CAR_Public/110801.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 150

                             Headlines

APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Lease Suit May Turn Into Class Action
AT&T INC: Deceives Consumers by Overcharging Them, Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Antitrust Laws Violation Suit in Calif.
CASH STORE: Class Action Settlement Drags Profits Down
CHINA FIRE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action

CHINA SECURITY: Aug. 16 Hearing in Merger-Related Suits Set
EBAY INC: Continues to Face Suits Over PayPal Business
EBAY INC: Gets Favorable Judgment in Antitrust Suit in May 2011
EBAY INC: StubHub's Appeal in Ticket Resale Suit Pending
EVANS TIRE: Faces Class Action Over Waste Tire Disposal Fee

HONEYWELL INT'L: To Seek OK of $23.8M Deal in "Allen" Suit in 3Q
HONEYWELL INT'L: Witness in MDL Guilty of Lying to Investigators
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
KINETICS CONCEPTS: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims
KOHLER CO: Recalls 100 Shower Doors Due to Laceration Hazard

LEGALZOOM.COM: Aug. 22 Trial Set for Missouri Class Action
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Judge Sustains Securities Class Action Claims
MAYTAG CORP: Whirlpool Can Change Retirees' Benefits
MINDRAY MEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Action
NESTLE WATERS: Faces Class Action Over Leaky Water Bottles

NEWS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
NOTEWORLD LLC: Sued Over Exorbitant Debt Relief Fees
ORION ENERGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Concluded in April
PRIME-LINE: Recalls 37,000 Child Safety Latches & Outlet Covers
PRIME-LINE PRODUCTS: Recalls 8,000 Child Bathtub Non-Slip Pads

UNION BANK: Debit-Card Overdraft Suit Gets Class-Action Status
UNION PACIFIC: Wal-Mart Case Ruling to Impact Antitrust Suits
UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: "Snellink" Suit Pending in New Jersey
U.S. PHARMACIES: 4th Cir. Won't Review Drug-Pricing Suit Ruling
YAHOO: August 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set




                             *********

APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Lease Suit May Turn Into Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Albert, writing for The Daily Iowan, reports that an
ex-tenant's lawsuit against Apartments Downtown Inc., may still be
argued in district court.

The possibility follows a hearing on July 26, in which attorneys
from both sides made their claims and counterclaims on whether the
case qualifies for class-action status.

The suit, originally filed in December 2010, alleges that numerous
facets of the company's current and previous leases contain
illegal clauses.

"The case is perfect for the class-action vehicle," said
Christopher Warnock, the attorney representing four plaintiffs,
before an audience of approximately 15.  "Many of the tenants are
University of Iowa students, they're inexperienced, they're young,
and they don't often know their rights."

If argued in small-claims court, each case would be handled
individually.

To be deemed a class-action case, there must be at least 40
members of the class with claims totaling more than $5,000, and
all members must be wronged in an identical manner.

Though no tenant faced charges of more than $5,000, Mr. Warnock
argued precedent shows any number of individuals who were
identically wronged can pool their charges, thus pushing the total
"well beyond" the threshold.

He said the tenants were wronged because they all signed the same
illegal contract -- whether the illegalities were willful and
enforced or not.

Specifically, he cited four indemnity clauses that free the
landlord from paying for certain types of damages.

"If you look into state statutes, it says very clearly that
indemnity clauses are not allowed," Mr. Warnock said.  "Well,
they've got four indemnity clauses blatantly right in their lease,
though they say there are none."

James Affeldt, an attorney with the Elderkin and Pirnie law firm
in Cedar Rapids -- jaffeldt@ElderkinPirnie.com -- and the legal
representative of Apartments Downtown, argued the issue is
actually about whether the clauses were willfully and knowingly
written into the leases -- something he said Mr. Warnock failed to
prove.

"They were not forced to sign," Mr. Affeldt said.  "No tenant is
saying they didn't read it. No tenant is saying they didn't
understand.  These cases can be taken care of in small-claims
court, and that's where it should go."

After two hours of presentations, the judge said there was not
enough information to make a decision either way, recommending the
case continue with a declaratory judgment.

Attorneys with each side of the case will meet on their own to
discuss the best way to continue with the case before reconvening
before a judge.

Mr. Warnock said he was happy with the judge's decision.

"If this declaratory judgment deems the Apartments Downtown leases
to be illegal, we're looking at a great chance of moving this
forward into class-action territory," he said.

A declaratory judgment will determine if an active contract -- in
this case the Apartments Downtown leases -- are legal.

The plaintiff's other issues include charges for common-area
damage and automatic cleaning charges -- something spectators in
the room said they were familiar with.

Christopher Copeland, a 23-year-old UI graduate, said he came to
watch because he lost $500 of a $1,450 deposit.  He supports the
case.

"There was a crack in my door's lockplate," Mr. Copeland said.
"They billed me more than $250.  That's technically public area,
so it's an illegal charge.  Who knows what they'll bill me for
this time?"

One UI student's mother, Kris Albert, said daughter Mara was also
on the receiving end of an egregious billing charge -- which drew
her to the hearing.

"Apartments Downtown says if damage is done in a common area and
they can't find out who did it, the tenants will be billed for
it," Ms. Albert said.  "Well, my daughter -- I know it wasn't
smart -- confronted an intruder who broke down her door and got
his ID.  She went to the police and the landlords with this
information, and she still got charged."

Mr. Warnock said though he hasn't met a single student happy with
her or his Apartments Downtown experience, he said his goal isn't
to put it out of business.

"We're not seeking a million-dollar settlement or something like
that," he said.  "We just want these landlords to change their
business practices and follow the law.  It's that simple."


AT&T INC: Deceives Consumers by Overcharging Them, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Sherman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., a Delaware corporation; AT&T
Teleholdings, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Midwest, a Delaware corporation;
and, SBC Internet Services, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Internet Services, a
California corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-26265 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., July 26, 2011) is seeking to stop the Defendants'
unlawful practice of systematically overcharging consumers for
residential Internet service.

The Plaintiff alleges that AT&T advertises many promotional plans
at reduced rates for residential Internet service and then bills
those who sign up for the promotions at the standard higher rates.

AT&T offered Internet service for $19.95 a month for a year, then
charged $40 a month, customers claim in Cook County Court,
Courthouse News Service reports.

Mr. Sherman is a resident of Chicago, Illinois.

AT&T Inc. is a publicly traded holding company.  AT&T Midwest and
AT&T Internet Services are operating subsidiaries of AT&T Inc.

A copy of the Complaint in Sherman v. AT&T Inc., et al., Case No.
11CH26265 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/AT&T.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq.
          ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
          10 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 462-4922
          Facsimile: (312) 462-4923
          E-mail: mja@aschenbrenerlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Antitrust Laws Violation Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
East Bay Housing & Finance Agency, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A.; UBS AG; UBS
Financial Services, Inc.; UBS Securities, LLC; J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.; Morgan Stanley; Piper Jaffray &
Co.; Societe Generale SA; Wachovia Bank, N.A.; Wells Fargo &
Company; National Westminster Bank, PLC; Natixis Funding Corp.;
Natixis S.A.; CDR Financial Products, Inc.; George K. Baum & Co.;
Sound Capital Management, Inc.; and Investment Management Advisory
Group, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-03651 (N.D. Calif., July 26, 2011)
alleges that the Defendants for violated the California antitrust
laws, the California False Claims Act, and the United States
antitrust laws.

The Agency alleges a conspiracy among the Defendants and certain
named and unnamed co-conspirators, to fix, maintain or stabilize
the price of, and to rig bids and allocate customers and markets
for, municipal derivatives sold in the United States and its
territories.  The Agency contends that the lawsuit arises out of
an illegal agreement, understanding, and conspiracy among
providers and brokers of Municipal Derivatives not to compete and
to rig bids for Municipal Derivatives sold to issuers of Municipal
Bonds.

The Agency is a California nonprofit, public-benefit corporation,
which runs a Lease-Purchase program so that moderate-income
homebuyers who do not have funds for a down payment and some
credit problems may purchase homes within the participating
jurisdictions.  In 2000, the Agency purchased Municipal
Derivatives, including from certain Provider Defendants pursuant
to a competitive bidding process overseen by certain Broker
Defendants.

The Provider Defendants issued and sold Municipal Derivatives to
members of the Class during the Class Period.  The Provider
Defendants are Bank of America, Natixis Funding, Bear Stearns, JP
Morgan, Morgan Stanley, NatWest, Piper Jaffray, Societe Generale,
UBS, UBS Financial, Wachovia and Wells Fargo.  The Broker
Defendants acted as brokers for members of the Class in purchasing
Municipal Derivatives from the Provider Defendants.  The Broker
Defendants are Natixis Funding, Investment Management, CDR, Baum,
and Sound Capital.  The Plaintiff also names numerous co-
conspirators, including co-conspirator AIG Financial Products
Corp. and SunAmerica Life Assurance Co.

The Agency is represented by:

          Scott G. Emblidge, Esq.
          Sylvia M. Sokol, Esq.
          MOSCONE EMBLIDGE & SATER LLP
          220 Montgomery Street
          Mills Tower, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 362-3599
          Facsimile: (415) 362-2006
          E-mail: emblidge@mesllp.com
                  sokol@mesllp.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  jsaveri@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com

               - and -

          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com


CASH STORE: Class Action Settlement Drags Profits Down
------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that payday loan provider Cash Store
Financial Services Inc. has cited expenses related to a class
action settlement as well as higher taxes for a major decrease in
its fiscal 2011 third-quarter profit.

The company, which provides short-term advances and other
financial services to income-earning consumers who may not be able
to obtain them from traditional banks, said profits dropped to
C$1.15 million, or seven cents per diluted share, in the three
months ended June 30.

That compared with earnings of C$5.5 million or 31 cents per share
in the same 2010 period.

Revenue rose to C$49.7 million from C$47.3 million.

Cash Store said diluted earnings per share before class action
settlement costs related to broker fees in British Columbia and
related taxes were 19 cents compared with 31 cents in the same
quarter last year.

Meanwhile, the company's effective tax rate was 46.9% in the three
months ended June 30 compared with 32.8% for the same period last
year.

"The effective tax rate is higher than the statutory tax rate of
28.6% due to a provision for certain prior-year income matters,"
the company said in a release.

"Third-quarter overall revenue was up relative to the same period
last year, with particularly strong performance achieved in the
other revenue category, which has been an area of priority
strategic focus for management," said chairman and CEO Gordon
Reykdal.

"Earnings were strong but decreased relative to the same period
last year due to rate caps in regulated provinces and an increased
drag on earnings due to the addition of 57 new branches over the
past 12 months."

Mr. Reykdal said the company anticipates earnings will increase as
newer branches mature and loan volumes and revenues from other
products continue to increase."


CHINA FIRE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on July 27 disclosed that
it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of the public
shareholders of China Fire & Security Group, Inc. against the
Company and its Board of Directors for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed acquisition of China Fire by
affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, LLC.  The case is styled as
Tessitore v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc., C.A. No. 11-CV-
61580-WPD (S.D. Fla.).

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/ChinaFire-CFSG

The Complaint arises out of a May 20, 2011 press release
announcing the Company had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Bain Capital, pursuant to which China Fire
shareholders will receive $9.00 per share in cash for each share
of China Fire common stock they own or approximately $265.5
million in the aggregate.

The Complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with Proposed Transaction, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.
In addition, the Complaint further alleges, in an attempt to
secure shareholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, the
defendants filed a materially misleading Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The omitted and/or
misrepresented information is believed to be material in assisting
China Fire shareholders in making an informed decision whether or
not to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all China Fire
shareholders as of May 20, 2011.  The plaintiff is represented by
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from July 27.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director
          Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (888) 969-4242
                     302-295-5310
          E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com
          Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com

In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however,
affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and
corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United
States.


CHINA SECURITY: Aug. 16 Hearing in Merger-Related Suits Set
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the
consolidated stockholder action against China Security &
Surveillance Technology, Inc., is scheduled for August 16, 2011,
according to the Company's July 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On April 20, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with (1) Rightmark Holdings Limited, a British Virgin
Islands company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Intelligent One
Limited, a British Virgin Islands company wholly-owned by Mr.
Guoshen Tu ("Rightmark"), (2) Rightmark Merger Sub Limited, a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Rightmark
("Merger Sub") and (3) Mr. Guoshen Tu, which was subsequently
amended and restated by the Amended and Restated Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of May 3, 2011, by and among the same
parties.  Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with
and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rightmark.  Mr.
Guoshen Tu is the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the
Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors and beneficially owns
approximately 20.9% of the Company's outstanding shares of common
stock.

Between March 15, 2011, and April 26, 2011, six purported class
action complaints related to the Merger (the "Stockholder
Actions") were filed against some or all of the following: the
Company, the members of the board of directors of the Company and
Merger Sub.  On March 15, 2011, the first of the Stockholder
Actions was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Dziak v. China Security & Surveillance
Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6279-CS (the "Dziak
Complaint").  The plaintiff in the Dziak Complaint alleges, among
other things, (1) that members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in
connection with the Merger and (2) Mr. Guoshen Tu engaged in acts
of self-dealing, unfair dealing, gross overreaching and breaches
of his fiduciary duties.  The Dziak Complaint seeks, among other
things, an order enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the
Merger unless and until such time the defendants have acted in
accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder
value, an order directing the defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best
interests of the Company's stockholders, an award of compensatory
damages and an award of fees, expenses and costs.

From March 16, 2011, to April 26, 2011, five additional complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
seeking substantially the same relief and making substantially the
same allegations as the Dziak Complaint.  The additional
complaints have the following captions: Levine v. China Security &
Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6286-CS (filed
March 16, 2011); Smith v. China Security & Surveillance
Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6292-CS (filed March 17, 2011);
O'Connor v. China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 6296-CS (filed March 18, 2011); Jamal v. China
Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6408-CS
(filed April 22, 2011); and Musto v. China Security & Surveillance
Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6418-CS (filed April 26, 2011).
Certain of the Stockholder Actions additionally allege, among
other things, that the Company and Merger Sub have aided and
abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  Certain of the Stockholder Actions additionally seek,
among other things, (1) an order enjoining, preliminarily and
permanently, the Merger, and (2) an order rescinding the Merger or
awarding plaintiff and the class rescissory damages in the event
that the Merger is consummated prior to the entry of the court's
final judgment.

On May 23, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel in Musto v. China Security &
Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6418-CS, filed a
motion with the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware seeking
to consolidate five of the pending actions and to have counsel for
Mr. Musto appointed as lead plaintiffs' counsel in the
consolidated action.  On May 27, 2011, the Company, members of the
special committee, Terence Yap, and Merger Sub, respectively,
filed motions to dismiss the remaining action that was not part of
the consolidation motion, Jamal v. China Security & Surveillance
Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6408-CS.  On June 7, 2011, four
plaintiffs (Levine, Smith, O'Connor, and Jamal) filed a joint
Amended Complaint containing substantially the same allegations
and seeking substantially the same relief as the prior complaints.
T he joint Amended Complaint was accompanied by a motion for
preliminary injunction to block the merger and a motion to
expedite discovery.  On June 10, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel in the
Dziak, Levine, Smith, O'Connor, and Jamal actions filed a joint
cross-motion to the Musto consolidation motion.  The joint cross-
motion also sought consolidation of all pending actions, but
requested that the law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. be appointed
as lead plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated action.

At a hearing on June 30, 2011, the Court ordered that the six
pending cases be consolidated and appointed Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
as the lead plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated action.  "A
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the
consolidated action is scheduled to occur on August 16, 2011."

                      New Stockholder Case

On July 21, 2011, a purported class action complaint captioned
Strum v. China Security & Surveillance Technology Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:11-CV-00646-UNA, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The complaint, which
names the same defendants as in the state actions, alleges that
the preliminary proxy statement filed on July 8, 2011, is
materially false and misleading and that the Merger is unfair to
stockholders.  It asserts claims under the United States
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as common law
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks a preliminary and
permanent injunction prohibiting consummation of the Merger and
damages in the event the Merger is consummated.


EBAY INC: Continues to Face Suits Over PayPal Business
------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. and its subsidiary, PayPal Inc., continue to face two
class action lawsuits pending in California, according to the
Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. eBay Inc. and PayPal, Inc.;
and Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of California.  These lawsuits
contain allegations that PayPal improperly held user's funds or
otherwise improperly limited user's accounts.  These lawsuits seek
damages as well as changes to PayPal's practices among other
remedies.

The Company says a determination that there have been violations
of laws relating to PayPal's practices can expose PayPal to
significant liability.  Changes to PayPal's practices that may
result from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur
significant costs and to expend product resources, which could
cause delay to other planned product improvements, which would
further harm the Company's business.  If PayPal is unable to
provide quality customer support operations in a cost-effective
manner, PayPal's users may have negative experiences, PayPal may
receive additional negative publicity, its ability to attract new
customers may be damaged, and it could become subject to
additional litigation.  As a result, current and future revenues
could suffer, losses could be incurred, and its operating margins
may decrease.

In addition, the Company says, negative publicity about, or
negative experiences with, customer support for any of the
Company's businesses could cause its reputation to suffer or
affect consumer confidence in its brands individually or as a
whole.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


EBAY INC: Gets Favorable Judgment in Antitrust Suit in May 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2011, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a
district court ruling granting eBay Inc.'s summary judgment motion
and denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot in
a consolidated antitrust lawsuit, according to the Company's July
22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In March 2007, a plaintiff filed a purported antitrust class
action lawsuit against eBay in the Western District of Texas
alleging that eBay and its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal Inc.
"monopolized" markets through various anticompetitive acts and
tying arrangements.  The plaintiff alleged claims under Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state law claims.  In
April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07-CV-
01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action.  The complaint seeks
treble damages and an injunction.  In 2007, the case was
consolidated with other similar lawsuits (No. 07-CV-01882JF).  In
June 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In March 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss the tying
claims with leave to amend and denied the motion with respect to
the monopolization claims.  Plaintiffs subsequently decided not to
refile the tying claims.  The plaintiffs' motion on class
certification and the Company's motion for summary judgment were
heard by the court in December 2009.  In March 2010, the District
Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot, and entered
judgment in the Company's favor.  Plaintiffs have appealed the
District Court's decision, the matter is fully briefed and oral
argument was presented in April 2011 before the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  In May 2011, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the District Court's ruling.


EBAY INC: StubHub's Appeal in Ticket Resale Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by eBay Inc.'s StubHub business from a lower court's
ruling that StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and
deceptive trade practices statute is pending, according to the
Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that the
Company's StubHub business sold (and facilitated and participated
in the sale) of concert tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge
that the tickets were resold in violation of North Carolina's
maximum ticket resale price law (which has been subsequently
amended).  In February 2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment, concluding that immunity under the
Communications Decency Act did not apply.  The trial court further
held that StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive
trade practices statute as it pertains to the two named
plaintiffs, and certified its decision for immediate appeal to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.  StubHub has appealed this
decision.

Some event organizers and professional sports teams have expressed
concern about the resale of their event tickets on the Company's
sites.  Lawsuits alleging a variety of causes of actions have in
the past, and may in the future, be filed against StubHub and eBay
by venue owners, competitors, ticket buyers and unsuccessful
ticket buyers.  The Company says such litigation could result in
damage awards, could require it to change its business practices
in ways that may be harmful to its business, or could otherwise
negatively affect its tickets business.


EVANS TIRE: Faces Class Action Over Waste Tire Disposal Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Evans
Tire & Service Centers charge a $4 per tire "waste tire disposal
fee" without disclosing to customers and service are optional.

A copy of the Complaint in Descano v. Evans Tire & Service
Centers, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2011-0009-4991 (Calif. Super.
Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/Tires.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Gallo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO
          12702 Via Cortina, Suite 500
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (858) 509-3652
          E-mail: djgsan@aol.com

               - and -

          Megan Anne Richmond, Esq.
          MEGAN A. RICHMOND, APC
          3110 Camino del Rio South, Suite 314
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (714) 349-0555


HONEYWELL INT'L: To Seek OK of $23.8M Deal in "Allen" Suit in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is expecting to submit to the court
for approval in the third quarter of 2011, settlement documents
resolving the "Allen" lawsuit for $23.8 million, according to the
Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged
by plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Allen, et al.
v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan were dismissed with
prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million (paid from the
Company's pension plan) and the maximum aggregate liability for
the remaining three claims (alleging that Honeywell impermissibly
reduced the pension benefits of certain employees of a predecessor
entity when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate
benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at
$500 million.  In October 2009, the Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to
the claim regarding the calculation of benefits.  In May 2011, the
parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement in principle
to settle the three remaining claims for $23.8 million (also to be
paid from the Company's pension plan).

The Company expects to submit settlement documents to the court
for classwide approval in the third quarter of 2011 and anticipate
a fairness hearing on the settlement in the fourth quarter of
2011.  Upon court approval of the settlement, all claims in this
matter will be fully resolved.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Witness in MDL Guilty of Lying to Investigators
----------------------------------------------------------------
The principal witness of the plaintiffs in a multi-district
litigation against filter manufacturers, including Honeywell
International Inc., pled guilty to a felony count for having made
false statements to federal investigators, according to the
Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  This lawsuit is a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants.  Parallel purported class actions, including
on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada.  The U.S. cases have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  In April 2011, the multi-district litigation was stayed
pending an investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania relating to plaintiff's principal witness
for possible violations of federal law.  In June 2011, plaintiff's
principal witness pled guilty to a felony count of having made
false statements to federal investigators.

The Company believes the claims against Honeywell are without
merit and it will vigorously defend against the claims raised in
these actions.  As previously reported, the Antitrust Division of
the Department of Justice notified Honeywell in January 2010 that
it had officially closed its investigation into possible collusion
in the replacement auto filters industry.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a securities class action lawsuit pending in New York, according
to the Company's July 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On November 3, 2010, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption:
Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous
Pension Fund, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the
"Securities Litigation").  On January 21, 2011, the court named
the Wyoming Retirement System as the lead plaintiff in the
Securities Litigation.  On April 1, 2011, an amended complaint was
filed in the Securities Litigation under the following caption: In
re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities and Shareholder
Derivative Litigation.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that:

   -- the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
      Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
      creating and implementing a systemically predatory business
      model that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of
      the Company's common stock during the class period by
      misrepresenting its financials and future business
      prospects;

   -- the defendants' misrepresentations and material omissions
      caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially
      inflated prices throughout the class period; and

   -- the market's expectations were ultimately corrected on
      August 13, 2010, when the U.S. Department of Education
      published the loan repayment rate of the Company's students
      under a formula contained in proposed regulations published
      by the ED on July 26, 2010.

The putative class period in this action is from October 23, 2008,
through August 13, 2010.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
the designation of this action as a class action, and an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses,
attorneys' fees and expert fees.

The officers named in one or more of the securities class action
and shareholder derivative lawsuits include: Jeffrey R. Cooper,
Clark D. Elwood, Nina F. Esbin, Eugene W. Feichtner, Daniel M.
Fitzpatrick, Kevin M. Modany and Martin Van Buren.

The Company says all of the defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the complaint.  There
can be no assurance, however, that the ultimate outcome of this or
other actions (including other actions under federal or state
securities laws) will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


KINETICS CONCEPTS: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Kinetics
Concepts is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process
to Apax Partners, for $6.3 billion or $68.50 a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Dunn v. Kinetics Concepts, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2011CI11943 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Bexar Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: 214-706-9314
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Henry J. Young, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-225-2677
          E-mail: hjy@weiserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Louis Boyasky, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150


KOHLER CO: Recalls 100 Shower Doors Due to Laceration Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kohler Co., of Kohler, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary recall of
about 100 Kohler Purist(R), Pinstripe(TM) and Finial(R) glass
shower doors.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The hinge panel of the shower door can shatter, posing a
laceration hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves a 1/2 inch thick hinge panel included in the
Kohler Purist(R), Pinstripe(R) and Finial(R) frameless heavy glass
pivot shower doors.  The hinge panel was sold as a component under
part numbers 705753-L-NA, 705754-L-NA and 705760-L-NA in various
shower door packages as described in these tables.

Part # 705760-L-NA hinge panel included in these products for 42"
wide 1/2" thick doors:

Product Description               Product Model #
-------------------               ---------------
Purist(R) Heavy Glass Pivot       705703-L-ABV, 705703-L-NX,
Shower Door                       705703-L-SHP, 705715-L-ABV,
                                   705715-L-NX, and 705715-L-SHP

Pinstripe(TM) Heavy Glass         705709-L-ABV, 705709-L-NX,
Pivot Shower Door                 705709-L-SHP, 705721-L-ABV,
                                   705721-L-NX, and 705721-L-SHP

Finial(R) Heavy Glass Pivot       705727-L-ABV, 705727-L-BH,
Shower Door                       705727-L-NX, 705727-L-SHP,
                                   705739-L-ABV, 705739-L-BH,
                                   705739-L-NX, and 705739-L-SHP

Part # 705753-L-NA hinge panel included in these products for 48"
wide 3/8" thick doors:

Product Description               Product Model #
-------------------               ---------------
Purist(R) Heavy Glass Pivot       705704-L-ABV, 705704-L-NX,
Shower Door                       705704-L-SHP, 705716-L-ABV,
                                   705716-L-NX, and 705716-L-SHP

Pinstripe(TM) Heavy Glass         705710-L-ABV, 705710-L-NX,
Pivot Shower Door                 705710-L-SHP, 705722-L-ABV,
                                   705722-L-NX, and 705722-L-SHP

Finial(R) Heavy Glass Pivot       705728-L-ABV, 705728-L-BH,
Shower Door                       705728-L-NX, 705728-L-SHP,
                                   705740-L-ABV, 705740-L-BH,
                                   705740-L-NX, and 705740-L-SHP

Part # 705754-L-NA hinge panel included in these products for 60"
wide 3/8" thick doors:

Product Description               Product Model #
-------------------               ---------------
Purist(R) Heavy Glass Pivot       705705-L-ABV, 705705-L-NX,
Shower Door                       705705-L-SHP and 705705-ZZ-SHP

Pinstripe(TM) Heavy Glass         705711-L-ABV, 705711-L-NX,
Pivot Shower Door                 and 705711-L-SHP

Finial(R) Heavy Glass Pivot       705729-L-ABV, 705729-L-BH,
Shower Door                       705729-L-NX, and 705729-L-SHP

The hinge panels have a tempering date code imprinted on a bottom
corner of the panel, and only hinge panels having a tempering date
code of "05/09" are included in this recall.  The hinge panels are
the side panels opposite the shower door handle, on which the
metal swing hinge is mounted.  The tempering date code also
includes the name "Guardian" above the tempering date.  If the
hinge is covering the tempering date code on the glass panel,
please call Kohler Co. at the toll-free number listed below.

Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11286.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold through various plumbing distributors nationwide
from May 2009 through November 2010 for between $1,700 and $3,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shower doors
and contact Kohler for a free replacement hinge panel.  An
Authorized Service Representative (ASR) from Kohler will remove
the old hinge panel and install a new hinge panel.  For additional
information, contact Kohler Co. toll-free at (866) 782-6329
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kohler.com/


LEGALZOOM.COM: Aug. 22 Trial Set for Missouri Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Koppel, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
there is a Missouri class action set for trial this month, which
is worth following.

The case claims that LegalZoom.com, which sells do-it-yourself
wills, leases and other documents online, is illegally practicing
law in the state of Missouri.

Missouri federal judge, Nanette K. Laughrey, partially rejected
LegalZoom's motion for summary judgment and set the case for trial
on August 22.

In a statement issued on July 26, LegalZoom said that if the
plaintiffs win at trial, it could dramatically impact the
availability of self-help legal books and forms in Missouri.

"If the plaintiffs are successful, we believe it is going to
become a lot more expensive for small businesses and individuals
to obtain basic legal forms," Chas Rampenthal, Legal Zoom's
General counsel, said in the statement.  "Missouri would become
the only state in the nation to take away a consumer's right to
access online legal document software."

The LawBlog on July 27 talked to David Butsch, counsel to the
plaintiffs' class, which, he said, consists of as many as 15,000
users of LegalZoom products.

The suit contends that by selling online legal documents,
LegalZoom is violating a Missouri law that bars non-lawyers from
preparing legal documents.

"The state licensure of attorneys was established to protect the
public from those untrained and uneducated in the practice of
law," Mr. Butsch said.  The preparation of wills and other legal
documents "may seem simple to a layman, but they aren't," he
added.  "There are consequences of signing a will . . . and those
consequences can be great and they can't be properly communicated
by a company over the internet."

The Journal asked Mr. Butsch about the concern that many have
voiced that legal services are cost prohibitive to many consumers,
a problem that has likely become even more acute in recent years.

Aren't online legal documents, however crude, preferable to having
folks go without any form of legal guidance? In response,
Mr. Butsch noted that there is now a glut of legal talent in the
market, with many law graduates unable to find full-time
employment.  That fact, he said, has made customized legal help
from practicing lawyers increasingly affordable.  "I know quite a
few lawyers who offer a quality legal service at very good rates,"
he said.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Judge Sustains Securities Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, 2011, in one of the most significant class action
lawsuits to arise out of the financial crisis, District Judge
Lewis A. Kaplan sustained, in large part, claims asserted by
former Lehman Brothers shareholders in a federal securities action
related to the company's 2008 collapse.  In a 106-page opinion,
Judge Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York held that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged
federal securities claims against former officers and directors of
Lehman Brothers, including former CEO Richard S. Fuld and former
CFO Erin Callan, Lehman's auditor, Ernst & Young, and fifty-one
underwriters that assisted Lehman Brothers in issuing billions of
dollars in now-worthless securities to the investing public prior
to its bankruptcy.

Plaintiffs, which include Alameda County Employees' Retirement
Association, the Government of Guam Retirement Fund, the Northern
Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee, the
City of Edinburgh Council as Administering Authority of the
Lothian Pension Fund, and the Operating Engineers Local 3 Trust
Fund, had alleged, among other things, that the defendants
materially misrepresented Lehman's financial position through the
use of "Repo 105" transactions, and made material misstatements
and omissions regarding Lehman's risk exposures and risk
management systems.

Judge Kaplan found that Lehman's use of "Repo 105" transactions,
which the company used to artificially improve its reported
capital position by temporarily removing assets from its balance
sheet at quarter-end, "paint[ed] a misleading picture of the
company's financial position at the end of each quarter."  He also
found that the defendants' repeated statements regarding the
"strong" and "conservative" nature of Lehman's risk management
systems were materially false and misleading "given the
allegations of frequent, significant departures from Lehman's
internally stated policies."

Co-Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP are pleased that the Court
allowed shareholders' core allegations in this matter to proceed,
and look forward to proving the allegations in the Complaint.  Co-
Lead Counsel views the Court's decision as an important victory
for shareholders whose investments were decimated by Lehman's
demise.


MAYTAG CORP: Whirlpool Can Change Retirees' Benefits
----------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Crumb, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
benefits for about 3,000 Maytag Corp. retirees can be changed by
Whirlpool in an effort to bring them in line with current
employees, according to a federal judge's ruling.

Whirlpool Corp. purchased the Newton, Iowa-based company in 2006
and sought to end medical benefits Maytag retirees claimed they
were owed under a previous collective bargaining agreement.

The Benton Harbor, Mich.-based Whirlpool filed a lawsuit as a
class action complaint in 2008 against the international and local
chapters of the United Auto Workers union and three retired Maytag
workers as representatives of the class seeking to modify medical
benefits for Maytag retirees.

The case went to trial in December, 2010, and recently a federal
judge in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Iowa,
ruled in favor of Whirlpool.

Court records show the company proposed changing retirees' medical
benefits during contract talks but the union refused to discuss
the issue.  The company proposed modifying health benefits for the
retirees to bring the benefits in line with the plan for current
Whirlpool employees, retirees and their dependents.  The union
argued the company could not change the benefits because they were
covered by the contract Maytag workers had with Maytag.

At issue in the case was the union's argument that Maytag agreed
to vest retiree medical benefits and promised benefits for the
lifetime of each retiree and their dependents.  The court
disagreed and said the union failed to present evidence the
company agreed to vest medical benefits of retirees.

"The court is not unaware of the expectation of the Newton
retirees nor unsympathetic in the result reached herein," U.S.
District Court Judge James Gritzner wrote in his decision, filed
on July 22.  "However, the union has not carried its burden . . .
of showing that the company agreed to vest retiree medical
benefits.

"Regardless of what either side was thinking about vesting . . .
the union had the obligation to . . . present evidence that the
company agreed to provide vested retiree medical benefits,"
Mr. Gritzner wrote.

Larry Shaver, 64, who retired from Maytag in 2002, told The
Associated Press, that Maytag employees contributed money out of
their paychecks every month to be put into accounts to pay for
their health benefits after they retired, only to have the
benefits eliminated by Whirlpool.

"I feel like somebody stabbed me in the heart," said Mr. Shaver,
who acts as a spokesman for the Maytag retirees.

He said Maytag retirees received 100% coverage with no out-of-
pocket expenses or deductibles.  Under the Whirlpool plan,
retirees under age 64 pay $237 a month per person with a $500
deductible.  They then pay 20% of their medical expenses up to
$3,500, he said.

Retirees over age 65 pay nearly $50 a month with a $500 deductible
and then pay 20% of their expenses, Mr. Shaver said.

"Nothing is ever covered at 100%," he said.

Mr. Shaver said the union was working with attorneys to determine
if it will appeal.

L.D. Funk, another Maytag retiree, said he also feels betrayed by
Whirlpool.

"When they bought out Maytag, they bought it as a whole, they
bought all of it, they bought its debt, they bought its properties
and they bought its obligations," said Mr. Funk, now 73.  "I feel
like I was one of those obligations because I worked there 28-29
years knowing I was putting money away for my older years and I
felt safe and secure.

"Now it's left me and a whole lot of other people in a whole
different situation," Mr. Funk said.

Whirlpool officials released a statement on July 26 that said its
health care plan is "superior to plans offered by 75% of Fortune
500 companies.

"We are pleased that the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa found that these changes are appropriate," the
company's statement said.

Whirlpool bought rival Maytag in 2006 for $1.7 billion and assumed
the negotiated union contracts and related benefit plans.
Whirlpool closed the Maytag corporate headquarters in Newton and a
laundry equipment factory in the town of about 15,000 located 30
miles east of Des Moines.  About 1,800 workers lost their jobs.


MINDRAY MEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the
securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor, LLP on July 27
disclosed that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed
against Mindray Medical International Limited during the period of
January 11, 2010, and August 9, 2010.

If you are an affected investor, and you want to learn more about
the lawsuit or join the action, contact:

          Patrick Powers, Esq.
          Powers Taylor, LLP
          Telephone: 877-728-9607
          E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com

               - or -

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC
          Telephone: 877-397-5991
          E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

It has been alleged that during the Class Period, Mindray and
certain of its officers and directors made materially false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose material information
related to the company's business and operations in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, it is alleged
that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts: (a) that Mindray was experiencing
declining sales domestically due to the lack of Chinese government
tenders and a slowdown in non-tender Chinese sales; (b) that
Mindray's sales of its diagnostics and ultrasound equipment were
not performing according to internal expectations; (c) that
Mindray was confronting increased competition in the market for
larger hospital systems in China; and (d) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Mindray and its prospects.

The Briscoe Law Firm is a full service business litigation,
commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20
years of experience in complex litigation and transactional
matters.

Powers Taylor, LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles
a variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.


NESTLE WATERS: Faces Class Action Over Leaky Water Bottles
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Nestle Waters North America and Deer Park Natural Spring Water
sell 3- and 5-gallon water bottles, for coolers, with pinholes
near the mouth that leak profusely, damaging floors.

A copy of the Complaint in Rosenfarb, et ux. v. Nestle Waters
North America, et al., Case No. 11-cv-04693 (E.D. Pa.) (Rufe, J.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/Bottles.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David T. Shulick, Esq.
          SHULICK LAW OFFICES
          100 N. 18th Street
          Two Logan Square, Suite 1900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-5488
          E-mail: david@shulicklawoffices.com


NEWS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Greg Jacobs, writing for Goal Group, reports that a US shareholder
who purchased $38,000 in News Corp. shares earlier this year filed
a class action lawsuit against the global media group on July 22,
claiming that News Corp., the Murdochs, and Rebekah Brooks
intentionally covered up and concealed the phone hacking offenses.

The investor, Lewis Wilder, has initiated the first federal-level
lawsuit against the News Corp. US division in regard to their
British newspaper's damage on the company's share price because of
the illegal activities that have been revealed in recent weeks.

Mr. Wilder, who bought 1,000 News Corp. shares in late April and
1,000 more in early June through an associated trust, has accused
Rupert and James Murdoch of having "affirmatively sanctioned or,
at the very least, turned a blind eye to the rampant illegality
taking place at News Corp's newspapers."  Mr. Wilder sold his
2,000 shares on July 12, causing him to lose $5,271.

The case, filed in New York, alleges that News Corp. and its
executives participated in fraudulent, deceptive and misleading
behavior and breached the US Securities Exchange Act by issuing
"materially false and misleading" statements to investors from
March 3 to July 11.  This lawsuit has the potential to cover
thousands of shareholders who traded millions of shares in that
period.

Mr. Wilder asserts that News Corp. and its senior executives
"either had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts [about the hacking] . . . or acted
with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to
ascertain and disclose the truth about News Corp.'s illegal
activities, even though the truth was available to them".

The New York Southern District Court must certify the US case
before it can proceed as a class action.


NOTEWORLD LLC: Sued Over Exorbitant Debt Relief Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
NoteWorld and "its network of conspirators" charged "exorbitant
and abusive fees" for so-called "debt relief" services.

A copy of the Complaint in Rajagopalan v. NoteWorld, LLC, Case No.
11-cv-05573 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/DebtRelief.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
          Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-4486


ORION ENERGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Concluded in April
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit over Orion Energy Systems,
Inc.'s initial public offering has been concluded in April 2011,
according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2011.

In February and March 2008, three class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, several of its officers, all members
of its then existing board of directors, and certain underwriters
relating to the Company's December 2007 initial public offering
(IPO).  The plaintiffs claimed to represent those persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock from December 18,
2007, through February 6, 2008.  The plaintiffs alleged, among
other things, that the defendants made misstatements and failed to
disclose material information in the Company's IPO registration
statement and prospectus.  The complaints alleged various claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The complaints
sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified
damages, fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.

On August 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  On September 15, 2008, the
Company and the other director and officer defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and the underwriters
filed a separate motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
January 16, 2009.  After oral argument on August 19, 2009, the
court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss.
The plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint on
September 4, 2009, and the defendants filed an answer to the
complaint on October 9, 2009.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company reached a
preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuits and on
January 3, 2011, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.  After a fairness hearing on
April 14, 2011, the court approved the settlement in a final
judgment and order.  No shareholder appeared at the hearing to
object.  Accordingly, the case has concluded.  Of the final
settlement amount of $3.25 million, the Company contributed $0.49
million and its insurer contributed $2.76 million.  The Company
recorded the settlement charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal
2010.


PRIME-LINE: Recalls 37,000 Child Safety Latches & Outlet Covers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Prime-Line, of Redlands, California, announced a voluntary recall
of about 37,000 safety latches and outlet covers.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The screws on the safety latches and outlet covers can loosen
and/or break.  When this happens, young children can gain access
to electrical outlets and other potentially hazardous items.

Prime-Line has received four reports of screws breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Prime-Line child safety drawer and cabinet
latches and outlet covers with rotating receptacle covers.  These
products were sold under the brand name Child Safe.

The drawer and cabinet latches were sold three per package, in
model number S 4439 with SKU 049793044396, and model number S 4444
with SKU 049793044440.

The outlet covers were sold one per package, in ivory, model
number S 4447 with SKU 049793044471, and white, model number S
4461 with SKU 049793044617.

The model number and SKU are printed on the back of the package.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11284.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China.  Drawer and
cabinet latches were sold at Ace Hardware, Bostwic-Braun, Cal-Do-
It Centers, Do-It-Best, Friedman Brothers, Menards, Orgill, The
Andersons Inc. and True Value stores nationwide between October
2010 and June 2011 for between $2.50 and $2.70.  Outlet covers
were sold at Ace Hardware, Cimarron Lumber & Supply, Do-It-Best,
Friedman Brothers, Handy Hardware, Menards and W.E. Aubuchon
stores nationwide between October 2009 and June 2011 for about
$3.50.

Consumers should immediately contact Prime-Line to receive a free
replacement kit.  For additional information, contact Prime-Line
toll-free at (855) 839-9555 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.prime-line-products.com/


PRIME-LINE PRODUCTS: Recalls 8,000 Child Bathtub Non-Slip Pads
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Prime-Line Products Company Inc., of Redlands, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 8,000 bathtub non-slip pads.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Some pads do not stick to the bathtub surface, posing a fall
hazard to consumers.

Prime-Line has received one report of the pad failure.  No
injuries were reported.

The recalled items are whale-shaped, white, vinyl, non-slip
bathtub pads with textured surfaces and adhesive backings and are
used to help prevent children from slipping and falling in
bathtubs.  The pads come in sets of 12 and 15.  Each set contains
pads that range in size from 2 to 4 inches tall.  The model number
is S-4630 and SKU number is 049793846303.  Both are printed on the
back of the packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11285.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ace
Hardware & Menards nationwide between May 24, 2010, and June 13,
2011, for about $6.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pads and contact
Prime-Line to receive a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Prime-Line at (855) 839-9555 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Pacific Time.  Consumers also can visit the Prime-Line Web site at
http://www.prime-line-products.com/


UNION BANK: Debit-Card Overdraft Suit Gets Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ylan Q. Mui, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
consumers who say they were wrongfully charged overdraft fees won
class-action status on July 26 in their lawsuit against a San
Francisco bank, the first in a series of cases pending against
some of the nation's largest financial institutions.

The suit claims that Union Bank processed debit-card transactions
from largest to smallest, rather than chronologically, to increase
the risk that customers would overdraw their checking accounts.

Cynthia Larsen of Riverside, Calif., said the bank charged her
three overdraft fees of $32 each in 2009.  If her purchases had
cleared in the order she made them, she would have overdrafted
once, she said.

According to her attorney, the bank estimated that reordering
transactions would generate $18 million in fees annually.

A spokesman for Union Bank declined to comment, citing the pending
litigation.

The case is part of multidistrict litigation, involving about 30
banks, that is before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in
the Southern District of Florida.

Bank of America agreed to settle its suit for $410 million this
year.

The judge has yet to decide the status of the cases against Chase
and U.S. Bank, among others.  But co-lead attorney Bruce Rogow of
the Alters Law Firm said that the July 26 action sets the stage
for similar decisions.

Mr. Rogow said the class could encompass hundreds of thousands of
consumers charged millions of dollars in fees.  Last year, Wells
Fargo was forced to return $203 million to consumers after it lost
a separate class-action suit.

"All the banks will fall, ultimately," Mr. Rogow said.  "The class
certification order is a precedent that will apply to all of the
other banks because they all engaged in the same practice."

Overdraft fees have long been a target of consumer advocates, who
say they unfairly punish low-income people.

Last year, after a public outcry over the charges and
congressional scrutiny, the Federal Reserve instituted rules that
largely prohibited banks from allowing customers to overdraw their
accounts and get hit with a fee unless they signed up for the
service.

Although the Fed rules did not address the order in which
transactions are processed, many banks have dropped the practice
-- or discontinued their overdraft programs altogether.

Still, the service remains popular with some people.  The
financial consulting firm Moebs Services said that about 77% of
bank customers have opted in.

Based on first quarter results, overdraft revenues would be $30
billion, the lowest level since 2006.


UNION PACIFIC: Wal-Mart Case Ruling to Impact Antitrust Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia required
parties to the consolidated antitrust lawsuit against railroad
companies, including Union Pacific Corporation, to confer on the
impact of a recent Supreme Court decision relating to the
plaintiffs' class certification motion, according to the Company's
July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Twenty small rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the
same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in
various federal district courts against the Company and four other
Class I railroads in the U.S (one railroad was eventually dropped
from the lawsuit).  The original plaintiff filed the first of
these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14,
2007, and the additional plaintiffs filed claims in district
courts in various states, including Florida, Illinois, Alabama,
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.  These lawsuits allege
that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing
common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

The Company received additional complaints following the initial
claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 30.  In
addition to lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the lawsuits involved plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and seeking to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges.  These
complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel
surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Subsequently, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints against UPRR and
three other Class I railroads.

One additional shipper filed a separate anti-trust lawsuit during
2008.  Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily dismissed the action
without prejudice.

On October 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with
respect to the defendant railroads' motions to dismiss.  In a
ruling on November 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the motion with
respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, and pretrial
proceedings are underway in that case.  On December 31, 2008,
Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers
based upon state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws.  He also ruled, however, that these plaintiffs
could proceed with their claim for injunctive relief under the
federal antitrust laws, which is identical to a claim by the
direct purchaser plaintiffs.  The indirect purchasers appealed
Judge Friedman's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia.  On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's
ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various
state laws.  Judge Friedman conducted a two-day hearing on
October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class certification issue and the
railroad defendants' motion to exclude evidence of interline
communications.  On April 7, 2011, Judge Friedman issued an order
deferring any decision on class certification until the Supreme
Court issued its decision in the Wal-Mart employment
discrimination case.  The Supreme Court issued its decision on
June 20, 2011, and Judge Friedman required the parties to confer
on the impact of the Wal-Mart decision within 30 days.

The Company's subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Company
("Railroad"), received a copy of a complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on June 7, 2011, by
Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC and related entities (Oxbow).  The
complaint named certain U.S. Class I Railroads, including the
Railroad, as defendants and alleged that the named railroads
engaged in price-fixing and monopolistic practices in connection
with fuel surcharge programs and pricing of shipments of certain
commodities, including coal and petroleum coke.  The complaint
seeks injunctive relief and payment of damages of over $30
million, and other unspecified damages, including treble damages.
Some of the allegations in the complaint are addressed in the
existing fuel surcharge litigation.  The complaint also includes
additional unrelated allegations regarding alleged limitations on
competition for shipments of Oxbow's commodities.

The Company denies the allegations that its fuel surcharge
programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws and deny the
other allegations in the Oxbow complaint.  The Company believes
that these lawsuits are without merit, and it will vigorously
defend its actions.  Therefore, the Company currently believes
that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on any
of its results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.


UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: "Snellink" Suit Pending in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
Universal Travel Group continues to defend itself against
a putative class action lawsuit filed by Albert Snellink in New
Jersey, according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On April 15, 2011, the plaintiff Albert Snellink commenced a
putative class action in the United States District Court,
District of New Jersey against the Company, and Jiangping Jiang,
Yizhao Zhang and Jing Xie, officers of the Company.  In the
complaint, plaintiff alleges a claim for violations of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against all defendants, and a claim for a violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants in connection with purported misrepresentations
contained in the Company's public filings and press releases.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and his costs
incurred in the action.  The Company's time to answer or move with
respect to the complaint has not yet expired.

The Company believes that the allegations of complaint are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


U.S. PHARMACIES: 4th Cir. Won't Review Drug-Pricing Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
appeals court has declined to review its rejection of a claim made
by prescription drug retailers who said West Virginia Attorney
General Darrell McGraw is acting like a class action lawyer.

In a 2-1 vote in May, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Mr. McGraw did not file a
class action against the companies and that his lawsuit, which
alleges they did not pass savings on generic drugs to consumers,
should be heard in a state court.  On July 21, the court declined
a request to have the full roster of Fourth Circuit judges hear
the matter.

The request made by the group of pharmacies -- which includes Wal-
Mart, Target, CVS, Walgreen, Kroger and Kmart -- was supported by
the Washington Legal Foundation and the Allied Educational
Foundation.  The two submitted an amicus brief.

In its appeal brief, the group of pharmacies claimed Mr. McGraw's
lawsuit satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the federal
CAFA.

"The AG's allegations make abundantly clear that more than $5
million and the interests of more than 100 persons are at issue.
If the rightful interests of the West Virginia consumers on whose
behalf the AG has brought suit are recognized, there also is
undeniably minimal diversity between at least some plaintiffs (who
are West Virginia citizens) and all defendants (as none of the
defendants reside in or is a citizen of West Virginia."

The pharmacies added that any consumer who was allegedly
overcharged is a real party-in-interest to the case.

The May decision says the West Virginia statutes on which
Mr. McGraw relies contain none of the essential requirements for a
class action.  Mr. McGraw is not designated as a member of the
class and he is not required to give notice to overcharged
customers, the decision says.

"Indeed, the West Virginia Attorney General's role here is more
analogous to the role of the EEOC or other regulator when it
brings an action on behalf of a large group of employees or a
segment of the public," the decision says.  "Yet, the Supreme
Court has concluded that such a regulator's action is not a class
action of the kind defined in Rule 23."

Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented.  Even though the action was
brought under state statutes, it doesn't take away the "essence"
of the case, he wrote.

"(T)he elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and
adequacy of representation have not been specifically pleaded,"
Mr. Gilman wrote.  "But I submit that these are subsidiary factors
that do not detract from the essence of the action.

"They are, in other words, 'bells and whistles' whose absence in
the pleadings do not prevent the Attorney General's suit from
being considered a class action under CAFA."

Mr. Gilman wrote that similar lawsuits filed by Mr. McGraw's
outside counsel in other states are undisputed class actions.

Mr. McGraw hired two private firms -- Bailey & Glasser and
DiTrapano Barrett & DiPiero -- for the case.  The two firms have
contributed more than $60,000 to Mr. McGraw's campaign fund over
the years, including $11,800 for his 2008 race against Republican
Dan Greear.

Bailey & Glasser brought similar lawsuits in Michigan and
Minnesota.  The Michigan suits were dismissed by a state judge
because the only specific pricing information was obtained by a
West Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger.

The Minnesota lawsuit, brought on behalf of unions that provide
health care for their members, was initially dismissed in November
2009 by former U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum, who had harsh
words for the plaintiffs attorneys.

Judge Rosenbaum was peeved that the complaint, filed against 13
defendants, only contained specific pricing information about two
of them.

"(T)his Complaint utterly fails to state a cause of action on any
basis. There are no, none, factual allegations touching any
defendant other than CVS and Walgreen's," Judge Rosenbaum said
Nov. 20, 2009.

"There being no facts from which a fact finder could infer any
liability concerning (the other defendants), and you asked me to
sustain a complaint based upon that.  It's not only laughable,
it's absolutely reprehensible."

A federal magistrate judge is currently deciding if that lawsuit
will be remanded to a Minnesota court.


YAHOO: August 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman on July 27 reminded investors that they must move
the court to be Lead Plaintiff by Aug. 5, 2011, in the class
action involving Yahoo's failure to disclose the transfer of
Alipay in its April 19, 2011, quarterly earnings announcement.

Investors who purchased Yahoo's common stock between the dates of
April 19, 2011, and March 13, 2011, may contact Partner Reed R.
Kathrein, at Yahoo@hbsslaw.com or by phone at 510-725-3000 for a
consultation.  Additional information is also available at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/yahoo

A lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, based upon Yahoo's
inexplicable failure in its April 19, 2011, quarterly earnings
announcement to reveal that Alibaba, a company in which Yahoo had
purchased a 43% share in 2005, had shifted its e-commerce system,
Alipay, to another private company without Yahoo's authorization.
Yahoo has revealed that it was informed by March 31, 2011, of the
transfer of Alipay.  Yet, the company did not inform its investors
of the change until on or about May 13, 2011.

Yahoo stock traded for as much as $18.64 during the class period,
and has since traded as low as $13.94.

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is one of the top class-action law firms
in the nation, with offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs,
Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and
Washington, D.C.  Founded in 1993, the firm represents plaintiffs
in class actions and multi-state, large-scale litigation that seek
to protect the rights of investors, consumers, workers and
whistleblowers.


                            *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *