company expects to file a similar motion at the
appropriate time.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is
a discount retailer.  As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877
stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern,
southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.  The company
offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables,
seasonal, home products and apparel.  Its merchandise includes
national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter &
Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills,
Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand
selections.  The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a
limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding
common stock.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Gross" Complaint in Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation faces a suit captioned Shaleka Gross,
et al v. Dollar General Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-
340WHB-LR, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, according to the company's Aug. 31, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 16, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in which three former non-
exempt store employees, on behalf of themselves and certain other
non-exempt Dollar General store employees, allege that they were
not paid for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that they were not properly paid
for certain breaks.  Plaintiffs seek back wages (including
overtime wages), liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company has not been served with the Gross, et al complaint.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is
a discount retailer.  As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877
stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern,
southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.  The company
offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables,
seasonal, home products and apparel.  Its merchandise includes
national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter &
Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills,
Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand
selections.  The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a
limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding
common stock.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Amended Texas Securities Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
No pertinent progress has taken place in a class action lawsuit
commenced by purchasers of common stock of Flotek Industries,
Inc., according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Discovery has not yet commenced, Flotek related.

The lawsuit was commenced on August 7, 2009, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers
of Flotek common stock between May 8, 2007 and January 23, 2008,
inclusive.  It seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the time period indicated,
the Company failed to disclose material adverse facts about its
true financial condition, business and prospects.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that as a result of the failure to disclose
the adverse facts, the Company's positive statements concerning
guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 4, 2010,
alleging misleading statements and material omissions in
connection with the Company's earnings guidance for 2007 and the
fourth quarter of 2007.  The amended complaint does not quantify
the alleged actual damages.

Flotek averred that it intends to mount a vigorous defense to the
claims asserts.

Flotek Industries, Inc. -- http://www.flotekind.com/-- is
supplying drilling and production related products and services to
the energy and mining industries.  The company's core focus is
oilfield specialty chemicals and logistics, downhole drilling
tools and downhole production tools.  Flotek offers its products
primarily through its sales organizations, as well as through
independent distributors and agents.  The company's reportable
segments are Chemical and Logistics, Drilling Products and
Artificial Lift.


GAMING PARTNERS: Kaplan's Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of Robert Kaplan on the dismissal of his lawsuit
against Gaming Partners International Corporation, et al., 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.

On June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misstatements and omissions by the Company, entitled Robert J.
Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy, Alain
Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R. Henry,
Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International Corporation
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, under Case No. 2:07-cv-00849-LDG-GWF.  Plaintiff Kaplan
has been designated by the court as "Lead Plaintiff."

On February 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
deleting several of the above named defendants, and adding three
others. The action is now captioned Robert J. Kaplan v. Gerard P.
Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan a/k/a Melody Sullivan Yowell, David
Grimes, Charles T. McCullough, Eric P. Endy, Elisabeth Carrette
and Gaming Partners International Corporation.

The Company engaged counsel and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims presented.  Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint on April 16, 2008. Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss was thereafter granted and an Order was entered dismissing
the Amended Complaint without prejudice on November 18, 2008.

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 9, 2009.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was
filed on February 27, 2009. On September 28, 2009, Defendants'
motion was granted and judgment dismissing the Second Amended
Complaint with prejudice was entered on September 29, 2009.

On October 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal of the
Court's judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  All
briefings have been concluded and the matter awaits further action
by the Court.

Gaming Partners International Corp. -- http://www.gpigaming.com/
-- manufactures and supplies casino table game equipment.  The
Company's business activities include the manufacture and/or
supply of gaming chips, table layouts, wheels, playing cards,
dice, gaming furniture and miscellaneous table accessories, which
are used in conjunction with casino table games, such as
blackjack, poker, baccarat, craps and roulette.  It has three
subsidiaries: Gaming Partners International USA, Inc. (GPI USA),
Gaming Partners International SAS (GPI SAS) and GPI Mexicana S.A.
de C.V. (GPI Mexicana).  GPIC's products are sold to licensed
casinos primarily in the United States and Canada, under the brand
names Paulson, Bourgogne et Grasset (B&G), Bud Jones and T-K.  The
Company has existing production facilities in Las Vegas, Nevada;
San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico, and Beaune, France.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Breach of Contract Class Suit Over 3G Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Wauters at TechCrunch reports on August 31, 2010, Google was
slapped with a breach of contract class action lawsuit alleging
that its Nexus One smartphone failed to maintain 3G connectivity
and that the Mountain View company not only made misleading claims
about the product's capabilities but also failed to adequately
support customers in search of answers.

Plaintiff Nathan Nabors of Florida is seeking damages and class
action interest on behalf of residents of his home state as well
as California who have bought the Nexus One since its January
debut.

The only defendant named in the suit is Google -- in other words,
manufacturer HTC and exclusive 3G carrier T-Mobile USA are not
included in the suit. The potential size of the classes is not
specified in the complaint.

The suit says Google basically failed to warn customers they would
not receive faster 3G connectivity, even in areas where T-Mobile
USA said such coverage was available. In addition, customer
support from Google, to which T-Mobile referred customers with 3G
connectivity issues, came up short.

Among other customer service failures, Google denied the problems
with the phone were its problem, even as the named plaintiff was
missing calls, according to the suit.

Breach of warranty claims aside, the suit also says Google
violated the Communications Act by making false and misleading
claims about the Nexus One.

A Google spokesperson was not immediately available for comment on
the class action.


GUAM: Lawyer Takes Suit Over Tiyan Land Swap Law to Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan at Pacific News Center reports that after being
turned down by the Guam District Court on jurisdictional grounds,
Attorney Curtis Van de Veld has taken his Class Action suit
against the Tiyan Land Swap law to Superior Court.

Mr. Van de Veld told PNC News [Tuesday] that he filed in Superior
Court on Friday of last week. The case has been assigned to Judge
Arthur Barcinas.

Mr. Van de Veld made the move to Superior Court after District
Court Judge Francis Tydingco-Gatewood rejected his request for a
temporary restraining order against the implementation of  the
Tiyan Land Swap law because she said the District Court lacked
jurisdiction.  A copy of the Court's Order is available at:

     http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/images/pdf/notro.pdf

Mr. Van de Veld told PNC News that he still believes that the
District Court has "diversity jurisdiction" because there are
members of the class who live off island, which, he says  would
give the District Court the jurisdiction to intervene.

However to prevent any further delay, he has decided to pursue the
temporary restraining order against implementation of the law in
Superior Court.

Mr. Van De Veld wants the court to block the Ancestral Lands
Commission from carrying out the mandates of Public Law 158 which
calls for the transfer of two properties to 72 former Tiyan
landowners. One plot is a 582 acre property in South Finegayan and
the other is a 395 piece of land straddling the back road to
Andersen.

Mr. Van de Veld argues that the law is illegal because it gives
the bulk of land trust property to roughly 10% of the trust's
beneficiaries. He maintains that the trust is meant to benefit all
trust members who lost land to military condemnations.

He wants the law declared "unconstitutional and inorganic."

But he is seeking the restraining order first to stop the GALC
from carrying out the law, before the merits of  its "legality"
is decided.


HOT: Says Most Termination Requests Aren't Serious
--------------------------------------------------
Nurit Roth at Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper
in Israel, reports defending itself against a class-action motion,
the HOT cable TV company argued Wednesday that it isn't leaping to
comply with clients' requests to cease and desist from providing
service because "most" are just people trying to squeeze it for
better terms.

In its defense, submitted to the Petah Tikva District Court, HOT
argued that the lead complainant, Yoni Ben-Simon, is confusing the
date on which the company stops billing the client and the date of
physical disconnection.

Ben-Simon sued six months ago, seeking to have his motion accepted
as a class action. He claims that HOT continues to charge money
for television service after clients terminate (or try to
terminate) service.

Through advocates Ronen Horovitz and Yaron Alon, Ben-Simon argued
that the company simply ignores termination notification from
clients and continues to charge them. Nor does it give back the
money, he claims.

In its defense, HOT's legal representatives said that when a
termination request arrives, the company's customer-service staff
determines whether the subscriber is serious. The company says
that many customers ostensibly seeking termination really just
want cheaper prices.

Therefore, a "short time" may pass during which the company
negotiates with the client, only after which a technician arrives
and physically disconnects the system and collects the equipment.

During that time, HOT allows the subscriber to continue using its
television services -- while it only continues to charge for two
days after the initial termination request is made, if the client
really does disconnect, HOT says.

Cases in which it charges beyond those two days happen, for
instance, when the termination request is made after the company
has already collected payment for the current month, HOT says. But
it returns money to clients when appropriate after it collects its
equipment, the company says.


IPAYMENT INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
IPayment Inc. is awaiting a ruling from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on its motion to dismiss a
purported class action lawsuit, according to the company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiff L. Green
d/b/a Tisa's Cakes in December 2009 in the District Court, naming
the Company, Online Data Corporation (ODC), one of the Company's
subsidiaries, and Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. (NLS) as
defendants.

On June 16, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Counts One
(violation of New York Consumer Protection Law Gen. Bus. Law
Section 349) and Two (unjust enrichment) of plaintiff's class
action complaint.  On June 21, 2010, a conference with the Court
was held at which time the Court ordered a stay of discovery until
the court decides the motion to dismiss.

The Court has not yet ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss nor
has it set a hearing date, if any, for the motion to dismiss.

Although the Company intends to vigorously defend itself and
currently believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted, at this time the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and its
potential liability associated with the claims asserted against
cannot be predicted with certainty, and there can be no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense or that a
failure to prevail will not have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition or results of operations.

IPayment Inc. -- http://www.ipaymentinc.com/-- based in
Nashville, Tennessee, is a provider of credit and debit card-
based payment processing services to small merchants.


JP MORGAN CHASE: 5th Circuit Holds Order v. "Hassinger" Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in
Hassinger v. JP Morgan Chase & Company, No. 09-30708 (August 30,
2010) affirmed a judgment that the plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether funds
related to the settlement of a securities class action constitute
post-merger consideration.

JPMorgan Chase & Company paid shareholders cash to settle their
securities class action in relation to a merger.  Appellants
assert that this money should be treated as additional money paid
for the merger and that because they are former debenture holders,
JPMorgan must pay them an equal amount of cash.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100830163


JAFFE & ASHER: Suit Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ferdinando M. Toliao, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Jaffe & Asher LLP, Case No. 10-cv-03905
(N.D. Calif. August 31, 2010), alleges violation of the Federal
and California Debt Collection Practices Acts.  Mr. Toliao alleges
that some time ago, he used his American Express account to
purchase consumer goods for his personal and family needs.  On
August 17, 2010, he received a collection letter from the Jaffe
law firm regarding the unpaid balance of $7,468.75 on his American
Express account.  Mr. Toliao says that J&A, a "debt collector" as
defined by 15 U.S.C Sec. 1692g(6)a), is required to make certain
disclosures to the Plaintiff.  But, instead of including the
following information as required by the statute:

     "Unless you Ferdinando M. Toliao, within thirty days after
     receipt of this notice dispute the validity of the debt or
     any portion thereof as described above, the debt will be
     assumed to be valid by the debt collector Jaffe & Asher LLP",

J&A copies the statue and fails to provide a description of the
party to whom the presumption of validity will apply.  J&A states:

     "This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information
     obtained from you will be used for that purpose.  Unless you
     dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof,
     within thirty (30) days from your receipt of this letter, the
     debt will be assumed to be valid by us."

The Complaint says that by failing to provide said information,
J&A has violated the provision of the California Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and is thus subject to civil liability
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irving L. Berg, Esq.
          THE BERG LAW GROUP
          433 Town Center, PMB 493
          Corte Madera, CA 94925
          Telephone: (415) 924-0742
          E-mail: irvberg@com.cast


KADANT INC: Dismissal of Massachusetts Class Action Becomes Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The time for seeking further appeal has expired and the dismissal
has become final with respect to the class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, where Kadant Inc. is a co-defendant, according to
the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2010.

The company was named as a co-defendant, together with Composites
LLC and another defendant, in a consumer class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on December 27, 2007, on behalf of a putative class
of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products
manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October
2003.  The complaint purported to assert, among other things,
causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud,
negligence, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and it
sought compensatory damages and punitive damages under various
state consumer protection statutes.

The District Court dismissed the complaint against all defendants
in its entirety on November 19, 2008.  On March 3, 2009, the
District Court denied the plaintiffs' post-judgment motions to
vacate the order of dismissal and amend the complaint.  The
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's denial of these motions
to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
District Court's ruling on December 23, 2009.

The plaintiffs petitioned the U. S. First Circuit Court of Appeals
for a rehearing en banc, which was denied on February 2, 2010.
The time for seeking further appeal of this matter has expired and
the dismissal is final.

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries.  The company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts.  The company's operations consist of one
operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking
Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other
Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its sale
in April 2007, Casting Products. Its Papermaking Systems segment
develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the global
papermaking and paper recycling industries.


KADANT INC: Expects Dismissal of Suits in Maryland & Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kadant Inc. anticipates that plaintiffs will move to dismiss
complaints pending in Maryland and Washington state courts,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2010.

The company was named as a co-defendant in seven state class
action complaints filed on behalf of individuals who own
GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products manufactured by Composites
LLC between April 2002 and October 2003.

On April 23, 2010, the parties to the litigation agreed to
voluntarily dismiss without prejudice the pending state class
actions, subject to a 60-day tolling agreement, while the parties
pursue potential alternative dispute resolution or other
settlement of these matters.

To date, the parties have filed dismissals in the litigation
pending in the state courts of Colorado, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New York and New Mexico, and have anticipated that
the plaintiffs will also move to dismiss the complaints pending in
Maryland and Washington state courts, which have not been served
on the company.

The company said that there can be no assurance that the parties
to the state court matters will reach a resolution on terms
satisfactory to the parties, or that the plaintiffs will not file
new complaints in the named states or other states, following the
expiration of the 60-day tolling period.  The company also said it
has not made an accrual related to the litigation as it believes
that an adverse outcome is not probable and estimable at this
time.

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries.  The company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts.  The company's operations consist of one
operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking
Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other
Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its sale
in April 2007, Casting Products. Its Papermaking Systems segment
develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the global
papermaking and paper recycling industries.


KOMPAN INC: Recalls 700 Swing Sets
----------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kompan Inc., of Tacoma, announced a voluntary recall of about 700
swing sets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The joint connection between the horizontal top beam and the
vertical end bracket and support post system can crack and break,
posing a fall and impact hazard to users.

Kompan received 19 reports from BigToys of swings that have had
the end brackets replaced due to both actual and potential for
cracking or breakage at the joint of the top beam and the support
posts.  The firm has received three reports of minor injuries to
users; however the firm has been unable to verify the cause or
nature of these injuries.

The recalled swing sets include the "To Fro" models listed below
with any numbers in the series of model number codes listed.  For
example, for the first entry, S1-8, all single bay, 8 foot swings
beginning with the model number S1-8 would be included in the
recall.  Kompan has not manufactured the swing since December 31,
2003 and has not sold it since December 31, 2008.

                Swing Description            Model Number
                -----------------            ------------
                Single bay, 8 foot swing      S1-8X-XX
                Single bay, 10 foot swing     S1-10X-XX
                2 bay, 8 foot swing           S2-8X-XX
                2 bay, 10 foot swing          S2-10X-XX
                3 bay, 8 foot swing           S3-8X-XX
                3 bay, 10 foot swing          S3-10X-XX
                4 bay, 8 foot swing           S4-8X-XX
                4 bay, 10 foot swing          S4-10X-XX
                5 bay, 8 foot swing           S5-8X-XX
                5 bay, 10 foot swing          S5-10X-XX

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10755.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Kompan, Inc. from January 1998 to December 31, 2008 for
about $700-$3250.  The units were sold to customers through third-
party sales representatives throughout the United States.  Third-
party sales representatives are individuals and companies who
market and sell Kompan playground equipment business to business.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled swing sets
and remove the chains connecting the seats to the top beam.  A
retrofit kit will be provided to all affected customers with
installation instructions.  Kompan is contacting swing owners
directly by telephone and mail to advise them to stop using the
swing, remove the chains connecting the seats to the top beam and
advising customers that retrofit kits will be delivered with
installation instructions.  Kompan will follow up by telephone and
email after the retrofits are delivered to confirm installation by
customers.

For additional information, please contact Kompan representative
Joedi Rice at (800) 624-4869 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.kompan.com/or e-mail the firm at joeric@kompan.com


LEE'S SUMMIT HONDA: Mo. Supreme Court Holds Denial of Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee's Summit Honda appealed a judgment denying its motion to
compel Ashlee Ruhl to arbitrate her individual claims against it.
Ms. Ruhl filed a class action suit against Honda, seeking damages
for its unauthorized practice of law, section 484.020, and its
deceptive practices connected with the sale of merchandise under
the Missouri merchandising practices act, sections 407.010 to
407.130.  Honda claims that the trial court erred in failing to
compel arbitration because the claims were within scope of the
parties' arbitration agreement, the unauthorized practice of law
claim was subject to arbitration and the arbitration agreement was
valid.

The Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc, affirmed the judgment and
remanded the case.  A copy of the court's order is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inmoco20100831386


LOWER MERION: School District Ordered to Pay $260,000 to Lawyer
---------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Martin, staff writer at The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports
a federal judge Monday ordered the Lower Merion School District to
pay about $260,000 now -- and potentially much more later -- to
the lawyer who brought the lawsuit over the district's webcam
monitoring.

In a 14-page opinion, Senior U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois
said Mark S. Haltzman deserved to be paid for work that led to a
preliminary injunction against the district in May. And he said
Mr. Haltzman could submit the rest of his bills when the case
ended.

The injunction banned Lower Merion school employees from
activating webcams on students' district-issued laptops without
their consent and required new policies governing the use of
technology.

A spokesman for Lower Merion said school officials were "deeply
disappointed" in the decision. Mr. Haltzman called the ruling fair
and appropriate.

The order seemed to end a bitter skirmish over fees in an ongoing
legal saga that could cost district taxpayers several million
dollars.  Each side pledged Monday to continue working toward a
settlement, but each also slammed the other.

Still unresolved is the underlying lawsuit Mr. Haltzman filed for
Harriton High School student Blake Robbins and his parents,
claiming Lower Merion staff members spied on students through the
webcams. The district contends it activated the software only when
laptops were lost or missing.

Mr. Haltzman had asked that Lower Merion pay him more than
$435,000 in fees and expenses that he said he and his firm, Lamm
Rubenstone L.L.C., incurred through July investigating Robbins'
claims and initiating a proposed class-action lawsuit. In class-
action cases, plaintiffs' legal fees usually become part of a
settlement.

Lawyers for the school district countered in court papers that Mr.
Haltzman's bills were excessive and lacked detail. In a 46-page
filing Aug. 12, they scrutinized his request, questioning items
such as $87,000 for a computer consultant, $4,800 to videotape
depositions, and $15,000 he said he spent preparing the motion
asking to be paid.

Lower Merion's lawyers also challenged his motives, arguing that
most of the work was designed to win money for the Robbinses, not
to protect the district's students.

The judge brushed aside nearly all of those arguments. He noted
that neither side took issue with Mr. Haltzman's $425 hourly fee,
and concluded that much of the other costs he had submitted were
reasonable expenses to investigate the claims and seek a broad
injunction.

He did, however, find that Mr. Haltzman's costs for preparing his
fee motion were a bit too steep. He sliced the $15,000 down to
$10,000.

The judge also said Mr. Haltzman at this point is entitled to
collect only fees and expenses incurred up to the May 14
injunction, and cannot submit the rest of his bills until Judge
DuBois enters a final injunction.

The order did not include a bottom-line figure, but it instructed
the sides to agree on a sum. Mr. Haltzman said that should be
about $260,000.

In a statement, a spokesman for the school district said officials
believed the judge "gave only fleeting consideration" to their
arguments and repeated that Mr. Haltzman did not deserve to be
paid.

"We believe that the Robbinses' attorney has protracted this
matter, increasing costs to taxpayers," said the statement from
spokesman Doug Young.

Mr. Haltzman said Judge DuBois' order validated the "valuable
service" his firm provided and repudiated the district's case
against him.

"They went after us and everybody and used it as a shot to attack
us," Mr. Haltzman said. "And at the end of the day, not a single
one of their arguments was bought by the court."

Mr. Haltzman can be reached at:

     Mark Haltzman, Esq.
     LAMM RUBENSTONE LLC
     3600 Horizon Boulevard, Suite 200
     Trevose, PA 19053
     Telephone: (215) 638-9330
     Facsimile: (215) 638-2867
     E-mail: mhaltzman@lammrubenstone.com


LSB CORP: Continues Defense of Class Suit Over River Bank Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
LSB Corporation remains a defendant in a putative class action
arising from its proposed merger with River Bank, 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 July 27, 2010, George Assad, Jr., an alleged stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action allegedly on behalf of all
Company stockholders in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Essex
County, against the Company, River Bank, the Company's board of
Directors, People's United Financial, Inc., People's United Bank,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of People's United, and Bridgeport
Merger Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of People's United.
The case is captioned George Assad, Jr. v. LSB Corporation et al.,
Civ. Act. No. 2010-1616.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by approving the agreement
and plan of merger, dated as of July 15, 2010, by and among the
Company, River Bank, People's United, People's United Bank and
Bridgeport Merger Corporation, because, plaintiff alleges, the
proposed merger would deny Company stockholders the right to share
proportionately in the value of the Company's ongoing business and
future growth, the merger consideration of $21.00 per share is
inadequate, the merger agreement's termination fee and no
solicitation provisions discourage bids from other sources and the
transaction unfairly benefits the Company's board of directors and
chief executive officer to the disadvantage of its stockholders.

The complaint also alleges that People's United Bank and
Bridgeport Merger Corporation aided and abetted the Company's
breach of fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks an order
preliminarily and permanently enjoining the defendants from
consummating, or closing the merger; in the event that the merger
is consummated, an order rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages; an accounting; and attorneys fees and
costs.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action.


MATHSTAR INC: Court Dismisses Complaint Against Tiberius Capital
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota granted MathStar, Inc., Perkins Capital
Management, Inc., Richard C. Perkins, Merrill A. McPeak, Benno G.
Sand, Feltl and Company, Inc., John C. Feltl, Joseph P. Sullivan,
and Sajan, Inc.'s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of their
Complaint.

In October, 2009, Tiberius Capital II, LLC, sent MathStar's
counsel a draft of a class action complaint alleging violations of
federal securities laws and state law in Tiberius's failed bid to
takeover MathStar.  In response, Plaintiffs filed an action for a
declaratory judgment that Tiberius's claims were meritless.
Tiberius answered and asserted its counterclaims.  Plaintiffs then
moved to dismiss Tiberius's counterclaims.  By Order dated
April 26, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motions to dismiss
the counterclaims.  On May 25, 2010, Plaintiffs moved under Rule
41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for voluntary
dismissal of their declaratory judgment complaint.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100830890


MICHIGAN: Five Communities Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Favot at The News Herald reports five communities are named
in a class action lawsuit requesting compensation for flooded
residences.

Hundreds of Wayne County residents with damaged houses from a June
5-6 flooding are filing the suits against Allen Park, Dearborn,
Dearborn Heights, Garden City and Westland, according to a press
release from the law firm Macuga, Liddle and Dublin of Detroit,
which is representing the plaintiffs.

The release states residents reported damages in excess of
$50,000.


MISSOURI TITLE: Mo. Supreme Court Reverses Order Severing Waiver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Brewer borrowed $2,215 from Missouri Title Loans. She
signed a loan agreement, promissory note and security agreement.
Ms. Brewer filed a class action petition against Missouri Title
Loans alleging violations of numerous statutes, including the
Missouri merchandising practices act. Missouri Title Loans filed a
motion to dismiss or to stay the claims and to compel Brewer to
arbitrate her claims individually. The trial court entered a
judgment finding the class arbitration waiver in the loan
agreement unconscionable and unenforceable. The court ordered the
claim to proceed to arbitration to determine whether it was
suitable for class arbitration. Missouri Title Loans appealed the
order.

The Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc, affirmed the judgment
finding the class arbitration waiver unconscionable but reversed
to the extent that it severs the class arbitration waiver and
requires an arbitrator to determine the propriety of class
arbitration.  The Supreme Court noted that given the federal
arbitration act's prohibition of class arbitration under the facts
of the case and the fact that the unconscionable aspects of the
arbitration contract are a result of the class arbitration waiver,
the appropriate remedy is to strike the arbitration agreement in
its entirety.  The case is remanded.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inmoco20100831388

Matthew Hathaway at St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the
court's 4-3 ruling could have broad impact on cases involving pre-
dispute, mandatory arbitration, according to consumer law experts.

"This opinion takes consumers arbitration (agreements) head-on for
they are -- shackles on the consumer," said Dale Irwin, a consumer
protection lawyer in Kansas City. He has testified as an expert
witness on behalf of the Missouri Title Loan customers, saying
they would have virtually no chance of hiring lawyers like himself
for individual arbitration cases.

That is because, often, individual claims amount to less than
$5,000, and lawyers are reluctant to take low-dollar cases into
individual arbitration.

Yet individual arbitration was the only option allowed under
Missouri Title Loans' contracts.

The company's loan agreements specifically prohibited class
arbitration. Like class-action suits in court, class arbitration
encourages lawyers to take small-dollar cases because clients can
be bundled into large groups.

Lawyers representing consumers can put more resources into the
case, because there is a bigger payoff if they win.

In 2008, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge David Dowd prevented
borrowers from suing Missouri Title Loans, but he also invalidated
the loan agreements' ban on class arbitration.

An appeals court upheld that ruling, and Missouri Title Loans took
the case to the Supreme Court.

Because the arbitration agreement was thrown out altogether, the
case likely will return to the courts to move forward as a class-
action suit.

John Campbell, the lawyer representing borrowers, said in July
that as many as 10,000 Missouri consumers could join as plaintiffs
in the case if it were allowed to move forward.

Michael Greenfield, a professor of contracts and consumer law at
Washington University, said that underlying the opinion is the
belief that consumers in arbitration cases should be represented
by a lawyer, even if they don't have to be.

"The business is going to show up with an attorney," he said. "If
the consumer shows up without an attorney, he's at a serious
disadvantage."

Borrowers accuse Missouri Title Loans of charging excessive
interest and fees, and not following Missouri's Title Loan Law.
The high court did not rule on those allegations.


MISTRAS GROUP: Agrees to Mediation in "Quiroz" & "Ballard" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc., has agreed to mediation in a purported class
action lawsuit styled as Quiroz v. Mistras Group, Inc., filed in
California, according to the company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31,
2010.

The Company is a defendant in two related purported class action
lawsuits in California, based upon violations of California labor
and employment law.  The first case, Quiroz v. Mistras Group,
Inc., et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California
(Case No. CV09-7146 PSG), was originally filed in California State
court in September 2009, and was removed to Federal Court. This
matter was a purported class action case on behalf of existing and
former California employees of the Company and its subsidiaries
for violation of various labor and employment laws, primarily for
failure to pay wages timely and for having defective wage
statements, as well as other claims, and is seeking penalties
under the California Private Attorneys General Act.

In March 2010, the plaintiff's request to certify the case as a
class action suit was denied.  The Plaintiffs have sought to
remand the case back to California State Court, but the Federal
Court has retained jurisdiction.

The second case is Ballard v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al, U.S.
District Court, Central District of California (Case No. 2:10-cv-
03186 (PSG)), filed in late March 2010 in California State Court
and removed to Federal court. This matter is also a purported
class action case, based on substantially identical claims as the
Quiroz case, and was filed by the same attorney representing the
plaintiff in the Quiroz case, approximately two weeks after class
action certification was denied in Quiroz. The plaintiff is
attempting to remand this case back to California State Court and
is seeking class action certification.

The Company has agreed to mediation for the Quiroz and Ballard
cases together, which is currently scheduled for September 2010.
The Company and the plaintiffs in Quiroz and Ballard, with the
Judge's approval, have delayed all further hearings on motions and
other matters until after the mediation.


MONTREAL INSTITUTE: Religious Order Faces Potential Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shuyee Lee at CJAD reports a request for a class action lawsuit
has been filed alleging sexual abuse at the hands of priests at
the former Montreal Institute of the Deaf and the Mute.

Serge D'arcy wants to sue the Institut et la Congregation des
Clercs de Saint-Viateur de Montreal, the religious order which was
running the institution he was attending between 1964 and 1972.
The lawsuit targets alleged acts between 1967 and 1982.  Mr.
D'arcy was between 9 and 15 at the time. He alleges that it
started a year after he arrived at the institute, accusing priests
who worked and taught there.

The lawsuit is claiming $600,000 in damages for Mr. D'arcy but the
global amount could go up to millions, because the lawsuit is
claiming $100,000 in moral damages for each of the alleged
victims, plus compensation. Serge D'arcy's lawyer Pierre Boivin
says there are many alleged victims.

The lawsuit details acts of alleged fellatio, sexual touching and
masturbation on little deaf and mute boys.

Mr. D'arcy says it caused him feelings of fear, shame and anguish.
He says it feels like he's been keeping a deep secret out of fear
that he'd be judged and he didn't know how to complain or to whom.


NEWALLIANCE BANK: Shareholders File Suits Over First Niagara Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Krechevsky, writing for The Republican-American, reports
several shareholders have filed class action lawsuits seeking to
block the sale of New Haven-based NewAlliance Bank to First
Niagara Financial Group Inc. of Buffalo, N.Y.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, meanwhile, sent a letter
Wednesday to the chief executive officers of both banks asking
them to provide "information on and justification for their
proposed merger."

The two banks announced Aug. 19 that First Niagara would acquire
NewAlliance for $1.15 billion. The deal priced NewAlliance stock
at $14.09 per share, a 24 percent premium over the bank's closing
price the day before of $11.36.  If approved by shareholders and
state and federal regulators, the transaction would create a Top
25 U.S.bank by assets, with a combined $29 billion.

As of Wednesday, at least four separate class action lawsuits
seeking to block the merger had been filed in Superior Court in
New Haven, including one by the Southwest Ohio Regional Council of
Carpenters Pension Fund.  The suits are expected to be combined.

One of the first lawsuits was filed on behalf of shareholder
Cynthia J. Kos by Jonathan P. Whitcomb, an attorney with the
Stamford law firm of Diserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni. The
lawsuit claims the proposed merger was "negotiated and designed to
benefit the company's leadership team, who have been promised
continuing roles in the combined entity going forward."

It further states that Peyton R. Patterson, NewAlliance's
chairman, president and CEO, and "the rest of the board are
obligated by law to maximize shareholder value . . ., not to be
swayed by their 'priority' of securing long-term personal
employment to the detriment of shareholders."

Various recent published reports have stated that Patterson stands
to reap a windfall from the merger -- anywhere from $22.5 million
to $33.8 million, depending on the report -- regardless of whether
she stays or leaves.

In his letter to Patterson and John R. Koelmel, First Niagara's
president and CEO, Blumenthal states that he believes the merger
"raises significant and far-reaching legal and public policy
issues," including its effect on jobs in the state, the state's
economy, and community banking.

The letter requests information on jobs and branches that would be
lost as a result of the merger, information about consumer and
business lending practices, and "a full accounting of all
executive and shareholder compensation resulting from the merger,
as well as a justification for the payouts. . . ."

The windfall for Patterson and other bank executives brings to
stark reality concerns raised by critics in 2004, just before the
Savings Bank of Manchester and Tolland Bank combined with New
Haven Savings Bank to form New Alliance.  At the time, critics
complained that the merger's objective was to enrich the bank
executives in an eventual sale, and not to serve the community.

In an e-mailed statement, First Niagara spokeswoman Leslie Garrity
said the bank is aware of the shareholder lawsuits, but believes
they do not have "any merit." She also said the bank welcomes
Blumenthal's investigation.

"We will, of course, respond to Mr. Blumenthal's requests, and
. . . once he understands First Niagara's record of performance,
he'll clearly see the value of the proposed merger for the state
and communities that he serves," she said in the statement.

NewAlliance has 88 branches in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and
employs about 1,200 workers. All of its branches, including two in
Cheshire and one in Seymour, will be rebranded as First Niagara
locations. First Niagara has 255 branches in upstate New York and
Western and Eastern Pennsylvania.

In addition to his investigation, Mr. Blumenthal said the state
Department of Banking also is investigating the proposed merger,
and the department "may only approve bank mergers that benefit
Connecticut's economy and the public.


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Massachusetts Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., and its officers remain defendants in
a purported class action pending in Massachusetts, according to
the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A purported class action complaint was filed on March 5, 2010 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an
alleged shareholder on behalf of himself and all others who
purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock in the period
between December 14, 2009 and February 24, 2010, against the
Company and its resident and Chief Executive Officer, Harry S.
Palmin.

On April 7, 2010, Novelos and Mr. Palmin filed a motion for an
order to establish that their response to the complaint will not
be due until some time after the court appoints a lead plaintiff
and affords the lead plaintiff an opportunity to file a
consolidated and amended complaint.

On May 4, 2010, motions were filed on behalf of three different
individuals or groups, each seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff, although two of the three motions were withdrawn on
May 18, 2010.  The court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff.

The complaint claims that the Company violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged disclosures
related to the Phase 3 clinical trial for NOV-002 in non-small
cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (the Phase 3 Trial).

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intend
to defend vigorously against the allegations.

Newton, Mass.-based Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing oxidized glutathione-based compounds for the
treatment of cancer and hepatitis.


QUEST ENERGY: Reaches Settlement in Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Federman & Sherwood,
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and John E. Barbush, P.C. regarding the
Quest Securities Class Action and Derivative Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF CLASS ACTIONS AND DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT

This Notice relates to the following actions (the "Quest
Actions"):

    * Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. Quest Energy Partners, LP; Quest Energy GP,
LLC; Quest Resource Corporation; Jerry Cash; David E. Grose; David
C. Lawler; Gary Pittman; Mark Stansberry; Murrell, Hall, McIntosh
& Co., PLLP; and Eide Bailly LLP, Case No. 08-CV-936-M

    * James Jents, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. Quest Resource Corporation; Jerry Cash;
David E. Grose; and John Garrison, Case No. 08-CV-968-M

    * J. Steven Emerson; Emerson Partners; J. Steven Emerson Roth
IRA; J. Steven Emerson IRA RO II; and Emerson Family Foundation
vs. Quest Resource Corporation Inc.; Quest Energy Partners LP;
Jerry Cash; David E. Grose; and John Garrison, Case No.
5:09-cv-1226M

    * Bristol Capital Advisors and Bristol Investment Fund, LTD
vs. Quest Resource Corporation, Inc.; Jerry Cash; David E. Grose;
and John Garrison, Case No. CIV-09-932

    * James Stephens, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant
Quest Resource Corporation, Inc. vs. William H. Damon, III; Jerry
Cash; David Lawler; David E. Grose; Jaime B. Kite, Jr.; John C.
Garrison; and Jon H. Rateau and Quest Resource Corporation, Inc.,
Case No. CIV-08-1025


TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED COMMON UNITS OF QUEST ENERGY
     PARTNERS, LP (NOW NAMED "POSTROCK MIDCONTINENT PRODUCTION,
     LLC") (HEREIN REFERRED TO AS "QUEST ENERGY") DURING THE
     PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 7, 2007 THROUGH AUGUST 24, 2008,
     INCLUSIVE, ("QUEST ENERGY CLASS"), AND/OR PURCHASED COMMON
     STOCK OF QUEST RESOURCE CORPORATION (NOW NAMED "POSTROCK
     ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION") (HEREIN REFERRED TO AS "QUEST
     RESOURCE") DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 2, 2005 THROUGH
     AUGUST 25, 2008, INCLUSIVE, ("QUEST RESOURCE CLASS"), OR ARE
     SHAREHOLDERS OF POSTROCK ENERGY CORPORATION ("POSTROCK")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, that a
hearing will be held on November 29, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in room
301 before the Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange, United States
District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, 200 NW 4th
Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of
$10,100,000 (of which a total of $1,010,000 will be paid to
plaintiffs in both law suits known as Bristol Capital Advisors v.
Quest Resource Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-09-932,
(the "Bristol Capital Litigation"), and Emerson v. Quest Resource
Corp., Case No. 5:09-cv-1226M, (the "Emerson Litigation")) should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the corporate governance reforms approved by the PostRock
Energy Corporation board of directors in consideration for a full
release and dismissal with prejudice of the derivative lawsuit
known as Stephens v. Damon, et al., Case No. 08-CV-1025-M, (the
"Stephens Litigation") in addition to other pending derivative
lawsuits is fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable and adequate; (4) whether the application for an award
of attorneys' fees of one third of the Settlement amount and
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $350,000 should be
approved; and (5) whether the class actions made on behalf of the
Quest Energy Class and the Quest Resource Class, in addition to
the Bristol Capital Litigation, the Emerson Litigation, and the
Stephens Litigation, should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased common units of Quest Energy during the class
period from November 7, 2007 through August 24, 2008, inclusive,
if you purchased common stock of Quest Resource during the class
period from May 2, 2005 through and including August 25, 2008,
and/or are a current PostRock shareholder, your rights may be
affected by this Settlement.  If you are a member of the Quest
Energy Class, the Quest Resource Class and/or are a current
PostRock shareholder and have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Actions and Derivative
lawsuit and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may
obtain copies by writing to Quest Securities Litigation, c/o The
Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9657,
Dublin, OH 43017, or going to its Web site,
http://www.gardencitygroup.com/

If you are a member of the Quest Energy Class or Quest Resource
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release no later than
November 13, 2010, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
You will be bound by any judgment rendered whether or not you make
a claim.  If you desire to be excluded from the Quest Energy Class
or the Quest Resource Class you must mail your exclusion request,
post-marked no later than November 15, 2010, to The Garden City
Group, Inc.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
Request for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses
must be mailed or delivered such that it is received by each of
the following no later than November 15, 2010:

     Clerk of the Court
     U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma
     200 NW 4th Street, Room 301
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Class Counsel:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
     New York, NY 10118
     Telephone: (212) 686-1060
     Facsimile: (212) 202-3827

          - and -

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120

Derivative Counsel:

     John E. Barbush, Esq.
     JOHN E. BARBUSH, P.C.
     120 N. Robinson, Suite 2700
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Counsel for Defendants:

     Michael J. Biles, Esq.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
     300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050
     Austin, TX  78701

     Robert S. Harrell, Esq.
     FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
     1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
     Houston, TX 77010-3095

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Class Counsel:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
     New York, NY 10118
     Telephone: (212) 686-1060

          - and -

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Telephone: (405) 235-1560

A copy of the Settlement Agreement which has been filed with the
Court and related documents can be found on the Claims
Administrator's web site at http://www.gardencitygroup.com/

When Class Counsel's motions for final approval of the Settlement,
the Plan of Allocation, and request for attorneys' fees and
expenses are filed with the Court, they will be made available on
the Claims Administrator's website.  While the deadline to file
such final approval motions is 20 calendar days prior to the
November 29, 2010 final hearing, Class Counsel (while not
obligated to) anticipates filing such motions as early as 41
calendar days prior to the final hearing.  Do check the website
regularly.

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

DATED:  September 3, 2010

BY ORDER OF THE COMMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA


RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Suit Remains Stayed Pending Court Review
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno vs. Red Robin
International, Inc., remains stayed pending the outcome of
another California case before the California Supreme Court for
review, according to Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In December 2009, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno vs. Red Robin International, Inc.
The case was filed in Superior Court in Ventura County, California
and has been removed to Federal District Court for the Central
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.  Red Robin filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on
February 10, 2010.

The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to
provide rest and meal breaks or to pay compensation in lieu of
such breaks, failure to pay timely wages on termination, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful business
practices and unfair competition.

Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and special damages, restitution
for unfair competition, premium pay, penalties and wages under the
Labor Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

On March 24, 2010, the Court granted a stay of the case pending
the outcome of a California case currently pending before the
California Supreme Court for review.  That case involves similar
allegations regarding rest and meal breaks.  It is anticipated
that the California Supreme Court will provide useful guidance on
rest and meal breaks when the opinion in that case is issued.

The Company believes the Moreno suit is without merit.  Although
the Company plans to vigorously defend against this suit, it
cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it may be
required to pay damages, settlement costs, legal costs or other
amounts that may not be covered by insurance.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- http://www.redrobin.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, is a casual dining restaurant
chain focused on serving gourmet burgers.  As of Dec. 30, 2007,
the company owned and operated, or franchised 384 restaurants,
of which 249 were company-owned, 135 were operated under
franchise agreements including one restaurant that was managed
by the company under a management agreement with the franchisee.
As of Dec. 30, 2007, there were Red Robin restaurants in 40
states and two Canadian provinces.  The company's menu features
its signature product, the gourmet burger, made from beef,
chicken, veggie patties, pork, fish or turkey and serve in a
variety of recipes.  Red Robin offers a selection of toppings
for gourmet burgers, including fresh guacamole, barbeque sauce,
grilled pineapple, crispy onion straws, sauteed mushrooms, a
choice of seven different cheeses and even a fried egg.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Seeks to Include Additional Defenses
------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The St. Clair County Record, reports a
DVD rental kiosk company is asking to file new defenses in a
proposed national class action over the company's late fees.

Defendant Redbox Automated Retail Inc. filed its move to include
additional defenses Aug. 17 in the St. Clair County case.

The company claims that new information has arisen that impacts
its defense against the suit brought by lead plaintiff Laurie
Piechur.  Ms. Piechur claims the company's $25 maximum late fees
are improper and violate the law.  She proposes to lead a class
action that could include class members in California and other
states as well as claims dating back to 2002.  The suit seeks a
judgment of at least $350,000 and other relief.

Redbox has tried unsuccessfully to have the suit thrown out.

A third party, Blockbuster Inc. and its DVD kiosk partner NCR
Corp., also have moves pending to quash Ms. Piechur's discovery
requests.

The new defenses claim that Ms. Piechur, who rented five DVDs from
a Redbox kiosk under the name Laurie Fritz in July 2008, does not
have the standing to bring her case.

The company claims that although Ms. Piechur was charged the
maximum late fee for failing to return two of the DVDs she rented,
she never repaid the company.  It claims that because she never
paid the fee, she cannot bring the suit.  The company also argues
that Ms. Piechur did not attempt to mitigate her damages by
contacting its customer service department.  Redbox also claims
that Ms. Piechur's suit violates the statutes of limitations set
forth by various laws and the company's own terms of use.

Redbox has also moved for a protective order over some information
requested in the discovery process.

The suit took a trip briefly to federal court before it was
remanded to St. Clair County.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young presides.

Thomas and Peter Maag, Tom Keefe Jr. and others represent Ms.
Piechur and the proposed class.

Eric Brandfonbrener and Robert Sprague represent Redbox.

The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-562.


ROCK OF AGES: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Swenson Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rock of Ages Corporation continues to defend itself in a purported
class action lawsuit commenced by a purported shareholder,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2010.

A purported shareholder of Rock of Ages has commenced a purported
class action lawsuit against Rock of Ages, all of the members of
its Board of Directors and certain officers, and Swenson Granite
Company, LLC, in connection with the acquisition proposal
submitted by Swenson on May 6, 2010, to Rock of Ages' Board of
Directors.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the directors and
named officer defendants of Rock of Ages breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Swenson proposal, that Swenson's
proposed offer is inadequate, and that the persons constituting a
group with Swenson with respect to the Swenson proposal, including
Rock of Ages' controlling shareholders, would benefit from the
proposed transaction to the detriment of Rock of Ages' other
shareholders.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages
and injunctive relief against the consummation of the transaction
proposed by Swenson.

Rock of Ages believes the complaint is without merit and is
engaged in a vigorous defense.

Rock of Ages -- http://www.RockofAges.com/-- is the largest
integrated granite quarrier and manufacturer of finished granite
memorials and granite blocks for memorial use in North America.


ROUTE 22: NJ Superior Court Affirms Decertification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2001, plaintiff Mary L. Walker purchased a new 2002
Nissan from defendant Route 22 Nissan, Inc.  She filed a class
action suit against defendant and other car dealerships claiming
that they had committed regulatory violations contrary to the
Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20, and the Truth-
in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.J.S.A.
56:12-14 to -18.

At the time plaintiff filed the suit, defendant was also named in
a similar class action suit filed in Bergen County. Although
plaintiff was included within that class, she decided to opt out
of it and to proceed individually against defendant. Thus,
although the trial court initially certified the class, it later
decertified it after the Bergen County matter settled.

Ultimately, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment in the action before us, finding that defendant had
violated the CFA and the TCCWNA; the court awarded plaintiff
$654.50 in damages, $99,252.50 in attorney's fees, and $5431.14 in
costs.

Defendant now appeals challenging the trial court's ruling in all
respects.  Plaintiff cross-appeals from the court's decision to
decertify the class.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the
trial court's ruling as to liability and its decision to decertify
the class.  The Superior Court reversed and vacated the award of
counsel fees, however, and remand for the court to reconsider the
amount of counsel fees plaintiff is entitled to under prevailing
legal standards.

A copy of the court's opinion in available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innjco20100831410


SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Commences Monopoly Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation is facing a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations
of antitrust laws, 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 June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust
law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for
flash memory products.

The lawsuit, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, Case No. 5:10-cv-02787-HRL, purports to be on
behalf of purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company
and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006
through the present.

The Complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this
action and intends to pursue its defenses vigorously.

SanDisk Corporation is engaged in designing, developing and
manufacturing data storage solutions in a range of form factors
using the flash memory, controller and firmware technologies.


SANDISK CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Class Certification Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an antitrust class action, which named SanDisk
Corporation as co-defendant, have asked the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California for leave to file a motion
for reconsideration of the Court's April 15, 2010, order denying
certification, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 4, 2010.

Between August 31, 2007, and December 14, 2007, the Company (along
with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was
sued in the Northern District of California, in eight purported
class action complaints.

On February 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated
into two complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one on
behalf of indirect purchasers, in the Northern District of
California in a purported class action captioned In re Flash
Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086.

Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other manufacturers
of flash memory and flash memory products conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of NANDflash memory in violation
of state and federal laws.  They sought an injunction, damages,
restitution, fees, costs, and disgorgement of profits.

The direct purchaser lawsuit was recently dismissed with
prejudice.

On April 15, 2010, the Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' class certification motion, denied plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to
substitute certain class representatives, and dismissed the claims
on behalf of South Dakota purchasers with prejudice.

Indirect purchaser plaintiffs have moved for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of that decision.

SanDisk Corporation is engaged in designing, developing and
manufacturing data storage solutions in a range of form factors
using the flash memory, controller and firmware technologies.


SPARK NETWORKS: Gets Dismissed From "Great Hill Buyout" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc., was dismissed from a class action lawsuit
arising out of a proposal by Great Hill Partners III, LP, to
purchase all of the shares of the company it does not already own,
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 March 24, 2010, Mike Shaffer initiated a class action lawsuit
against the company, Adam Berger, Michael Kumin, Jonathan
Bulkeley, Benjamin Derhy, Thomas G. Stockham, Great Hill Partners,
LLC and Great Hill Equity Partners III, LP in the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging breach of fiduciary
duty.  The action arises out of the proposal by Great Hill
Partners, LP, to purchase all of the shares of Sparks Networks,
Inc. that it does not already own.

The action was dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice on
June 18, 2010.

Spark Networks, Inc. -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a provider of
online personals services in the United States and
internationally.  The Websites enable adults to meet online,
participate in a community, and form relationships.  The features
of the company's Websites include profiles, onsite e-mail
centers, real-time chat rooms, instant messaging services, and
offline singles events.  The Websites include JDate.com,
AmericanSingles.com, BlackSingles.com, and ChristianMingle.com.
It also operates several international Websites and maintains
operations in the United States and Israel.


TELENAV INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over IPO in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the common stock of TeleNav, Inc., pursuant to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its May 13, 2010, initial public offering.  The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

TeleNav provides wireless location-based services in North and
South America, Asia, and Europe. The Complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its executive officers and/or directors
violated federal securities laws by issuing material
misrepresentations to the market concerning TeleNav's business,
operations and financial prospects, thereby artificially inflating
the price of the Company's securities. Specifically, plaintiff
alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and
misleading and failed to disclose that: (a) the Company would soon
be renegotiating its contract to provide its largest customer,
Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint"), with its Sprint Navigation
application, which would result in lower overall revenues to
TeleNav; (b) Sprint's unwillingness to continue with the same
contract terms beyond December 31, 2010 would result in lower
revenues from Sprint and negatively affect TeleNav's other
wireless relationships; and (c), as a result, the foregoing would
cause TeleNav's financial results to trend adversely compared to
the trends included in the Registration Statement.

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. If you purchased TeleNav common stock pursuant to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
May 13, 2010 IPO, you have certain rights, and have 60 days from
the date of this Notice to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a
member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and
you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: 215-638-4847
                     888-638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


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


TIM HORTONS: Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion Set for Nov. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hear a motion for
summary judgment filed by Tim Hortons Inc. and certain of its
affiliates together with plaintiffs' request for class
certification, 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 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Canadian Court by two of its
franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule Foods Ltd., alleging,
generally, that the Company's Always Fresh baking system and
expansion of lunch offerings have led to lower franchisee
profitability.  The claim, which seeks class action certification
on behalf of Canadian franchisees, asserts damages of
approximately $1.95 billion.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of the putative
class in May of 2009 and the Company filed its responding
materials as well as a motion for summary judgment in November of
2009. Cross examinations on both sides' affidavits are being
scheduled.  The Court has reserved the week of November 29, 2010,
for the hearing on this matter.

Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Company's summary
judgment motion be heard following hearing and determination of
plaintiffs' motion for certification.  It was the Company's
position that the motions should be heard together.  A hearing on
plaintiffs' motion to separate the certification and summary
judgment motions was heard on May 13, 2010, and the court ruled in
favour of the Company that the two motions should be heard
together.

Both motions are now scheduled for the week of November 29, 2010,
subject to the delivery of required materials and completion of
examinations.

The Company believes the claim is frivolous and completely without
merit, and the Company intends to oppose the certification motion
and defend the claim vigorously.

Tim Hortons Inc. -- http://www.timhortons.com/-- is a Canadian
coffee shop known for its coffee and doughnuts. It was founded in
1964 in Hamilton, Ontario by Canadian hockey player Tim Horton
and Jim Charade, after an initial venture in hamburger
restaurants.


TOSHIBA CORP: Recalls 41,000 Laptops on Overheating Concerns
------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reports Toshiba Corp. is recalling 41,000
laptop computers because of concerns they could overheat where the
AC adapter plugs in, posing a burn hazard to users.

The recall order, issued by the company, the U.S. Consumer Product
Commission and Health Canada, involves the Toshiba Satellite T123,
Satellite T135D and Satellite Pro T130 models. The affected
computers were sold at electronics stores and other retailers and
online from August 2009 until last month for $600 to $800.

The company recommends that customers download its BIOS computer
software from its Web site, which it said will detect whether a
Toshiba laptop is overheating and, if needed, direct users to
contact information for a free repair.

Toshiba has received 129 reports of notebook computers overheating
and deforming the plastic casing around the AC adapter plug,
including two reports of minor burns that didn't require medical
attention and two reports of property damage.


TRANS-SIERRA: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rami Merrikh and his wife, Patricia Suda Merrikh, appealed an
order denying class certification of a cross-complaint against
Trans-Sierra Investment, Inc.

The Merrikhs operated a coffee shop by the name of Wildman Coffee
that was located in a shopping center owned by TSI at Heavenly
Village, Lake Tahoe. TSI brought a declaratory relief and breach
of contract action against the Merrikhs based upon the Merrikhs'
refusal to pay real property taxes attributable to the premises
they had leased from TSI.

The Merrikhs cross-complained on behalf of themselves and all
other current and former tenants, and sought class certification.
They alleged that TSI had collected property taxes without any
right to do so under the provisions of the lease, had improperly
charged tenants Common Area Maintenance charges for unrelated
expenses, had not complied with its obligation to advertise the
shopping center, and had not provided an accounting. They also
alleged that the tax language at issue is found in each of the
leases of the class members and therefore there is a well-defined
community of interest among the class members regarding the issue
of taxes.

Based on that allegation the trial court denied class
certification because it found the tax language ambiguous and the
resolution of the ambiguity required that the intent of each of
the lessees be ascertained by the admission of parol evidence. For
that reason the court found common issues of law and fact would
not predominate.

The Court of Appeals of California, Third District, El Dorado,
reversed the order denying certification and concluded that the
tax provisions of the lease agreement are not ambiguous because it
is not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation put forth by
the Merrikhs.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100831047


TRIAD GUARANTY: Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Phillips" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint of
James L. Phillips was scheduled for hearing on August 30, 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 6, 2009, Mr. Phillips served a complaint against Triad
Guaranty Inc., Mark K. Tonnesen and Kenneth W. Jones in the United
States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina.  The
plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between
October 26, 2006 and April 1, 2008 and the complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws by the Company and two of
its present or former officers.

The court appointed lead counsel for the plaintiff and an amended
complaint was filed on June 22, 2009.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 21, 2009 and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the
motion to dismiss on October 20, 2009.

Triad Guaranty's reply was filed on November 19, 2009.

Triad Guaranty Inc. -- http://www.triadguaranty.com/-- is a
holding Company.  Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Triad
Guaranty Insurance Corporation (Triad), the Company provided
private mortgage insurance coverage in the United States.  Triad
ceased issuing new commitments for mortgage guaranty insurance
coverage on July 15, 2008, and is operating the business in run-
off.  Triad no longer writes new mortgage insurance policies but
continues to service the existing policies.  Servicing existing
policies includes receiving premiums on policies that remain in
force; cancelling coverage at the insured's request; terminating
policies for non-payment of premium; working with borrowers in
default to remedy the default and/or mitigate the Company's loss,
and settling all legitimate filed claims per the Company's
contractual obligations.  Prior to the commencement of run-off on
July 15, 2008, the Company offered principally two products,
Primary and Modified Pool mortgage insurance.


UNITEK GLOBAL: Continues Defense of Class Action in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
UniTek Global Services, Inc., remains a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed by former employees of its affiliate,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2010.

On February 15, 2008, former employees of FTS USA, a UniTek
Holdings, Inc., subsidiary, filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
alleging violations of the FLSA related to overtime payments.

Conditional class certification was granted, and plaintiffs have
made a claim for damages of $3.2 million.

The Company does not believe these claims have merit, and it
believes the damages claim is grossly above any potential exposure
it may face in this case.  The Company intends to defend the case
vigorously.


USA: At Least 4 Law Firms Represent Disabled Workers in SSA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of disabled employees of the Social Security
Administration has secured another victory in a class action
before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  On
August 25, 2010, the EEOC Office of Federal Operations affirmed
the October 8, 2008 decision of the Administrative Judge to
certify the case as a class action.  The action alleges that the
Social Security Administration discriminates against employees
with targeted disabilities by creating a glass ceiling and
limiting promotions and other career advancement opportunities.
The certified class includes all current and former employees with
targeted disabilities at the Social Security Administration who,
on or after August 22, 2005, have applied for promotions, appeared
on a best qualified list and been denied promotion opportunities.
The class is estimated to include approximately 2,000 members, and
is represented by a consortium of law firms including Berger &
Montague, P.C., Brown Goldstein & Levy LLP, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, and Disability Rights Advocates.

"I am pleased with this ruling and hope it causes the Social
Security Administration to confront this issue head-on," says
Ronald Jantz, a deaf SSA employee and a plaintiff in the case.  "I
brought this lawsuit to bring about change necessary to ensure
that employees with targeted disabilities receive the same
promotions and career advancement opportunities as non-disabled
employees."

The EEOC defines "targeted disabilities" to include deafness,
blindness, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete
paralysis, convulsive disorders, mental retardation, mental
illness, and genetic and physical conditions affecting limbs
and/or spine.  For years, the EEOC has reported an alarming
decline in the number of people with targeted disabilities in the
federal workforce, despite the government's statutory obligation
to be a model employer.  The EEOC also reports that employees with
targeted disabilities tend to receive fewer promotions than their
peers, stagnate in grade longer than their peers, and are
compensated at lower rates than their peers.

The Social Security Administration is a federal agency that
provides financial benefits to more than 160 million workers and
their families, and pays approximately $580 billion annually to
more than 49 million Americans.  The Social Security
Administration is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland and employs
approximately 62,000 employees.

Class members or others who would like more information about the
case may contact one of the attorneys for the class:

     Shanon Carson, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: 1-800-424-6690
                215-875-4656
     Facsimile: 215-875-4604
     E-mail: scarson@bm.net

          - or -

     Dan Goldstein, Esq.
     BROWN GOLDSTEIN & LEVY LLP
     120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Telephone: 410-962-1030 ext. 1314
     Facsimile: 410-385-0869
     E-mail: dfg@browngold.com

          - or -

     Larry Paradis, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES HOME OFFICE
     2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
     Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
     Telephone: (510) 665-8644
     Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
     E-mail: lparadis@dralegal.org

          - or -

     Todd Schneider, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
     180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
     San Francisco, California 94104
     Telephone: (415) 421-7100 ext. 306
     Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

They may also refer to http://www.ssadisabilityclassaction.com/
Class members who are affiliated with the American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE) may also contact the union's attorney,
Phillip R. Kete at (202) 587-5757 or phil@ketelaborlaw.com

Case Name:  Jantz, et al. v Astrue
Agency No:  HQ062518
Hearing No: 531-2006-00276X
Appeal No:  0720090019


UTSTARCOM INC: Court Certifies Class for Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued a final judgment and order
of dismissal with prejudice in In Re UTStarcom, Inc., Securities
Litigation, No. C-04-4908-Jw(Pvt).

The Court finally certifies a Class for settlement purposes only
defined as: All Persons (other than those Persons who timely and
validly requested exclusion from the Class) who purchased
UTStarcom publicly traded securities on the open market between
February 21, 2003, through and including October 12, 2007, and
were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants
and officers and directors of UTStarcom, SoftBank Corporation,
SoftBank America, Inc. or SoftBank Holdings, Inc., as well as
their families and affiliates.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100831d97


VESTIN FUND: Court Approves Settlement of Post-Judgment Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc., Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc.
and Vestin Mortgage, Inc., have obtained final court approval of
their settlement of post-judgment rights in a class action lawsuit
in California, according to Vestin Fund III, LLC's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

VRM I, VRM II and Vestin Mortgage were defendants in a breach of
contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court in
California by certain plaintiffs who alleged, among other things,
that they were wrongfully denied roll-up rights in connection with
the merger of Fund I into VRM I. and Fund II into VRM II.  The
court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders and Fund
II unit holders who voted against the merger of Fund I into VRM I
and Fund II into VRM II.

The trial began in December 2009 and concluded in January 2010.
On February 11, 2010, the Defendants were notified of a Tentative
Statement of Decision, in their favor issued by the Superior Court
for the State of California in San Diego following a trial.  In
the Tentative Statement, the Court found that there was no roll-up
and therefore no breach of contract.

The Court entered final judgment for the Defendants on March 18,
2010.

Defendants and Plaintiffs have agreed to a post-judgment
settlement by which Plaintiffs agreed not appeal the pending
judgment in consideration of a waiver by the Defendants of any
claim to recover actual court costs from the Plaintiffs.  The
Court has granted final approval of this settlement of post-
judgment rights on July 9, 2010.


VIANDA LLC: Accused in California of Deceptive Business Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Vianda LLC and CVS Caremark
sell "Enzyte" for "natural male enhancement," at $40 a pack,
without warning it can cause heart arrhythmia and sudden death, a
class action claims in Orange County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Harris v. Vianda, LLC, et al., Case No.
30-2010-00404381 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.) (Andler, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/02/PenisDrug.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


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.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Accused in Calif. Suit of False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen falsely advertises that its Jettas come with "standard
hands-free Bluetooth mobile connectivity calling systems," a class
action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.  The class claims the
system actually requires costly rewiring.

A copy of the Complaint in Wu v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-06548 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/02/VWCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
          MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC
          1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: 949-542-3555
          E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hearing on $49 Million Settlement Is on Nov. 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you were a participant in the WaMu Savings Plan and invested
any of your 401(k) money in Washington Mutual stock at any time
between October 19, 2005 and September 26, 2008, both dates
inclusive, your rights may be affected by a proposed settlement of
a class action lawsuit.

The settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court
in Seattle.  If the settlement receives final approval, it would
resolve a lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), in connection
with the WaMu Savings Plan.  The terms of the settlement are
contained in the Class Action Settlement Agreement dated June 18,
2010, which is available at http://www.erisafraud.com/,
http://www.kellersettlements.com/, and http://www.hbsslaw.com/,
or by contacting Plaintiffs' Class Counsel at the toll-free number
or email address identified below.

The proposed settlement provides for a payment of $49 million and
other consideration to settle all claims against the defendants.
The proceeds, minus expenses described in the Settlement Agreement
(which include court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses and
service awards to the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, taxes
and other costs related to the settlement) will be allocated to
class members whose 401(k) accounts suffered losses as a result of
investing in Washington Mutual common stock.

If you qualify and the settlement is approved, you will be
entitled to receive such an allocation. You do not need to submit
a claim or take any other action unless you wish to object to the
settlement. However, if you have left the WaMu Savings Plan and
your address has changed in the interim, you should contact the
lawyers identified below and advise them of your current address.
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington authorized this Notice.

THE DISTRICT COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 3:30 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 5,
2010 TO DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING INFORMATION
ABOUT HOW TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, IS AVAILABLE ON THE
FOLLOWING WEBSITES: WWW.ERISAFRAUD.COM, WWW.KELLERSETTLEMENTS.COM,
AND WWW.HBSSLAW.COM. IN ADDITION, THE LAWYERS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
HAVE ESTABLISHED A TOLL-FREE NUMBER, (800) 269-0794, AND EMAIL
ADDRESS, INFO@WAMU401KSETTLEMENT.COM, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE SETTLEMENT.

Please direct questions to Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, and not to
the District Court.

DATED: August 6, 2010

By Order of the Court

Contact:

     Andrew M. Volk, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: 206-268-9371
     E-mail: andrew@hbsslaw.com

          - or -

     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Telephone: 206-224-7562
     Facsimile: 206-623-3384
     E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com


WELLS REAL: Trial Date in Georgia Class Action Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., is awaiting the trial
date in a class action lawsuit pending in Georgia, according to
Wells Timberland REIT, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Wells Real Estate Investment Trust is an affiliate of Wells
Timberland REIT.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc. f/k/a Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Piedmont
REIT), filed a putative class action and derivative complaint,
styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities
Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III,
the Company's President; Wells Capital, the owner of the company's
advisor; Wells Management Company, Inc. (Wells Management);
certain affiliates of Wells REF; the directors of Piedmont REIT;
and certain individuals who formerly served as officers or
directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of an
internalization transaction by Piedmont REIT on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as
amended.  The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT
internalization transaction.

On April 9, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for an order enjoining the internalization transaction.  On
April 17, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in the
Northern District of Georgia on April 24, 2007. On June 7, 2007,
the Court granted a motion to designate the class lead plaintiff
and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.  On July 9, 2007, the Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery related to
an anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction.

On August 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court
dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in
their entirety.  The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with
the exception of allegations regarding the failure to disclose in
the Piedmont REIT proxy statement details of certain expressions
of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT.

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

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

The petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30,
2009.  On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend
the second amended complaint to add additional defendants. The
Court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23,
2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment. On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.

A trial date has not been set.  Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and
Wells Management believe that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend this
action.  Any financial loss incurred by Wells Capital or its
affiliates, including the Company's advisor, could hinder the
Company's advisor's ability to successfully manage its operations
and portfolio of investments.


WET SEAL: Final Hearing for $300,000 Settlement Set in September
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of a $300,000 settlement
resolving a suit where The Wet Seal, Inc., is a named defendant is
set for September 2010, according to the company's Aug. 31, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On July 19, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
certain of the company's current and former employees that were
employed and paid by the company on an hourly basis during the
four-year period from July 19, 2002 through July 19, 2006.

The company was named as a defendant.

The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the company reached an agreement to pay
approximately $300,000 to settle this matter, subject to Superior
Court approval.

On May 18, 2007, the Superior Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court issued its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement, subject to appeal.

On April 28, 2008, a notice of appeal of the judgment was filed.

On May 6, 2009, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the
Superior Court to re-evaluate the fairness of the settlement, and
a final hearing will take place in September 2010.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


WET SEAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for October 8
-------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, has set an Oct. 8, 2010, hearing on the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in a complaint against The Wet Seal, Inc.,
according to the company's Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2010.

On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed on behalf of certain of the
company's current and former employees who were employed and paid
by the company from May 22, 2003 through the present.  The company
was named as a defendant.

The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

Discovery is ongoing and Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification in July 2010.

The company's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion is due on Sept. 24,
2010, and the hearing is scheduled for Oct. 8, 2010.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


WET SEAL: Discovery in San Francisco Employees' Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a complaint against The Wet Seal, Inc.,
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Francisco.

On Sept. 29, 2008, a complaint was filed on behalf of certain of
the company's current and former employees who were employed and
paid by the company from Sept. 29, 2004 through the present.  The
company was named as a defendant.

The complaint alleges various violations under the State of
California Labor Code and the State of California Business and
Professions Code.  Plaintiffs recently filed an amended complaint,
and the company filed a motion to strike positions of the third
amended complaint on or about Feb. 16, 2010, which was held in
abeyance.

The case has been transferred to the complex panel of the San
Francisco Superior Court for case management purposes.

No class certification motion filing deadline has been set by the
court, and discovery is ongoing.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2010.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


WET SEAL: Pays Preliminary Amount Under Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc., has paid the preliminary settlement amount
under an agreement entered into with the plaintiffs, according to
the company's Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2010.

On March 18, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of
certain of the company's current and former employees that were
employed and paid by the company from March 18, 2005, through
March 18, 2009.  The company was named as a defendant.

The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

On Oct. 23, 2009, the company reached an agreement to pay
approximately $200,000 to settle this matter, subject to Superior
Court approval.

The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and set a
final approval hearing for Sept. 2, 2010.  The Company paid the
preliminary settlement amount in August 2010.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of Feb. 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


XFONE INC: Parties Negotiate on Scope of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Xfone, Inc.'s subsidiary, Xfone 018 Ltd., and the petitioners of a
class action complaint against Xfone 018 are currently attempting
to reach an understanding regarding the scope of the Class Action
Request, according to Xfone, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur, et al., filed a request to
approve a claim as a class action against Xfone 018 Ltd., the
Company's 69% owned Israel based subsidiary, and four other
Israeli telecom companies, all of which are entities unrelated to
the Company, in the District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel.

The Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully
fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of
telephone calls by consumers to the Defendants' respective
technical support numbers. One of the Petitioners seeks damages
for the cost those telephone calls allegedly made by him during
the 5.5-year period preceding the filing of the Class Action
Request, which he assessed at NIS 54.45 (approximately $15).

The Class Action Request, to the extent it pertains to Xfone 018,
states total damages of NIS 7,500,000 (approximately $2,000,000)
which reflects the Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to
all consumers that allegedly called Xfone 018's technical support
number during a certain period defined in the Class Action
Request.

A court hearing with respect to the approval or disapproval of the
Class Action Request has been scheduled for September 19, 2010.

Xfone 018 and the Petitioners are currently attempting to reach an
understanding regarding the scope of the Class Action Request and
its justification, if any.  The matter is pending and Xfone 018
intends to vigorously defend the Class Action Request, the company
said.

Xfone, Inc. -- http://www.xfone.com/-- is a holding and managing
company providing international voice, video, and data
communications services with operations in the United States, the
United Kingdom, and Israel offering a range of services, which
includes local, long distance and international telephony
services; video; prepaid and postpaid calling cards; cellular
services; Internet services; messaging services (Email/Fax
Broadcast, Email2Fax and Cyber-Number); and reselling
opportunities.


XO HOLDINGS: Delaware Court Dismisses "Hillenmeyer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a class action complaint
filed by a shareholder of XO Holdings, Inc., according to the
company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On July 21, 2009, an XOH shareholder, Don Hillenmeyer, filed under
seal in the Delaware Court of Chancery a Complaint titled
"Verified Derivative and Class Action Complaint." On August 6,
2009, XOH filed a redacted version of the Complaint in the
Chancery Court. The Complaint names as defendants individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors and ACF Holding, an
entity controlled by Carl C. Icahn, the Chairman of our Board of
Directors and majority shareholder, and names XOH as the nominal
defendant. The Complaint challenges, among other things, ACF
Holding's then-recent proposal to acquire all of the outstanding
XOH common shares which it does not already own, and alleges
various breaches of fiduciary duties. The parties have entered
into a Stipulation and Order Extending Time to Answer and agreed
to stay proceeding with the case until Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint.

On December 15, 2009, based on plaintiff's motion, the court
entered an order dismissing that portion of the suit that sought
to enjoin ACF Industries Holding Corp.'s July 9, 2009 proposal to
acquire all of the shares of XO common stock that ACF and its
affiliates did not already own.

On January 7, 2010 the Defendants filed a motion to stay or
dismiss the remaining portion of the suit in favor of the NY
litigation (R-2 v. Icahn et al). On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint. On February 18, 2010, Defendants filed
a supporting brief for its motion to dismiss.

On May 28, 2010, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice.

XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is the holding company
of XO Communications, LLC (XOC) and Nextlink Wireless, Inc.
(Nextlink).  XO Communications is a leading provider of 21st
century communications services for businesses and communications
services providers, including 50 percent of the Fortune 500 and
leading cable companies, carriers, content providers and mobile
operators.  Nextlink, whose services going forward have been
integrated into XOC's Carrier Services business unit, has
historically provided alternative access, backhaul and diverse
network solutions and services for the carrier, business and
government markets.


XO HOLDINGS: "Zheng" Class Action Is Under Consideration
--------------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., says the class action lawsuit filed by Youlu
Zheng in New York is still under consideration.

On June 3, 2010, Youlu Zheng filed a class action complaint in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
alleging that the Chairman of the Board and controlling
shareholder of XO Holdings, Inc., and other individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties in connection with the financing
transaction consummated in July 2008 and other related matters.

The plaintiffs request that the court rescind the July 2008
financing transaction, award compensatory damages to the class of
plaintiffs, award the plaintiff expenses, costs and attorneys'
fees, and impose a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff
and the class upon benefits improperly received by the defendants.

According to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, the
case is under consideration and its effect on the Company, if any,
is not known at this time.

XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is the holding company
of XO Communications, LLC (XOC) and Nextlink Wireless, Inc.
(Nextlink).  XO Communications is a leading provider of 21st
century communications services for businesses and communications
services providers, including 50 percent of the Fortune 500 and
leading cable companies, carriers, content providers and mobile
operators.  Nextlink, whose services going forward have been
integrated into XOC's Carrier Services business unit, has
historically provided alternative access, backhaul and diverse
network solutions and services for the carrier, business and
government markets.


ZUMIEZ INC: Increases Class Suit Settlement to $2.1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) reports Zumiez, Inc.,
has increased the settlement cost of a California class action
regarding overtime pay and meal breaks to $2.1 million from $1.3
million reported last month.

The Everett-based youth apparel retailer, in a Securities and
Exchange Commission filing, said "the lawsuit is similar to
numerous lawsuits filed against retailers and others with
operations in California.  Although the company believes that the
allegations in the lawsuit lack merit, it has agreed to a
mediator's proposal to settle the claims in the lawsuit to avoid
significant legal fees, other expenses and management time that
would have to be devoted to protracted litigation."

Because of the settlement increase, Zumiez said it's increasing
its operating loss from last quarter to $2.4 million from $2.1
million; it's reporting a net loss for the quarter of $1.2 million
and reducing its diluted earnings per share by 4 cents.

                           *********

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  * * *