---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 12, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 159

                             Headlines

3M CO: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Perfluorochemicals
3M CO: Final Hearing on Whitaker & Garcia Deal Set for December
ALLIANCE ONE: Continues to Wait for Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
AMERICAN EQUITY: Still Defends Two Suits Over Sales Practices
AMERICAN EQUITY: Gets Final Okay of Settlement in "Stephens" Suit

APPLE INC: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Over E-Book Pricing
ARCH CHEMICALS: Faces Class Suits Over Merger With Lonza Group
BANK OF AMERICA: Another Interchange Suit Filed in Canada
BANK OF AMERICA: Appeal From "Closson" Suit Deal Remains Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending

BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals in Antitrust Suits Remain Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Consolidate MBS Suits
BANK OF AMERICA: "Bondar" Plaintiffs' Time to Decide Stayed
BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Montgomery" Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Certifies Class in Merrill Lynch MBS Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses Plaintiffs' Claim in ERISA Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants in Part Dismissal of "Lehman" Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Add Units in IndyMac MBS Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Municipal Derivatives Litigation Still Stayed
BANK OF AMERICA: Unit Seeks Review of Reversal of Suit Dismissal

BEST LIGHTING: Recalls 450 LHQM LED Emergency Exit Signs
CARGILL INC: Gov't. Knew About Salmonella in Turkey Before Recall
CIGNA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Karp" Suit
CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend Ingenix-Related Suits
CIGNA CORP: U.S. Supreme Court Remanded "Amara" Suit

CVS CAREMARK: Awaits Ruling in Coordinated Antitrust Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Lauriello" Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Negotiates Deal to Resolve FLSA-Violation Suits
CVS CAREMARK: Still Defends Securities Class Suit
DAVITA INC: Wage & Hour Class Suit Remains Pending in California

DAVITA INC: Blue Cross Suit Against Unit Remains Pending
DAVITA INC: Unit Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Wage Class Suit
DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend "Deepwater Horizon" Suits
EDISON MISSION: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suit in Miss.
EDISON MISSION: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Pennsylvania

EMCORE CORP: Motion for Appointment of Counsel Remains Pending
HALLIBURTON CO: Class Action Remanded to Appellate Court
HALLMARK CARDS: Sued in Washington Over Washable Colored Bubbles
HL LEASING: Two Senior Officers Liable in Fresno Ponzi Scheme
HSBC BANK: Faces Wage & Hour Class Action in California

IMMERSION CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
IMMERSION CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Is Pending
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: One Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remaining
KFORCE INC: To Fully Pay $2.5 Million Class Settlement by Year End

LEVEL 3 COMMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Still Preparing Settlement Documents in ERISA Suit
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Presents Idaho Suit Settlement to Other States
MELA SCIENCES: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Amended Complaint
MICHAELS STORES: Accused of Not Paying Wages and Overtime Pay

OVERSEA CHINESE FUND: Rochon Genova Files Class Action
PACKAGING CORP: Still Defends Containerboard Suit in Illinois
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Awaits Final Approval "Gobel" Suit Deal
PMI GROUP: Defends "Foreclosures" Suits in Michigan
RECONTRUST CO: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Foreclosures

RESEARCH IN MOTION: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in N.Y.
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL: Sued Over Niger Delta Oil Spills
SLM CORPORATION: Signs Memo of Understanding in "Arthur" Suit
SONY COMPUTER: More Suit Filed Over April Network Breach
ST. JOE CO: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Meyer" Suit

TEKELEC: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Securities Suit
TERRIBLE HERBST: Employee Can Seek Wage & Overtime Class Action
THOMAS VETERINARY: Sued Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
TIMBERLAND CO: Accused of Defrauding Stockholders in New Hampshire
TIMBERLAND CO: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit

UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Await Class Action Settlement
VECTOR GROUP: Unit Awaits Appellate Decision in "Cleary" Suit
VECTOR GROUP: Briefing Is Ongoing in "Smith" Suit
VECTOR GROUP: "Brown" Plaintiffs Filed 11th Amended Complaint
VECTOR GROUP: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana

VITA COCO: Faces Class Action Over Coco Water Nutritional Claims
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Complaint Pending
YAHOO! INC: Faces a Securities Class Suit in California

* FDA Alerts Consumers on Possible Bladder Cancer Link


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Reserves $53MM at June 30 for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces Ongoing Asbestos Disputes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Posts $25.53MM June 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Posts $35MM Payments at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inactive Quaker Unit Still Has Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Still Party to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Has $643MM Non-Current Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anadarko Continuing to Face Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankruptcy Court Issues Rulings in Placid Oil
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Split Rulings in Matthews

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Decision in Evans Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Decision in Burdex v. Wyatt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Ruling to Remand Abednego Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Judgment in Butte's Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Posts $649.9MM Net Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Defending v. Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Party to 82,700 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5,700 Claims Open v. Owens-Illinois at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,102 Cases Pending v. TriMas Corp. at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Involved in Three Filter Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Named in Aaron Case in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16T Cases Pending v. BorgWarner Inc. at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continental Case v. BorgWarner Pending in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Accrues $55.2MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4,400 Lawsuits Still Pending v. Tyco at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $793MM for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms SeaRiver Summary Judgment Motion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Desnoyers' Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Heckerman Action




                             *********

3M CO: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Perfluorochemicals
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to defend class action lawsuits relating to
perfluorochemicals in Alabama, according to the Company's
August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased
risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to
perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility.  The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-
related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the
exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act.
The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.  Also, in 2005, the judge in a second
purported class action lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan
County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive
damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions
of perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the first action filed in the same
court in 2002.  Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and
property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members
of a purported class.  No further action in the case is expected
unless and until the stay is lifted.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals.  The named defendants in the case include 3M,
its subsidiary Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT,
Inc., Synagro South, LLC and Biological Processors of America.
The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property.  In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred
from Franklin County to Morgan County.  In May, 2010, consistent
with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit
Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution
of the class certification issues in the first case filed there.

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


3M CO: Final Hearing on Whitaker & Garcia Deal Set for December
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider final approval of 3M Company's settlement
agreement to resolve the Whitaker and Garcia lawsuits is scheduled
for December 2011, according to the Company's August 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In January 2011, 3M reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs' counsel to resolve the Whitaker and Garcia lawsuits.
The Whitaker settlement agreement was signed by all parties in
March 2011.  The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on April 6, 2011, and provisionally certified a class
for settlement purposes only.  The final approval hearing is
scheduled in December 2011.  The Garcia settlement agreement has
been signed by the parties.  All plaintiffs subject to the Garcia
settlement have signed and not timely revoked individual releases
of claims against 3M, and the parties anticipate filing a
stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice, in that matter following
administration of the settlement, which will occur concurrently
with administration of the Whitaker settlement.  3M is currently
in discussions with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
resolve related charges.  If finalized and approved by the court,
administration of the settlement agreements will take several
months to complete.  The Company says the amount of the proposed
settlements is not material to its consolidated results of
operations or financial condition.

                        Whitaker Lawsuit

In December, 2004, one current and one former employee of the
Company filed a purported class action in the District Court of
Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeking to represent a class of all
current and certain former salaried employees employed by the
Company in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46
or older at any time during the applicable period to be determined
by the Court (the "Whitaker" lawsuit).  The complaint alleges the
plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on
the basis of age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act
and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages
(which they seek to treble under the statute), including back and
front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per
claimant) and attorneys' fees.  In January 2006, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to join four additional named plaintiffs.  This
motion was unopposed by the Company and the four plaintiffs were
joined in the case, although one plaintiff's claim was dismissed
following an individual settlement.  On April 11, 2008, the Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class
action.  On April 28, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's class certification decision,
finding that the District Court had not required plaintiffs to
meet the proper legal standards for certification of a class under
Minnesota law and incorrectly had deferred resolving certain
factual disputes that were relevant to the class certification
requirements.  The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings in line with the
evidentiary standards defined in its opinion.  The trial court
took expert testimony and held a hearing on the class
certification question and had the matter under advisement when
the parties reached a tentative settlement which rendered the
certification issues moot.

                         Garcia Lawsuit

The Company was served on May 7, 2009, with a purported class
action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit, which was
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division (the "Garcia lawsuit").  The case
was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

In this case, five former and one current employee of the Company
are seeking to represent all current and former salaried employees
employed by the Company in the United States during the liability
period, which plaintiffs define as 2001 to the present.  In
addition to the six named plaintiffs, there are approximately 130
other current or former employees who have signed "opt-in" forms,
seeking to join the action.  The Garcia lawsuit expressly excludes
those persons encompassed within the proposed class in the
Whitaker lawsuit.  The same firm, joined by additional California
counsel and local Minnesota counsel for the Garcia lawsuit,
represents the plaintiffs in both cases.

The allegations of the complaint in the Garcia lawsuit are similar
to those in the Whitaker lawsuit.  Plaintiffs claim that they and
other similarly situated employees suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the
federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  In regard to these
claims, plaintiffs seek to represent "all persons who were 46 or
older when employed by 3M in the United States in a salaried
position below the level of director, or salary grade 18, during
the liability period."  Because federal law protects persons age
40 and older from age discrimination, with respect to their claim
of disparate impact only, plaintiffs also propose an alternative
definition of similarly situated persons that would begin at age
40.  On behalf of this group, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages including back and front pay,
benefits, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Certain of the plaintiffs' and putative class members' employment
terminated under circumstances in which they were eligible for
group severance plan benefits and in connection with those plans
they signed waivers of claims, including age discrimination
claims.  Plaintiffs claim the waivers of age discrimination claims
were invalid in various respects.  This subset of release-signing
plaintiffs seeks a declaration that the waivers of age
discrimination claims are invalid, other injunctive, but non-
monetary, remedies, and attorneys' fees.

                 EEOC Age-Discrimination Charges

Six former employees and one current employee, all but one of whom
are named plaintiffs in the Garcia lawsuit, have also filed age
discrimination charges against the Company with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and various pertinent state
agencies, alleging age discrimination similar to the Whitaker and
Garcia lawsuits and claiming that a class of similarly situated
persons exists.  Of these, three former employees filed charges in
2005 in Minnesota, Texas, and California.  These filings include
allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former
employees in the purported class defined in the charges is invalid
for various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf
of certain current and former salaried employees in states other
than Minnesota and New Jersey.  In 2006, a current employee filed
an age discrimination charge against the Company with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state
agency in Missouri, asserting claims on behalf of a class of all
current and certain former salaried employees who worked in
Missouri and states other than Minnesota and New Jersey.  In 2007,
a former employee filed an age discrimination charge against the
Company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and
the pertinent state agency in California, asserting claims on
behalf of a class of all current and certain former salaried
employees who worked in California.  In January 2009, two former
employees filed age discrimination charges against the Company
with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
pertinent state agency in Minnesota.  The filings include
allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former
employees in the purported class defined in the charges is invalid
for various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf
of certain current and former salaried employees in states other
than Minnesota.  The same law firm represents the plaintiffs in
the Whitaker lawsuit as well as the claimants in each of these
EEOC proceedings.


ALLIANCE ONE: Continues to Wait for Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance One International, Inc., continues to await a court
decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced
against its Brazilian subsidiary, Alliance One Brazil Exportadora
de Tobaccos Ltda.

On June 6, 2008, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary, Alliance One
Brazil Exportadora de Tobaccos Ltda. ("AOB") and a number of other
tobacco processors were notified of a class action initiated by
the ALPAG -- Associacao Lourenciana de Pequenos Agricultrores
("Association of Small Farmers of Sao Lourenco").  The class
action's focus is a review of tobacco supplier contracts and
business practices, specifically aiming to prohibit processors
from notifying the national credit agency of producers in debt,
prohibiting processors from deducting tobacco suppliers' debt from
payments for tobacco, and seeking the modification of other
contractual terms historically used in the purchase of tobacco.
The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of Sao Lourenco
do Sul.  The Company's motion to dismiss the class action is
currently pending.  The Company believes this claim to be without
merit and is vigorously defending it.  Ultimate exposure if an
unfavorable outcome is received is not determinable.

No updates were reported in the Company's August 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, Alliance One
International -- http://aointl.com/-- is an independent leaf
tobacco merchant.  It provides worldwide service to the large
cigarette manufacturers.  It purchases tobacco in more than 45
countries and serves manufacturers of cigarettes and other
consumer tobacco products in over 90 countries.  The Company's
revenues are primarily comprised of sales of processed tobacco and
fees charged for related services to manufacturers of consumer
tobacco products around the world.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Still Defends Two Suits Over Sales Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company is still defending
itself against two lawsuits alleging improper sales practices,
according to the Company's August 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims. The Company is currently a defendant in a
purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity
Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in
the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity
Practices and Sales Litigation, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division
(complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"),
involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar
claims.

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking
class action status for a national class of purchasers of
annuities issued by us. However, no class has yet been certified
and the Company is vigorously litigating the question of whether
this case can be properly certified as a class action. The named
plaintiffs in this consolidated case are Bernard McCormack, Gust
Anagnostis by and through Gary S. Anagnostis and Robert C.
Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through Sharon Schipiour, Lenice
Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean and George Miller. The
allegations generally attack the suitability of sales of deferred
annuity products to persons over the age of 65. The plaintiffs
seek recessionary and injunctive relief including restitution and
disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class members under
California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; compensatory
damages for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting of
breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment and constructive
trust; and other pecuniary damages under California Civil Code
section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions Codes section
15600 et seq. While the Company participated in a preliminary
mediation session with plaintiffs' counsel on May 11, 2011, the
Company continues to vigorously defend against both class action
status as well as the underlying claims. Due to (i) the fact no
class has been certified (ii) the lack of specificity as to legal
theories put forth by the plaintiffs, (iii) the lack of
specificity of the remedy sought, and (iv) the lack of any basis
on which to compute estimated compensatory and/or punitive
damages, the Company generally cannot predict what the outcome of
the pending purported class action lawsuit will be, what the
timing of the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will be, or an
estimate and/or range of possible loss related to the pending
purported class action lawsuit. In light of the inherent
uncertainties involved in the pending purported class action
lawsuit, there can be no assurance that such litigation, or any
other pending or future litigation, will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, or
results of operations.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Gets Final Okay of Settlement in "Stephens" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company obtained
final court approval of the settlement it negotiated in the
class action, Stephens v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et. al., the Company disclosed in its August 5,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In February 2011, the Company entered into a settlement with the
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, Stephens v. American Equity
Investment Life Insurance Company, et. al., in the San Luis Obispo
Superior Court, San Francisco, California (complaint filed
November 29, 2004). The plaintiffs in the SLO Case represented a
class of individuals who were California residents age 65 and
older and who either purchased their annuity from the Company
through a co-defendant marketing organization or who purchased one
of a defined set of particular annuities issued by the Company.
The named plaintiffs in this case were: Chalys M. Stephens and
John P. Stephens. Trial in this case was bifurcated by the court
into three phases. Phase One commenced on November 1, 2010, and on
January 11, 2011, the Court entered its Statement of Decision
After Trial of Phase One. The conclusions and remedies contained
in the Statement of Decision were substantially unanticipated by
us. The Company subsequently engaged in a mediation session on
January 21, 2011, after which the Company reached a settlement in
principal with the plaintiffs. Final court approval of the
settlement was rendered on May 9, 2011. The settlement provided a
total benefit of $36 million to past and present policyholders who
are members of the class and for attorneys' fees payable to the
plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $11 million, litigation
expenses in an amount of $950,000, and incentives of $25,000
payable to each of the two class representatives. These amounts
were recorded as an other liability in the Company's consolidated
balance sheet at December 31, 2010, and were settled during the
second quarter of 2011. The net charge to operations of the
settlement (after related reductions in amortization of deferred
sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition costs and income
taxes) was $27.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2010.


APPLE INC: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Over E-Book Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Hazard Owen, writing for paidContent, reports that Seattle-
based law firm Hagens Berman on August 9 filed a class action
lawsuit against Apple and five of the "big 6" publishers claiming
that they illegally fixed e-book prices (through the agency model,
in which book publishers set their own e-book prices) in order to
"boost profits and force e-book rival Amazon to abandon its pro-
consumer discount pricing."  Here are the main points from the
complaint, as well as a quick look at agency pricing.

The defendants named in the case are Apple, Hachette, Simon &
Schuster, Macmillan, HarperCollins and Penguin.  The sixth "big
six" publisher, Random House, which also uses the agency model but
was the last to adopt it, is not included.  Here's a definition of
the agency model.  Under the agency model, book publishers set
their own e-book prices and the retailer (agent) receives a
commission.  Under the traditional wholesale model, which is used
for print books and was used for e-books as well until publishers
adopted the agency model in 2010, publishers set a book's retail
price and retailers can discount the books to any price that they
want.

Now, here are the main points of the complaint.

The complaint begins by saying that Amazon's Kindle had "the
potential to massively reduce distribution costs historically
associated with brick-and-mortar publishing.  But publishers
quickly realized that if market forces were allowed to prevail too
quickly, these efficiency enhancing characteristics would rapidly
lead to lower consumer prices, improved consumer welfare, and
threaten the current business model and available surplus (profit
margins).  So, faced with disruptive eBook technology that
threatened their inefficient and antiquated business model,
several major book publishers, working with Apple Inc., decided
free market competition should not be allowed to work?together
they coordinated their activities to fight back in an effort to
restrain trade and retard innovation.  The largest book publishers
and Apple were successful."

The complaint says that "Amazon's discount pricing threatened to
disrupt the publishers' long-established brick-and-mortar model
faster than the publishers were willing to accept.  Being
hidebound and lacking innovation for decades, the publishers were
particularly concerned that Amazon's pro-consumer pricing of
eBooks would negatively impact their moribund sales model, and in
particular the sale of higher priced physical copies of books."

The complaint says that the publishers "solved this problem
through coordinating between themselves (and Apple) to force
Amazon to abandon its pro-consumer pricing.  The Publisher
Defendants worked together to force the eBook sales model to be
entirely restructured."

The complaint says that "Apple facilitated changing the eBook
pricing model and conspired with the Publisher Defendants to do
so" because "the Kindle was (and is) a competitive threat to
Apple's business model."

The complaint says that the publishers named as defendants "almost
simultaneously announced that they were switching from a wholesale
pricing model to an Agency model for eBook sales" in January 2010
and "the announcements to shift to the Agency model coincided with
the release by Apple of the iPad tablet computer.  In fact, when
Apple announced the launch of the iPad on January 27, 2010, the
Publisher Defendants agreed to allow Apple to use their trademarks
in connection therewith.  The same day Apple announced launching
the iPad, it was also announced that Apple already struck deals
with Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillian, Penguin, and Simon &
Schuster to switch to the Agency model for Apple's iBookstore --
the application on Apple's iPad that functions as an eBook reader
(thus competing directly with the Amazon Kindle)."

As a result of the publishers switching to the agency model, the
complaint says: "As a direct result of this anticompetitive
conduct as intended by the conspiracy, the price of eBooks has
soared.  The price of new bestselling eBooks increased to an
average of $12-$15 -- an increase of 33 to 50%.  The price of an
eBook in many cases now approaches -- or even exceeds -- the price
of the same book in paper even though there are almost no
incremental costs to produce each additional eBook unit.  The
price of the Publisher Defendants' eBooks sold on the iBookstore,
facing no pricing competition from Amazon or other e-distributors
for the exact same eBook titles, has remained at supra-competitive
levels."

The plaintiffs are Anthony Petru of Oakland, California and Marcus
Mathis of Natchez, Mississippi.  Anthony Petru appears to be a
personal injury lawyer at Oakland firm Hildebrand McLeod & Nelson.
Mathis appears to be the former owner of the now-closed Mighty
Martini Bistro in Natchez.  "Plaintiff Petru purchased at least
one eBook at a price above $9.99 from a Publisher Defendant for
use on his Amazon Kindle," the complaint says.  "Since May 2010,
Plaintiff Mathis has purchased several eBooks from Publisher
Defendants at a price above $9.99 for use on his Sony Reader."

A few things to note here:

   -- The description of the plaintiffs appears to assume that
$9.99 -- the price at which Amazon used to price the Kindle
editions of most New York Times bestselling titles -- or less is
the "correct" price for an e-book.  The complaint also suggests
that e-books are too expensive.

   -- Random House, which was the last "big 6" publisher to adopt
the agency model for e-book pricing (in February 2011) is not
listed as a defendant.

   -- The agency model requires publishers to price their e-books
the same at all e-bookstores.  Publishers can also put their
e-books on sale and extend sale prices across all e-bookstores.

   -- Amazon is believed to have about 60% of market share for
e-books, with Apple at about 10%.


ARCH CHEMICALS: Faces Class Suits Over Merger With Lonza Group
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arch Chemicals, Inc., is facing two class action lawsuits in
connection with the proposed sale of all of its shares of stock to
LG Acquisition Corp., according to the Company's August 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On July 10, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Lonza Group Ltd., a
company organized under the laws of Switzerland ("Lonza"), and LG
Acquisition Corp., a Virginia corporation and an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Lonza ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among
other things, Merger Sub has commenced a tender offer (the
"Offer") for all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common
stock, at a price of $47.20 per share, net to the seller in cash
(the "Offer Price"), subject to the terms and conditions of the
Merger Agreement.

On July 19, 2011, the Company agreed to accept service of a
complaint in a purported shareholder class action in the Superior
Court of the State of Connecticut in Stamford, captioned GSS 5-08
Trust v. Arch Chemicals, Inc., et al.  An amended complaint was
filed on August 2, 2011.  The amended complaint names as
defendants the Company, the members of the Company's Board, Lonza
Group Ltd. and LG Acquisition Corp., and alleges that the members
of the Board breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the sale of the Company and that
the Company, Lonza and Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported
breaches of fiduciary duties.  In support of the plaintiff's
claims, the amended complaint alleges that the proposed
transaction between the Company and Merger Sub undervalues the
Company and involves an inadequate sale process and preclusive
deal protection devices, and that the Board has failed to disclose
to shareholders all material information about the proposed
transaction.  The GSS 5-08 Trust suit seeks to enjoin the
transaction, to obtain damages and to impose a constructive trust
in favor of plaintiff and the class upon any property and profits
received by defendants as a result of wrongful conduct.  It also
seeks attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to seeking
other relief.

On July 28, 2011, the Company was served with another complaint,
entitled Leonard Ahern v. Arch Chemicals, Inc. et.al.  The Ahern
suit also is a purported class action, is brought on behalf of the
same purported class of shareholders of the Company as the GSS 5-
08 Trust suit, and was brought in the Superior Court of the State
of Connecticut in Stamford.  The Ahern complaint contains similar
allegations to those in the amended complaint in the GSS 5-08
Trust suit, and also alleges that the Board ignored conflicts of
interest relating to benefits members of the Board would receive
as a result of the transaction.  The Company believes these
lawsuits are without merit and will contest them vigorously.


BANK OF AMERICA: Another Interchange Suit Filed in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Another lawsuit, captioned Bancroft-Snell v. Visa Canada Corp. et
al., has been filed with regard to interchange fees associated
with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions, according to
Bank of America Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

A group of merchants has filed a series of putative class actions
and individual actions with regard to interchange fees associated
with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.  These
actions, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation (Interchange), name Visa, MasterCard and several banks
and bank holding Companies, including Bank of America Corporation
(the "Corporation"), as defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants conspired to fix the level of default interchange
rates, which represent the fee an issuing bank charges an
acquiring bank on every transaction.  Plaintiffs also challenge as
unreasonable restraints of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act certain rules of Visa and MasterCard related to merchant
acceptance of payment cards at the point of sale.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on their assertion
that interchange would be lower or eliminated absent the alleged
conduct.  On January 8, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss all claims for pre-2004 damages.  Motions to dismiss
the remainder of the complaint and plaintiffs' motion for class
certification are pending.

In addition, plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints against
certain defendants, including the Corporation, relating to initial
public offerings (the IPOs) of MasterCard and Visa.  Plaintiffs
allege that the MasterCard and Visa IPOs violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Plaintiffs also
assert that the MasterCard IPO was a fraudulent conveyance.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and to undo the IPOs. Motions
to dismiss both supplemental complaints remain pending.

The Corporation and certain of its affiliates previously entered
into loss-sharing agreements with Visa and other financial
institutions in connection with certain antitrust litigation
against Visa, including Interchange.  The Corporation and these
same affiliates have now entered into additional loss-sharing
agreements for Interchange that cover all defendants, including
MasterCard.  Collectively, the loss-sharing agreements require the
Corporation and/or certain affiliates to pay 11.6 percent of the
monetary portion of any comprehensive Interchange settlement.  In
the event of an adverse judgment, the agreements require the
Corporation and/or certain affiliates to pay 12.8 percent of any
damages associated with Visa-related claims (Visa-related
damages), 9.1 percent of any damages associated with MasterCard-
related claims, and 11.6 percent of any damages associated with
internetwork claims (internetwork damages) or not associated
specifically with Visa or MasterCard-related claims (unassigned
damages).

On March 28, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia, Canada, under the caption Watson v.
Bank of America Corporation et al., on behalf of a putative class
of merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard credit cards in
Canada.  The lawsuit names as defendants Visa, MasterCard and a
number of other banks and bank holding Companies, including the
Corporation.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired
to fix the merchant discount fees that merchants pay to acquiring
banks on credit card transactions.  The plaintiff also alleges
that the defendants conspired to impose certain rules relating to
merchant acceptance of credit cards at the point of sale.  The
action asserts claims under section 45 of the Competition Act and
other common law claims, and seeks unspecified damages and
injunctive relief based on their assertion that merchant discount
fees would be lower absent the challenged conduct.

Pursuant to Visa's publicly-disclosed Retrospective Responsibility
Plan (the RRP), Visa placed certain proceeds from its initial
public offering (IPO) into an escrow fund (the Escrow).  Under the
RRP, funds in the Escrow may be accessed by Visa and its members,
including Bank of America, to pay for a comprehensive settlement
or damages in Interchange, with the Corporation's payments from
the Escrow capped at 12.81 percent of the funds that Visa places
therein.  Subject to that cap, the Corporation may use Escrow
funds to cover 73.9 percent of its monetary payment towards a
comprehensive Interchange settlement, 100 percent of its payment
for any Visa-related damages and 73.9 percent of its payment for
any internetwork and unassigned damages.

On May 16, 2011, a proceeding parallel to Watson v. Bank of
America Corporation, containing substantially the same allegations
was commenced in Ontario Superior Court under the caption
Bancroft-Snell v. Visa Canada Corp. et. al.


BANK OF AMERICA: Appeal From "Closson" Suit Deal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of a settlement in the lawsuit
Closson, et al. v. Bank of America, et al., remains pending,
according to Bank of America Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) is currently a defendant in several
consumer lawsuits challenging certain deposit account-related
business practices.  Three of the lawsuits are presently part of a
multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding involving approximately
65 individual cases against 30 financial institutions assigned by
the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The three
cases, Tornes v. Bank of America, N.A., Yourke, et al. v. Bank of
America, N.A., et al. and Knighten v. Bank of America, N.A.,
allege that BANA improperly and unfairly increased the number of
overdraft fees it assessed on consumer deposit accounts by various
means.  The cases challenge the practice of reordering debit card
transactions to post high-to-low and BANA's failure to notify
customers at the point of sale that the transaction may result in
an overdraft charge.  The cases also allege that BANA's
disclosures and advertising regarding the posting of debit card
transactions are false, deceptive and misleading.  These cases
assert claims including breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violation of the unfair and deceptive practices statutes of
various states.  Plaintiffs generally seek restitution of all
overdraft fees paid to BANA as a result of BANA's allegedly
wrongful business practices, as well as disgorgement, punitive
damages, injunctive relief, pre-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees.  Omnibus motions to dismiss many of the complaints involved
in the MDL, including Tornes, Yourke and Knighten, were denied on
March 12, 2010.  Trial is currently scheduled for March 26, 2012.
A fourth putative class action, Phillips, et al. v. Bank of
America, N.A., which includes similar allegations, will shortly
become part of the MDL proceedings.

In December 2004, BANA was also named as the defendant in Closson,
et al. v. Bank of America, et al., a putative class action
currently pending in the California Court of Appeal, First
District, Division 1, which also challenges BANA's practice of
reordering debit card transactions to post deposits in high-to-low
order.  Closson asserts claims for violations of California state
law, and seeks restitution, disgorgement, actual and punitive
damages, a corrective advertising campaign and injunctive relief.
BANA entered into a settlement in Closson, which received final
approval by the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Francisco on August 3, 2009.  The settlement
provides for a $35 million payment by BANA in exchange for a
release of the claims against BANA by the members of the
nationwide settlement class.  Several settlement class members who
objected to the final approval of the settlement have appealed.
If the Closson settlement is affirmed, it will likely bar the
claims of many of the putative class members in Tornes, Yourke and
Knighten, as many of those class members are covered by the
putative class in Closson.

On January 27, 2011, Bank of America Corporation (the
"Corporation") reached a settlement in principle with the lead
plaintiffs in the MDL, subject to complete final documentation and
court approvals.  The settlement will provide for a payment by the
Corporation of $410 million (which amount was fully accrued by the
Corporation as of December 31, 2010) in exchange for a complete
release of claims asserted against the Corporation in the MDL.
The settlement also contemplates that a stay will be requested in
the Closson appeal and that, when this settlement becomes
effective, the appeal in Closson will be withdrawn and the
settlement in Closson will be effectuated according to its terms.


BANK OF AMERICA: Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of a settlement resolving a
consolidated lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation's
subsidiaries remains pending, according to the Corporation's
August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Bank of America Securities LLC ("BAS"), Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("MLPFS"), and
certain of their subsidiaries, along with other underwriters, and
various issuers and others, were named as defendants in a number
of putative class action lawsuits that have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as
In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation.  Plaintiffs
contend, among other things, that defendants failed to make
certain required disclosures in the registration statements and
prospectuses for applicable offerings regarding alleged agreements
with institutional investors that tied allocations in certain
offerings to the purchase orders by those investors in the
aftermarket.  Plaintiffs allege that such agreements allowed
defendants to manipulate the price of the securities sold in these
offerings in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC
rules promulgated thereunder.  The parties agreed to settle the
matter, for which the court granted final approval.  Some putative
class members have filed an appeal, which remains pending, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking reversal of
the final approval.


BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals in Antitrust Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of two putative antitrust class action
lawsuits alleging that Bank of America Corporation and other
defendants conspired to restrain trade in auction rate securities
remain pending, according to the Corporation's August 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Bank of America Corporation (the "Corporation") and its
subsidiary, Merrill Lynch & Co., and other financial institutions
were also named in two putative antitrust class actions in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs in both actions assert federal antitrust claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on allegations that defendants
conspired to restrain trade in auction rate securities ("ARS") by
placing support bids in ARS auctions, only to collectively
withdraw those bids in February 2008, which allegedly caused ARS
auctions to fail.  The plaintiff in the first action, Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Citigroup, Inc., et al.,
seeks to represent a class of issuers of ARS that the defendants
underwrote between May 12, 2003, and February 13, 2008.  This
issuer action seeks to recover, among other relief, the alleged
above-market interest payments that ARS issuers allegedly have had
to make after the defendants allegedly stopped placing "support
bids" in ARS auctions.  The plaintiff in the second action,
Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., seeks to represent a
class of investors that purchased ARS from the defendants and held
those securities when ARS auctions failed on February 13, 2008.
Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other relief, unspecified
damages for losses in the ARS' market value, and rescission of the
investors' ARS purchases.  Both actions also seek treble damages
and attorneys' fees under the Sherman Act's private civil remedy.
On January 25, 2010, the court dismissed both actions with
prejudice and the plaintiffs' respective appeals are currently
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Consolidate MBS Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
subsidiary's motion to centralize federal court cases involving
the subsidiary's mortgage-backed securities claims in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Bank of America Corporation ("Corporation") and its affiliates,
Countrywide Financial Corporation and its entities and their
affiliates, and Merrill Lynch & Co. and its entities and their
affiliates have been named as defendants in several cases relating
to their various roles as issuer, originator, seller, depositor,
sponsor, underwriter and/or controlling entity in mortgage-backed
securities ("MBS") offerings, pursuant to which the MBS investors
were entitled to a portion of the cash flow from the underlying
pools of mortgages.  These cases generally include purported class
action lawsuits and actions by individual MBS purchasers.
Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally
allege that the registration statements, prospectuses and
prospectus supplements for securities issued by securitization
trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions, in
violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933
and/or state securities laws and other state statutory and common
laws.

These cases generally involve allegations of false and misleading
statements regarding: (i) the process by which the properties that
served as collateral for the mortgage loans underlying the MBS
were appraised; (ii) the percentage of equity that mortgage
borrowers had in their homes; (iii) the borrowers' ability to
repay their mortgage loans; and (iv) the underwriting practices by
which those mortgage loans were originated (collectively, the MBS
Claims).  In addition, several cases assert claims related to the
ratings given to the different tranches of MBS by rating agencies.
Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek unspecified compensatory
damages, unspecified costs and legal fees and, in some instances,
seek rescission.

On May 24, 2011, Countrywide filed with the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation a motion to centralize federal court
cases involving Countrywide MBS Claims in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, which is pending.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Bondar" Plaintiffs' Time to Decide Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' time to decide whether to file an amended complaint,
after its lawsuit captioned Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation
was dismissed, is stayed pending a decision in another case,
according to the Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

Bank of America Corporation (the "Corporation") and its
subsidiary, Merrill Lynch & Co., face a number of civil actions
relating to the sales of auction rate securities ("ARS") and
management of ARS auctions, including two putative class action
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs seek to recover the alleged
losses in market value of ARS securities purportedly caused by the
defendants' actions.  Plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages,
including rescission, other compensatory and consequential
damages, costs, fees and interest.  The first action, In Re
Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities Litigation, is the result of
the consolidation of two separate class action lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  These
lawsuits were brought by two customers of Merrill Lynch, on behalf
of all persons who purchased ARS in auctions managed by Merrill
Lynch, against Merrill Lynch and its subsidiary Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MLPFS).  On March 31, 2010,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted Merrill Lynch's motion to dismiss.  On April 22, 2010, a
lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is currently pending.  The
second action, Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation, was brought
by a putative class of ARS purchasers against the Corporation and
Banc of America Securities, LLC (BAS) and is currently pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On February 24, 2011, the California District Court dismissed the
Bondar case.  The plaintiffs' time to decide whether to file an
amended complaint is stayed pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit's decision in In Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate
Securities Litigation.


BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Montgomery" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against a class action lawsuit captioned Montgomery
v. Bank of America, et al., according to the Corporation's
August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Bank of America Corporation (the "Corporation"), several of its
current and former officers and directors, Bank of America
Securities LLC ("BAS"), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated ("MLPFS") and other unaffiliated underwriters have
been named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled
Montgomery v. Bank of America, et al.  Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on January 14, 2011.  Plaintiff seeks to sue on behalf
of all persons who acquired certain series of preferred stock
offered by the Corporation pursuant to a shelf registration
statement dated May 5, 2006.  Plaintiff's claims arise from three
offerings dated January 24, 2008, January 28, 2008, and May 20,
2008, from which the Corporation allegedly received proceeds of
$15.8 billion.  The amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
alleges that the prospectus supplements associated with the
offerings: (i) failed to disclose that the Corporation's loans,
leases, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and commercial
mortgage-backed securities (MBS) were impaired to a greater extent
than disclosed; (ii) misrepresented the extent of the impaired
assets by failing to establish adequate reserves or properly
record losses for its impaired assets; (iii) misrepresented the
adequacy of the Corporation's internal controls in light of the
alleged impairment of its assets; (iv) misrepresented the
Corporation's capital base and Tier 1 leverage ratio for risk-
based capital in light of the allegedly impaired assets; and (v)
misrepresented the thoroughness and adequacy of the Corporation's
due diligence in connection with its acquisition of Countrywide
Financial Corporation.  The amended complaint seeks rescission,
compensatory and other damages.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Certifies Class in Merrill Lynch MBS Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York
granted in June 2011 a motion for class certification in the
consolidated lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation and its
Merrill Lynch subsidiaries, according to the Corporation's
August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Bank of America Corporation (the "Corporation"), its subsidiaries
Merrill Lynch & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated ("MLPFS") and Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
(MLMI) and certain current and former directors of MLMI are named
as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York, entitled
Public Employees' Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch &
Co. Inc.  In addition to mortgage-backed securities ("MBS")
claims, plaintiffs also allege that the offering documents for the
MBS misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the credit
ratings assigned to the securities.  In March 2010, the court
dismissed claims related to 65 of 84 offerings with prejudice due
to lack of standing as no named plaintiff purchased securities in
those offerings.  On November 8, 2010, the court dismissed claims
related to one of 19 remaining offerings on separate grounds.
MLPFS was the sole underwriter of these 18 offerings.  On
December 1, 2010, the defendants filed an answer to the
consolidated amended complaint.

On June 15, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses Plaintiffs' Claim in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed plaintiffs' claim alleging that Bank of America
Corporation failed to make an interim disclosure of its 2008
fourth-quarter losses, according to the Corporation's August 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Plaintiffs in the putative securities class actions in the In re
Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation (Securities Plaintiffs)
represent all (i) purchasers of the Corporation's common and
preferred securities between September 15, 2008, and January 21,
2009; (ii) holders of the Corporation's common stock or Series B
Preferred Stock as of October 10, 2008; and (iii) purchasers of
the Corporation's common stock issued in the offering that
occurred on or about October 7, 2008.  During the purported class
period, Bank of America Corporation (the "Corporation") had
between 4,560,112,687 and 5,017,579,321 common shares outstanding
and the price of those securities declined from $33.74 on
September 12, 2008, to $6.68 on January 21, 2009.  Securities
Plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC rules promulgated
thereunder.  Securities Plaintiffs' amended complaint also alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 related to an offering of the Corporation's common stock
that occurred on or about October 7, 2008, and names Bank of
America Securities LLC ("BAS") and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated ("MLPFS"), among others, as defendants on the
Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims.  The Corporation and its co-
defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the court granted in
part by dismissing certain of the Securities Plaintiffs' claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Securities Plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint which
seeks to replead some of the dismissed claims as well as add
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of holders of certain debt, preferred
securities and option securities.  The Corporation and its co-
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint's new and amended allegations, which remains pending.
Securities Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, legal
costs and attorneys' fees.

Several individual plaintiffs have opted to pursue claims apart
from the In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative, and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation and,
accordingly, have initiated individual actions relying on
substantially the same facts and claims as the Securities
Plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On January 13, 2010, the Corporation, Merrill Lynch and certain of
the Corporation's current and former officers and directors were
named in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York entitled Dornfest v. Bank of
America Corp., et al.  The action is purportedly brought on behalf
of investors in Corporation option contracts between September 15,
2008 and January 22, 2009 and alleges that during the class period
approximately 9.5 million Corporation call option contracts and
approximately eight million Corporation put option contracts were
already traded on seven of the Options Clearing Corporation
exchanges.  The complaint alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC rules promulgated thereunder.  On April 9, 2010, the court
consolidated this action with the consolidated securities action
in the In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, and ruled that
the plaintiffs may pursue the action as an individual action.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, legal costs and
attorneys' fees.

On July 29, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Corporation's and its co-defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint in the In re Bank of America Securities,
Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Litigation.  Among other rulings, the court: (i) dismissed
plaintiffs' claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 alleging that the Corporation and individual
defendants committed securities fraud in connection with the
failure to disclose the Corporation's discussions with government
officials in December 2008 regarding the possibility of obtaining
government assistance in completing the Merrill Lynch acquisition;
(ii) dismissed the claims of certain holders of the Corporation's
preferred shares, purchasers of the Corporation's bonds, and
owners of call options on the ground that such securities holders
lacked standing to pursue a claim against the Corporation and the
individual defendants; and (iii) sustained plaintiffs' Section
10(b) claim alleging the Corporation failed to disclose the
financial condition and 2008 fourth-quarter losses experienced by
Merrill Lynch.  On August 2, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs'
Section 10(b) claim alleging that the Corporation failed to make
an interim disclosure of its 2008 fourth-quarter losses.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants in Part Dismissal of "Lehman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint in the consolidated lawsuit relating to the lending
practices of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., according to the
Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

Beginning in September 2008, Bank of America Securities LLC
("BAS"), Merrill Lynch & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated ("MLPFS"), Countrywide Securities Corporation
(CSC) and LaSalle Financial Services Inc., along with other
underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several
putative class action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts.
All of these cases have since been transferred or conditionally
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under the caption In re Lehman Brothers Securities and
ERISA Litigation.  Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter
defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
well as various state laws, by making false or misleading
disclosures about the real estate-related investments and mortgage
lending practices of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (LBHI) in
connection with various debt and convertible stock offerings of
LBHI.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On June 4, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class
action complaint, and on July 27, 2011, the court granted in part
and denied in part the motion.  Certain of the allegations in the
complaint that purported to support the Section 11 claim against
the underwriter defendants were dismissed; others were not
dismissed relating to alleged misstatements regarding LBHI's
leverage and financial condition, risk management and risk
concentrations.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Add Units in IndyMac MBS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied in June 2011 a motion to add Bank of America Corporation's
subsidiaries as defendants in the consolidated securities
litigation of IndyMac MBS, Inc., according to the Corporation's
August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In 2006 and 2007, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated ("MLPFS"), Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC)
and other financial institutions participated as underwriters in
mortgage-backed securities ("MBS") offerings in which IndyMac MBS,
Inc. securitized residential mortgage loans originated or acquired
by IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac Bank) and created trusts that
issued MBS.  In 2009, the Corporation was named as an underwriter
defendant, along with several other financial institutions, in its
alleged capacity as "successor-in-interest" to MLPFS and CSC in a
consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, entitled In re IndyMac Mortgage-
Backed Securities Litigation.  In their complaint, plaintiffs
assert MBS Claims relating to 106 offerings of IndyMac-related
MBS.  On June 21, 2010, the court dismissed the Corporation from
the action because the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts
to support their allegation that the Corporation is the
"successor-in-interest" to MLPFS and CSC.  On August 3, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion to add MLPFS and CSC as defendants,
which MLPFS and CSC have opposed.

On June 21, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend to
add MLPFS and CSC as defendants.


BANK OF AMERICA: Municipal Derivatives Litigation Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated action entitled In re Municipal Derivatives
Antitrust Litigation against Bank of America Corporation, its
subsidiaries and other defendants remains stayed while the U.S.
Department of Justice completes its criminal trials concerning
other parties, according to the Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Department
of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of
Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve and a Working
Group of State Attorneys General (the Working Group) have
investigated Bank of America Corporation (the "Corporation"), Bank
of America, N.A. ("BANA") and Bank of America Securities LLC
("BAS") concerning possible anticompetitive practices in the
municipal derivatives industry dating back to the early 1990s.
These investigations have focused on the bidding practices for
guaranteed investment contracts, the investment vehicles in which
the proceeds of municipal bond offerings are deposited, as well as
other types of derivative transactions related to municipal bonds.
On January 11, 2007, the Corporation entered a Corporate
Conditional Leniency Letter with the DOJ, under which the DOJ
agreed not to prosecute the Corporation for criminal antitrust
violations in connection with matters the Corporation has reported
to the DOJ, subject to the Corporation's continued cooperation.
On December 7, 2010, the Corporation and its affiliates settled
inquiries with the SEC, OCC, IRS and the Working Group for an
aggregate amount that is not material to the Corporation's results
of operations.  In addition, the Corporation entered into an
agreement with the Federal Reserve providing for additional
oversight and compliance risk management.

BANA and Merrill Lynch & Co., along with other financial
institutions, are named as defendants in several substantially
similar class actions and individual actions, filed in various
state and federal courts by several municipalities that issued
municipal bonds, as well as purchasers of municipal derivatives.
These actions generally allege that defendants conspired to
violate federal and state antitrust laws by allocating customers,
and fixing or stabilizing rates of return on certain municipal
derivatives from 1992 to the present.  These actions seek
unspecified damages, including treble damages.  However, as a
result of the Corporation's receipt of the Corporate Leniency
Letter from the DOJ, the Corporation is eligible to seek a ruling
that certain civil plaintiffs are limited to single, rather than
treble, damages and relief from joint and several liability with
co-defendants in civil lawsuits.  All of the actions have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York and consolidated in a single proceeding, entitled In
re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation.  Defendants other
than BANA and Merrill Lynch filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaints, which the court denied in large part in April 2010.
The action has otherwise been largely stayed while the DOJ
completes its criminal trials concerning other parties.


BANK OF AMERICA: Unit Seeks Review of Reversal of Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Financial Corporation, a subsidiary of Bank of America
Corporation, has a pending petition with the California Supreme
Court to further review the reversal of a lower court's dismissal
of the class action commenced by David H. Luther, according to the
Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

David H. Luther and various pension funds (collectively, Luther
Plaintiffs) commenced a putative class action against Countrywide
Financial Corporation, several of its affiliates, Bank of America
Securities LLC ("BAS"), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated ("MLPFS") and other entities and individuals in
California Superior Court for Los Angeles County entitled Luther
v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al (the Luther Action).
The Luther Plaintiffs claim that they and other unspecified
investors purchased mortgage-backed securities ("MBS") issued by
subsidiaries of CFC in 429 offerings between January 2005 and
December 2007.  The Luther Plaintiffs certified that they
collectively purchased securities in 61 of the 429 offerings for
approximately $216 million.  On January 6, 2010, the court granted
CFC's motion to dismiss, with prejudice, due to lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  The Luther Plaintiffs appealed to the
California Court of Appeal.

On May 18, 2011, in Luther Action, the California Court of Appeal
reversed the Superior Court's dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
Countrywide filed a petition for further review by the California
Supreme Court.

Following the dismissal of the Luther Action, the Maine State
Retirement System filed a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, entitled
Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al. (the Maine Action).  The Maine Action names
the same defendants as the Luther Action, as well as the
Corporation and NB Holdings Corporation, and asserts substantially
the same allegations regarding 427 of the MBS offerings that were
at issue in the Luther Action.  On May 14, 2010, the court
appointed the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) as
Lead Plaintiff.  On July 13, 2010, IPERS filed an amended
complaint, which added additional pension fund plaintiffs
(collectively, the Maine Plaintiffs).  The Maine Plaintiffs
certified that they purchased securities in 81 of those 427
offerings, for approximately $538 million.  On November 4, 2010,
the court granted CFC's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety, and ordered the Maine Plaintiffs to file a second
amended complaint within 30 days.  In so doing, the court held
that the Maine Plaintiffs only have standing to sue over the 81
offerings in which they actually purchased MBS.  The court also
held that the applicable statute of limitations could be tolled by
the filing of the Luther Action only with respect to the offerings
in which the Luther Plaintiffs actually purchased MBS.  On
December 6, 2010, the Maine Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint that relates to 14 MBS offerings.

Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund (Western
Teamsters) filed lawsuit against the same defendants named in the
Maine Action on November 17, 2010, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, entitled Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation,
et al.  Western Teamsters claims that it and other unspecified
investors purchased MBS issued in the 428 offerings that were also
at issue in the Luther Action.  The Western Teamsters action has
been stayed by the Superior Court pending resolution of the appeal
of the Luther Action.

The New Mexico State Investment Council, New Mexico Educational
Retirement Board and New Mexico Public Employees Retirement
Association (the New Mexico Plaintiffs) have also brought an
action against CFC and several of its affiliates, current and
former officers, as well as third-party underwriters in New Mexico
District Court for the County of Santa Fe, entitled New Mexico
State Investment Council, et al. v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al.  A related action was later filed against the
individual defendants in California Superior Court, entitled New
Mexico State Investment Council, et al. v. Stanford L. Kurland, et
al.  On November 15, 2010, the parties agreed to resolve and
dismiss these two cases in their entirety with prejudice for an
amount that is not material to the Corporation's results of
operations.

Putnam Bank filed a putative class action lawsuit on January 27,
2011 against CFC, the Corporation, certain of their subsidiaries,
and certain individuals in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, entitled Putnam Bank v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al.  Putnam Bank alleges that it
purchased approximately $33 million in eight MBS offerings issued
by subsidiaries of CFC between August 2005 and September 2007.
All eight offerings were also included in the Luther Action and
the Maine Action.  In addition to certain MBS Claims, Putnam Bank
contends among other things that defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding: (i) the number of mortgage loans
in each offering that were originated under reduced documentation
programs; (ii) the method by which mortgages were selected for
inclusion in the collateral pools underlying the offerings; and
(iii) the analysis conducted by ratings agencies prior to
assigning ratings to the MBS.

On April 21, 2011, the court dismissed with prejudice the
Corporation and NB Holdings Corporation as defendants in the Maine
Action.

On May 6, 2011, the court held, in the Maine Action, that the
Maine Plaintiffs only have standing to sue over the specific MBS
tranches that they purchased, and that the applicable statute of
limitations could be tolled by the filing of the Luther Action
only with respect to the specific tranches of MBS that the Luther
Plaintiffs purchased.  On June 6, 2011, the Maine Plaintiffs filed
a third amended complaint that asserts claims in connection with
nine MBS tranches and moved for certification of the case as a
class action.  On June 15, 2011, the court denied the Maine
Plaintiffs' motion to permit immediate interlocutory appeal of the
court's orders on standing, tolling of the statute of limitations,
and successor liability.

The Corporation says Countrywide may also be subject to
contractual indemnification obligations for the benefit of certain
defendants involved in the MBS matters.


BEST LIGHTING: Recalls 450 LHQM LED Emergency Exit Signs
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
manufacturer, Best Lighting Products, of Pataskala, Ohio, and
distributor, Lithonia Lighting, a division of Acuity Brands
Lighting Inc. of Conyers, Georgia, announced a voluntary recall of
about LHQM LED exit signs with emergency lights.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The fixtures can malfunction and fail to illuminate in the event
of a power failure.  This could result in a failure to provide
adequate lighting to guide building occupants to an exit in the
event of an emergency.

There were ten reports of signs malfunctioning during testing
after installation.  No injuries were reported.

The recalled exit signs have emergency lights fixed at either end
with "EXIT" in red or green in the center.  The fixtures are
installed in commercial buildings, such as hotels and office
buildings.  Affected model numbers can be found on a label affixed
inside the fixture housing and on the outside of the packaging,
and include: LHQM LED G M6, LHQM LED R M6 and LHQM LED R HO M6.
Affected models have the following date codes on the inside
fixture housing: 1003S10, 1004S10 or 1005S10.  Dates on the
packaging carton include any calendar dates in March, April or May
2010.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11300.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold to
authorized distributors nationwide from January 2011 through May
2011 for $100 to $200.

Consumers should contact Lithonia Lighting for a free replacement
product.  For additional information, contact Lithonia Lighting
toll-free at (800) 334-8694 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site at
http://www.lithonialighting.com/


CARGILL INC: Gov't. Knew About Salmonella in Turkey Before Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Tomson of The Wall Street Journal reports that salmonella was
spotted in an Arkansas plant and in stores as early as 2010, and
that legal rules on the bug prevented recall until August 3, 2011.

Federal officials said they turned up a dangerous form of
salmonella at a Cargill Inc. turkey plant last year, and then four
times this year at stores selling the Cargill turkey, but didn't
move for a recall until an outbreak killed one person and sickened
77 others.

Cargill and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the
recall of ground turkey from the Cargill plant in Springdale,
Arkansas, on August 3.  The USDA said the third-largest meat
recall in history affected 36 million pounds of ground turkey.

Food-safety specialists said the delay reflected a gap in federal
rules that don't treat salmonella as a poisonous contaminant, even
if inspectors find antibiotic-resistant forms such as the
Heidelberg strain implicated in the latest outbreak.

"We have constraints when it comes to salmonella," said Elisabeth
Hagen, the USDA's top food-safety official, in an interview.  She
said that unlike E. coli, salmonella isn't officially considered a
dangerous adulterant in meat unless that meat is directly tied to
an illness or death.

A routine USDA inspection last year of the Cargill plant in
Arkansas turned up three samples contaminated with salmonella
Heidelberg, the agency said.  A USDA spokesman said the agency
brought the findings "to the attention of the facility."

Meat plants are expected to pass a performance standard that
allows up to 49.9% of tests to come back positive for salmonella.
A Cargill spokesman said the Arkansas plant had passed all USDA
performance standards despite what he called "routine" findings of
salmonella Heidelberg.

More warning signs emerged in April from tests by the federal
government's National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System,
which examines meat samples in retail stores.  Researchers from
Narms found salmonella Heidelberg in a package of ground turkey
that came from the Cargill Arkansas plant.

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began
investigating clusters of salmonella Heidelberg illnesses that had
begun in March.  Antibiotic-resistant forms of salmonella such as
Heidelberg have become a serious health problem because they
cannot be treated with some common antibiotics.  If untreated,
infections can be fatal.

Chris Braden, a CDC official in charge of monitoring food-borne
illnesses, said the CDC knew about the Narms findings in retail
stores, but didn't immediately act on Cargill turkey because it
wasn't clear what food was making the patients ill.

Finding salmonella Heidelberg in ground turkey at a retail store
doesn't mean it is behind an outbreak, even if government
investigators also spot patients suffering from the same bacteria
with similar genetic patterns, said the USDA's Dr. Hagen, who is
undersecretary for food safety.

Salmonella is most commonly found in meat, poultry, eggs and milk.
In many cases, people may eat meat contaminated with salmonella
and suffer only mild discomfort.  But salmonella Heidelberg is
turning out to be far more dangerous, according to Dr. Braden of
the CDC, who said the rate of hospitalization of patients in the
recent outbreak was 38%.

As the outbreak spread, Narms inspections in May, June and July
continued to find salmonella Heidelberg in turkey from the Cargill
plant.  The Cargill spokesman said the company was not informed
about the Narms findings.

The USDA finally contacted Cargill about suspected contamination
of ground turkey on July 29, department officials said.  After
specific illnesses were connected to turkey from the plant,
Cargill idled ground-turkey output on August 3.  The USDA
suspended all operations there August 5, while inspectors look for
the cause of the contamination.

In last year's salmonella-related recall of a half-billion eggs,
federal officials acknowledged that poor communication between
agencies played a role as USDA daily reports about sanitation
problems at an Iowa farm failed to make their way to the Food and
Drug Administration.

A food-safety law passed year gave the FDA authority to order
recalls of many types of food for the first time, but meat and
poultry remain the responsibility of the USDA, which can only
request recalls, not order them.

Government agencies were "clearly too slow" in informing the
public that there was a contamination in ground turkey, said Doug
Powell, Kansas State University professor of food safety.  He said
the USDA should have contacted Cargill earlier about the
contaminated store samples.

The USDA has previously tried to treat salmonella contamination as
a threat, most notably when it tried and failed to shut down a
Texas ground-beef plant in 1999 .  A federal appeals court ruled
that salmonella was naturally occurring and didn't present a
threat so long as people cooked their meat thoroughly.

"We didn't have the authority we needed," said Dan Glickman, the
USDA secretary at the time.  "We ran into a brick wall."

Caroline Smith DeWaal, food-safety director at the consumer group
Center for Science in the Public Interest, said that antibiotic-
resistant strains of salmonella are treated legally the same as
regular salmonella, and legal precedents tie the USDA's hands.

Dr. Hagen said the USDA was considering a petition submitted by
Ms. DeWaal's group to declare antibiotic-resistant forms of
salmonella as adulterants.

"It means that these are pathogens that are more dangerous and
need to be addressed in a similar way that the USDA addresses E.
coli," said Chris Waldrop, director of the Consumer Federation of
America's Food Policy Institute.


CIGNA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Karp" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit alleging gender discrimination
filed by Bretta Karp, according to the Company's August 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 3, 2011, Bretta Karp filed a class action gender
discrimination lawsuit, captioned Bretta Karp on behalf of herself
individually and others similarly situated v. CIGNA Healthcare,
Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  The plaintiff alleges systemic discrimination
against females in compensation, promotions, training, and
performance evaluations in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Massachusetts law.  Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and various other forms of broad
programmatic relief, including injunctive relief, backpay, lost
benefits, and preferential rights to jobs.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit on May 16, 2011.

The Company denies the allegations asserted in the litigation and
will vigorously defend itself in this case.  Due to numerous
uncertain and unpredictable factors presented in this case,
including the merits of the case and the lack of any clear basis
to determine the definition of a class of claimants, it is not
possible to estimate a range of loss (if any) at this time.


CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend Ingenix-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Corporation continues to defend lawsuits related to its use
of data from Ingenix, Inc., according to the Company's August 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a number of putative
nationwide class actions asserting that due to the use of data
from Ingenix, Inc., the Company improperly underpaid claims, an
industry-wide issue.  Data from Ingenix, a subsidiary of
UnitedHealthcare, is used to calculate payments for services
provided by out-of-network providers.  All of the class actions
were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company et al. that is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The consolidated
amended complaint, filed on August 7, 2009, asserts claims under
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Sherman Antitrust
Act and New Jersey state law on behalf of subscribers, health care
providers and various medical associations.  CIGNA filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
September 9, 2009, that is fully briefed and pending.  Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification on May 28, 2010, that is
also fully briefed and pending.  Fact and expert discovery have
been completed.

On June 9, 2009, CIGNA filed motions in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida to enforce a previous
settlement, In re Managed Care Litigation, by enjoining the RICO
and antitrust causes of action asserted by the provider and
medical association plaintiffs in the Ingenix litigation on the
ground that they arose previously and were released in the prior
settlement.  On November 30, 2009, the Court granted the motions
and ordered the provider and association plaintiffs to withdraw
their RICO and antitrust claims from the Ingenix litigation by
December 21, 2009.  Those claims have now been withdrawn, although
the plaintiffs are pursuing an appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Company says it is reasonably possible that others could
initiate additional litigation or additional regulatory action
against the Company with respect to use of data provided by
Ingenix, Inc.  The Company denies the allegations asserted in the
investigations and litigation and will vigorously defend itself in
these matters.

Due to numerous uncertain and unpredictable factors presented in
these cases, including the lack of any clear basis to determine
whether and to what extent the claimants have been injured, it is
not possible to estimate a range of loss at this time.


CIGNA CORP: U.S. Supreme Court Remanded "Amara" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court in May 2011 reversed a lower
court's opinion and remanded the lawsuit commenced by Janice Amara
to the trial judge for reconsideration of remedy, according to
CIGNA Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit,
captioned Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CIGNA Corporation and CIGNA Pension Plan, in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against CIGNA
Corporation and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The
plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 including, among other things, that
the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older
employees; the conversion resulted in a wear away period (during
which the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-
conversion benefit); and these conditions are not adequately
disclosed in the Plan.

In 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor of CIGNA
Corporation and the CIGNA Pension Plan on the age discrimination
and wear away claims.  However, the court found in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims and ordered an
enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance formula
for the majority of the class, requiring class members to receive
their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion CIGNA Pension Plan
and their post-1997 accrued benefits under the post-conversion
CIGNA Pension Plan.  The court also ordered, among other things,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Both parties appealed the court's decisions to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which issued a decision on
October 6, 2009, affirming the District Court's judgment and order
on all issues.  On January 4, 2010, both parties filed separate
petitions for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court.  CIGNA's petition was granted on June 28, 2010, and was
argued on November 30, 2010.  On May 16, 2011, the Supreme Court
issued its Opinion in which it reversed the lower courts' Opinion
and remanded the case to the trial judge for reconsideration of
the remedy.  The Court unanimously agreed with the Company's
position that the lower courts erred in granting a remedy for an
inaccurate plan description under an ERISA provision that allows
only recovery of plan benefits.  However, the decision identified
possible avenues of "appropriate equitable relief" that plaintiffs
may pursue as an alternative remedy.

The Company says it will continue to vigorously defend its
position in this case.  As of June 30, 2011, the Company continues
to carry a liability of $82 million pre-tax ($53 million after-
tax), that reflects the Company's best estimate of the exposure.


CVS CAREMARK: Awaits Ruling in Coordinated Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases alleging
violations of antitrust laws remain pending, according to CVS
Caremark Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining
retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.  In August 2003,
Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. doing business as Burns
Pharmacy, and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. doing business as Parkway
Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action
against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief.  In October 2003, two independent
pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc., doing
business as Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class
action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two
pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") competitors, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief.  The North Jackson Pharmacy case
was transferred to Illinois federal court, and the Bellevue case
was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the
pharmacies and Caremark.  The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed
by the parties pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy
court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.  Caremark appealed the
decision which vacated the order compelling arbitration and
staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the
appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling
arbitration of the Bellevue case.  Motions for class certification
in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation,
including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending.  The
consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation.


CVS CAREMARK: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Lauriello" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery on class certification and adequacy issues is still
underway in the putative class action lawsuit filed by John
Lauriello, according to CVS Caremark Corporation's August 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly
on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
and others.  Other defendants include insurance Companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.  The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.  A similar
lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in
Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark, several
insurance Companies, attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999
settlement.  This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class
action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the
Lauriello action.  The attorneys and law firms named as defendants
in McArthur's intervention pleadings have been dismissed from the
case, and discovery on class certification and adequacy issues is
underway.

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


CVS CAREMARK: Negotiates Deal to Resolve FLSA-Violation Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation has negotiated an agreement on the key
terms of a global settlement to resolve the class action lawsuits
commenced by assistant store managers, according to the Company's
August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Since March 2009, the Company has been named in a series of
putative collective and class action lawsuits filed in federal
courts around the country, purportedly on behalf of current and
former assistant store managers working in the Company's stores at
various locations outside California.  The lawsuits allege that
the Company failed to pay overtime to assistant store managers as
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and under
certain state statutes.  The lawsuits also seek other relief,
including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief arising out of the state and federal
claims for overtime pay.  Notice was issued to over 13,000 current
and former assistant store managers offering them the opportunity
to "opt in" to certain of the FLSA collective actions and about
2,000 have elected to participate in these lawsuits.

The Company says it has aggressively challenged both the merits of
the lawsuits and the allegation that the cases should be certified
as class or collective actions.  In light of the cost and
uncertainty involved in this litigation, however, the Company has
negotiated an agreement with plaintiffs' counsel on the key terms
of a global settlement.  Any final resolution of these matters
will be subject to approval by a court, and as yet the parties
have not finalized a settlement agreement or submitted any
agreement for court approval.  The Company has established legal
reserves related to these matters at June 30, 2011, to cover the
estimated settlement payments.


CVS CAREMARK: Still Defends Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit that was filed in November 2009,
according to the Company's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009, and November 4, 2009.  The lawsuit
names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes
allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures
made by the Company concerning the pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") business and allegations of insider trading.  In addition,
a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the
same court against the directors and certain officers of the
Company.  A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a shareholder
purporting to assert claims on behalf of a corporation against
directors and officers of the corporation.  This lawsuit includes
allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider
trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that
the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly
inflated prices under its share repurchase program.  In January
2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire.

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

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and the
Company plans to defend them vigorously.  The Company received a
subpoena dated February 28, 2011, from the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) requesting, among other corporate records,
information relating to public disclosures made by the Company in
2009 concerning its PBM and Medicare Part D businesses and
information concerning ownership and transactions in the Company's
securities by certain officers of the Company.  The Company is
cooperating with these requests for information and has been
providing documents and other information to the SEC as requested.


DAVITA INC: Wage & Hour Class Suit Remains Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint relating to wage practices remains
pending against DaVita, Inc.

A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in the lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time.  The lawsuit, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these claims and to vigorously oppose
the certification of these claims as a class action. Any potential
settlement of these claims is not anticipated to be material to
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.

No updates were reported in the Company's August 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- operates principally as
a dialysis and related lab services business but also operate
other ancillary services and strategic initiatives.  These
ancillary services and strategic initiatives consist of pharmacy
services, infusion therapy services, disease management services,
vascular access services, ESRD clinical research programs and
physician services.


DAVITA INC: Blue Cross Suit Against Unit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Individual claims remain pending in the class action lawsuit
brought against DaVita Inc.'s subsidiary in Louisiana, according
to the Company's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In August 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana against Gambro AB, the Company's subsidiary,
DVA Renal Healthcare (formerly known as Gambro Healthcare) and
related entities.  The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a
class action on behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of
the defendants for health care goods and services from on or about
January 1991 through at least December 2004.  The complaint
alleged, among other things, damages resulting from facts and
circumstances underlying Gambro Healthcare's 2004 settlement
agreement with the Department of Justice and certain agencies of
the U.S. government.  In March 2006, the case was dismissed and
the plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the
matter.  In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class
arbitration against the Company and DVA Renal Healthcare.  In
February 2011, the arbitration panel denied plaintiff's request to
certify a class.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against
plaintiff's remaining individual claims and any appeal that may be
filed.  At this time, the Company cannot predict the ultimate
outcome of this matter or the potential range of damages, if any.

DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- operates principally as
a dialysis and related lab services business but also operate
other ancillary services and strategic initiatives.  These
ancillary services and strategic initiatives consist of pharmacy
services, infusion therapy services, disease management services,
vascular access services, ESRD clinical research programs and
physician services.


DAVITA INC: Unit Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Wage Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Davita, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting court approval of its
settlement resolving claims filed in a class action complaint
relating to improper labor practices, the Company disclosed in its
August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In June 2004, DVA Renal Healthcare (formerly known as Gambro
Healthcare), a subsidiary of the Company, was served with a
complaint filed in the Superior Court of California by one of its
former employees who worked for its California acute services
program.  The complaint, which is styled as a class action,
alleges, among other things, that DVA Renal Healthcare failed to
provide overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or
compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with
certain other California Labor Code requirements.  The parties
have reached an agreement, subject to approval by the court, that
fully resolves the matter for an amount that will not materially
impact the Company's financial results.

DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- operates principally as
a dialysis and related lab services business but also operate
other ancillary services and strategic initiatives.  These
ancillary services and strategic initiatives consist of pharmacy
services, infusion therapy services, disease management services,
vascular access services, ESRD clinical research programs and
physician services.


DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend "Deepwater Horizon" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Dril-Quip, Inc., continues to defend itself against various
lawsuits filed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident,
according to the Company's August 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig
known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., sank after an explosion and fire that began on
April 20, 2010.  The Company is a party to an ongoing contract
with an affiliate of BP to supply wellhead systems in connection
with BP's U.S. Gulf of Mexico operations, and the Company's
wellhead and certain of its other equipment were in use on the
Deepwater Horizon at the time of the incident.

The Company has been named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in nine class action lawsuits and ten other lawsuits
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. These actions were
filed against the Company between April 28, 2010 and March 11,
2011. As of July 21, 2011, all of these lawsuits remain
consolidated, along with hundreds of other lawsuits not directly
naming the Company, in the multi-district proceeding In Re: Oil
Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on
April 20, 2010, and are pending in the federal court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. The lawsuits generally allege,
among other things, violation of state and federal environmental
and other laws and regulations, negligence, gross negligence,
strict liability, personal injury and/or property damages and
generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and
punitive damages and/or declaratory relief.

The judge presiding over the MDL Proceeding is also presiding over
a separate but related proceeding filed by affiliates of
Transocean Ltd. ("Transocean") under the Limitation of Liability
Act ("Limitation Action") in the federal court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana. In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks
to limit its liability for claims arising out of the Deepwater
Horizon incident to the value of its rig and its freight. On
February 18, 2011, Transocean filed a Third-Party Complaint,
tendering the Company to the plaintiffs/claimants in the
Limitation Action. The procedural effect of Transocean's action
is to make the Company a defendant in any of the actions where the
plaintiff has filed a claim in the Limitation Action. As of
July 21, 2011, over 100,000 claims have been filed in the
Limitation Action using a short-form joinder claim process
implemented by the court. However, at this time there are no new
allegations against the Company as a result of Transocean's
action, and the Company is entitled to assert all the defenses
available to it in the actions to which it was already a named
party. In April 2011, the Company moved to dismiss Transocean's
Third-Party Complaint and the consolidated complaints alleging
economic losses from the oil spill and personal injury or property
damage arising from efforts to contain and clean up the oil spill.
The Company contends that those complaints fail to satisfy federal
pleading standards, fail to allege facts necessary to support
their theories of recovery and/or allege claims that are preempted
by OPA. Also in April 2011, the Company filed its answer to
Transocean's Limitation petition denying all claims and
responsibility for the incident and denying Transocean's right to
limit its liability. The Company also filed cross claims against
Transocean seeking contribution from Transocean in the event the
Company is found liable for damages arising from the incident.

In April and May 2011, Transocean, Cameron International
Corporation ("Cameron"), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
("Halliburton"), M-I, LLC ("M-I"), and Weatherford U.S. LP and
Weatherford International, Inc. (collectively, "Weatherford") each
filed cross claims against the Company in the MDL Proceeding
and/or in the Limitation Action, generally seeking subrogation
and/or contribution from the Company and alleging negligence,
comparative fault and strict liability for manufacturing, design
and marketing defects by the Company. In May 2011, the Company
filed cross claims against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation,
Anadarko E&P Company, LP, BP, BP P.L.C., BP America Production
Company, Cameron, Halliburton, M-I, Weatherford, MOEX Offshore
2007 LLC, MOEX USA Corporation and Mitsui Oil Exploration Co.,
Ltd. in the Limitation Action seeking contribution from the cross
claimants and alleging that the cross claimants are or may be
liable in whole or in part for the claims asserted against the
Company in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident.

In May 2011, Transocean filed a Third-Party Complaint against the
Company, impleading it into an action brought by the United States
in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident against
Transocean, BP and certain of its affiliates, Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation and certain of its affiliates, and MOEX Offshore 2007,
LLC as "Responsible Parties" under OPA and for violations of CWA.
Transocean's Third-Party Complaint alleges comparative fault and
strict liability for manufacturing, design and marketing defects
by the Company and generally seeks subrogation and/or contribution
from the Company.

In June 2011, BP and its affiliate BP America Production Company
filed counterclaims against the Company in the MDL Proceeding and
in the Limitation Action generally seeking subrogation and/or
contribution from the Company.

For every complaint, cross claim, third-party complaint and/or
counterclaims alleging fault on the part of the Company for the
Deepwater Horizon incident, the Company has moved to dismiss the
allegations contained in the complaint, cross claim, third-party
complaint, and/or counterclaim because the Company contends that
those complaints fail to satisfy federal pleading standards and
fail to allege facts necessary to support theories of recovery
against the Company.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend any
litigation, fine and/or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon
incident. Accordingly, no liability has been accrued in
conjunction with these matters.

Additional lawsuits may be filed and additional investigations may
be launched in the future. An adverse outcome with respect to any
of these lawsuits or investigations, or any lawsuits or
investigations that may arise in the future, could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations.

At the time of the Deepwater Horizon incident, the Company had a
general liability insurance program with an aggregate coverage
limit of $100 million for claims with respect to property damage,
injury or death and pollution. The insurance policies may not
cover all potential claims and expenses relating to the Deepwater
Horizon incident. In addition, the Company's policies may not
cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to
government-mandated clean up of pollution. The Company has
received a "reservation of rights" letter from its insurers. The
incident may also lead to further tightening of the availability
of insurance coverage. The Company may not be able to obtain
adequate insurance at a reasonable price, thereby making certain
projects unfeasible from an economic standpoint. If liability
limits are increased or the insurance market becomes more
restricted, the risks and costs of conducting offshore exploration
and development activities may increase, which could materially
impact the Company's results of operations.

The Company is continuing to assess its rights to indemnification
from BP's affiliate and other parties for potential claims and
expenses arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident under the
Company's existing contract with the affiliate of BP. The
Company's indemnity rights under the contract cover potential
claims for personal injury, property damage and the control and
removal of pollution or contamination, except for, among other
things, claims brought by employees of the Company and claims
brought by third parties to the extent the Company is at fault or
as a result of a defect in the Company's products. Under the
contract, the Company has generally agreed to indemnify BP and its
affiliates for claims for personal injury of the Company's
employees or subcontractors, for claims brought by third parties
to the extent the Company is at fault, and for claims resulting
from pollution or contamination as a result of a defect in the
Company's products. The Company's indemnification obligation for
pollution or contamination arising from a defect in the Company's
products is limited to $5 million under the contract. To the
extent that BP's other contractors performing work on the well
agreed in their contracts with BP to indemnify the Company for
claims of personal injury of such contractor's employees or
subcontractors as well as for claims of damages to their property,
the Company has entered into a reciprocal agreement to indemnify
those other contractors.


EDISON MISSION: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suit in Miss.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Mission Energy continues to defend a class action complaint
in Mississippi relating to the emission of greenhouse gases that
is alleged to have caused Hurricane Katrina, the Company disclosed
in its August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 27, 2011, private citizens filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, naming among a large number of defendants, Edison
International; Energy Mission Energy; three wholly owned
subsidiaries of EME (Edison Mission Energy Fuel, Edison Mission
Energy Petroleum, and Edison Mission Energy Services); including
Southern California Edison.  Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants' activities resulted in emissions of substantial
quantities of greenhouse gases that have contributed to climate
change and sea level rise, which in turn are alleged to have
increased the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina.  The lawsuit
alleges causes of action for negligence, public and private
nuisance, and trespass, and seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  The claims in the lawsuit are nearly identical
to a subset of the claims that were raised against many of the
same defendants in a previous lawsuit that was filed in, and
dismissed by, the same federal district court where the current
case has been filed.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


EDISON MISSION: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Mission Energy continues to defend itself against a class
action complaint brought by Pennsylvania residents, according to
the Company's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the Western
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against EME Homer City Generation L.P., the
sale-leaseback owner participants of the Homer City plant, two
prior owners of the Homer City plant, EME, and Edison
International, claiming that emissions from the Homer City plant
had adversely affected their health and property values.  The
plaintiffs seek to have their suit certified as a class action and
request injunctive relief, the funding of a health assessment
study and medical monitoring, as well as compensatory and punitive
damages.

In April 2011, Homer City filed motions to dismiss both
complaints.

Adverse decisions in these cases could involve penalties, remedial
actions and damages that could have a material impact on the
financial condition and results of operations of Homer City and
EME.  EME cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate
the impact on the Homer City plant, or its and Homer City's
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


EMCORE CORP: Motion for Appointment of Counsel Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A renewed motion for appointment of counsel in the consolidated
stockholder class action against EMCORE Corporation remains
pending, according to the Company's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action (the "Prissert
Class Action") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
allegedly on behalf of a class of Company shareholders against the
Company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers (the "Individual Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice
Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard,
Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas
Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.).  The Complaint alleges that
the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy
("GGE") and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the
Company's Photovoltaics business segment.  The Complaint in the
Prissert Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and other costs and expenses
associated with the maintenance of the action.  On February 12,
2009, a second purported stockholder class action (Mueller v.
EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.)) (the
"Mueller Class Action"), together with the Prissert Class Action,
the "Class Actions") was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico against the same defendants named
in the Prissert Class Action, based on substantially the same
facts and circumstances, containing substantially the same
allegations and seeking substantially the same relief.

Plaintiffs in both class actions have moved to consolidate the
matters into a single action.  On September 25, 2009, the court
issued an order consolidating both the Prissert and Mueller
actions into one consolidated proceeding, but denied plaintiffs
motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's
counsel.  On July 15, 2010, the court appointed IBEW Local Union
No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff ("IBEW"), but
denied, without prejudice, IBEW's motion to appoint lead counsel.
On August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a renewed motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and for approval of its selection of counsel.  IBEW
filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel on May 13, 2011,
which the Company did not oppose.  That motion remains pending.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations of the Class Actions.


HALLIBURTON CO: Class Action Remanded to Appellate Court
--------------------------------------------------------
JSOnline reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with a
Milwaukee foundation in a federal lawsuit that could have limited
the plaintiffs' ability to bring federal class-action claims in
securities fraud cases.

The lawsuit involves the Erica P. John Fund, the lead plaintiff in
an 8-year-old class-action lawsuit over allegedly fraudulent
securities practices by energy conglomerate Halliburton Co.  It
contends that Halliburton made false statements about its business
between 1999 and 2001, causing investors to lose money when it
corrected those statements and its stock price declined.

The Supreme Court rejected two lower court rulings requiring the
John Fund to prove "loss causation" -- that the defendant's
deceptive conduct caused investors' losses -- in order to be
certified as a class action.  And it remanded the case back to the
appellate court.

Critics had argued that such a requirement would place an undue
burden on plaintiffs, effectively keeping many securities fraud
cases from being certified as class actions and limiting recourse
for defrauded investors, whose cases would be too expensive to
pursue individually.

The John Fund, known until 2009 as the Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund, is the archdiocese's largest benefactor, giving
an estimated $600,000 to the organization annually in recent
years.


HALLMARK CARDS: Sued in Washington Over Washable Colored Bubbles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. on August 9 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against Hallmark Cards, Inc. and
Crayola LLC.  The complaint was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and
a proposed class of consumers who purchased Crayola Washable
Colored Bubbles.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated
consumer protection laws by, among other things:

    * Deceptively marketing the Washable Colored Bubbles as
"washable" when they are not;

    * Concealing or failing to disclose that the Washable Colored
Bubbles have a design defect that in many cases leaves long-
lasting stains on household surfaces such as brick, vinyl, wood,
and flagstone; and

   * Inducing consumers to purchase the Washable Colored Bubbles
through misrepresentations and omissions, causing injury to users'
persons and personal property.

If you have experienced staining problems as a result of using
Crayola Washable Colored Bubbles, or would like more information
regarding our Crayola Washable Colored Bubbles case, please
contact paralegal Melanie Pugh or attorneys Laura Gerber, Harry
Williams, Gretchen Cappio, or Lynn Sarko, for additional
information at 1-800-776-6044, or via e-mail at
consumer@kellerrohrback.com

Keller Rohrback -- http://www.krclassaction.com-- is a law firm
with offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New York, and Santa Barbara.
The firm has successfully pursued claims against product
manufacturers and distributors, pharmaceutical companies, and
medical device makers on behalf of our clients.  The firm is
committed to helping victims of anti-consumer practices, and has
achieved multi-million dollar results on behalf of classes of


HL LEASING: Two Senior Officers Liable in Fresno Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Lopez, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that a Fresno
County Superior Court jury on August 5 announced a civil verdict
of $46.5 million against the two senior officers of a defunct
northwest Fresno business for their involvement in an alleged
Ponzi scheme.

Jurors deliberated two days before finding Dan Ramirez, president
of HL Leasing Inc., and Andy Fernandez, the company's chief
financial officer, liable for the damages.

The verdict in the class-action suit came three days after Judge
Donald Black found HL Leasing Inc., Heritage Pacific Leasing and
Air Fred, LLC also liable for damages in which more than 1,200
victims lost about $137 million, said attorney Ara Jabagchourian,
who represented the plaintiffs.

The two verdicts total about $114.5 million, Mr. Jabagchourian
said.

"This sends a strong message that fraud won't be tolerated,"
Mr. Jabagchourian said.

He conceded the victims likely won't ever get full restitution.
"They will get something back," he said. "But it will be pennies
on the dollar."

The alleged scheme bilked more than 800 people from the Fresno
area, many of them Armenian Americans.

The jury found Mr. Ramirez guilty of fraudulent concealment and
aiding and abetting the fraud.  Mr. Fernandez was found guilty of
aiding and abetting the fraud.

A third defendant, Kathleen Otto, was found not liable. Her
husband, John W. Otto, was the alleged mastermind of the scheme,
but he committed suicide in 2009, leaving Mr. Ramirez,
Mr. Fernandez and his widow to defend themselves in a three-week
trial.

Marc P. Miles and Kristy A. Schlesinger of Callahan & Blaine in
Santa Ana, California, defended Ms. Otto.

"I am thrilled with the result for my client," said Mr. Miles.
"Ms. Otto had been similarly deceived by her husband for years,
and the jury understood that she had no involvement in HL Leasing.
While there are truly no winners in this situation, it means the
world to Ms. Otto to have her name cleared."

Callahan & Blaine -- http://www.callahan-law.com-- is a complex
business litigation firm.  Based in Orange County, California,
Callahan & Blaine handles commercial litigation cases nationwide.

HL Leasing opened shop at Shaw and Valentine avenues in 2001.
For more than nine years, HL Leasing faithfully made monthly
interest payments to its lenders and returned their principal as
the notes matured.  On April 25, 2009, HL Leasing failed to make
its interest payment for the first time, which led to concerns of
another Bernie Madoff situation among investors. Shortly
thereafter on May 11, 2009, and amidst an FBI investigation, John
Otto died from a self-inflicted gunshot in the parking lot of the
Palm Desert Visitors Center -- just a few miles from his $2
million home.

Hundreds of California investors filed a class action lawsuit in
Fresno Superior Court, (Vicken Massoyan v. HL Leasing, Inc, et al,
Case No. 09 CECG 01839), for fraud and breach of contract,
claiming that HL Leasing was a Ponzi scheme with damages of $114
million.


HSBC BANK: Faces Wage & Hour Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on July 27, 2011 in San Jose,
California, against HSBC Bank by the California employment lawyers
at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, on behalf of Operations
Officers who claim the national bank violated their rights under
the California Labor Code.  The lawsuit against HSBC Bank for wage
& hour violations was filed in Santa Clara Superior Court,
entitled Kolla v. HSBC Bank, Case No. 111-CV-205999.

The class action complaint alleges that the national bank
unlawfully failed to compensate operations officers for overtime
hours worked and illicitly prevented them from viewing complete
and accurate wage statements, in violation of state wage and hour
laws.  The complaint asserts that HSBC Bank intentionally
misclassified operations officers as "executive, administrative
and professional employees," making them exempt from overtime
compensation.  However, the banking employees claim they do not
"regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment as to
matters of significance," which is a sole characteristic of
executives, and would therefore make the operations officers "non-
exempt from overtime pay," according to the complaint.

The HSBC Bank Operations Officer class action lawsuit further
alleges that the national bank "systematically failed to provide
complete and accurate wage statements" to the banking employees,
in violation of California employment laws.  In particular, the
complaint asserts that HSBC Bank omitted "among other things, the
number of hours worked" by the banking employees.  According to
California Labor Code, employers are required to give all
employees itemized wage statements which accurately show gross
wages along with the corresponding hourly rates for all time
worked, throughout the pay period.

For more information on the lawsuit, visit the HSBC Bank
Operations Officer class action Web site or call (866) 771-7099.

The San Jose employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik have a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving wages and hours,
overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and
other types of illegal workplace conduct committed by California
companies.


IMMERSION CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from a district court ruling approving the settlement of
a class action lawsuit related to Immersion Corporation's initial
public offering remain pending, according to the Company's
August 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

The Company is involved in legal proceedings relating to a class
action lawsuit filed on November 9, 2001 in the U. S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Immersion
Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No.
Civ. 01-9975 (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.).  The named
defendants are Immersion and three of its current or former
officers or directors, and certain underwriters of its November
12, 1999 initial public offering.  Subsequently, two of the
individual defendants stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice.

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from the date
of its IPO through December 6, 2000.  It alleges liability under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the registration statement for the IPO did not
disclose that: (1) the underwriters agreed to allow certain
customers to purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for excess
commissions to be paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters arranged for certain customers to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The complaint
also appears to allege that false or misleading analyst reports
were issued.  The complaint does not claim any specific amount of
damages.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

In September 2008, all of the parties to the lawsuits reached a
settlement, subject to documentation and approval of the District
Court.  Subsequently, an underwriter defendant filed for
bankruptcy and other underwriter defendants were acquired.  On
April 2, 2009, final documentation evidencing the settlement was
presented to the District Court for approval. On October 6, 2009,
the District Court approved the settlement, and the Court
subsequently entered a judgment of dismissal. Under the judgment,
the Immersion Defendants are not required to contribute to the
settlement.  Several notices of appeal have been filed by putative
class members challenging the settlement. If the settlement is
reversed on appeal, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.


IMMERSION CORP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Is Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed
against Immersion Corporation in California is pending, according
to the Company's August 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers.  Over the following
five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed.
(One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.)  The
securities class action complaints name the Company and certain
current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants
and allege violations of federal securities laws based on its
issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements.  The
various complaints assert claims covering the period from May 2007
through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly
sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.  On
the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.  Following the Company's restatement of
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
action on June 15, 2010 and that motion was granted on March 11,
2011.  Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 29,
2011.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 1, 2011.


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a securities class suit
against Insight Enterprises, Inc., remains pending.

Beginning in March 2009, three purported class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of its securities
during the period April 22, 2004 to February 6, 2009.  The second
amended complaint of the lead plaintiff was dismissed with
prejudice in November 2010, and another purported class member
plaintiff has appealed the order of dismissal with prejudice to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

No updates were reported in the Company's August 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Insight Enterprises, Inc., is a provider of information technology
hardware, software and services to small, medium and large
businesses and public sector institutions in North America,
Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia-Pacific.  Currently, its
offerings in North America and the United Kingdom include IT
hardware, software and services.  Its offerings in the remainder
of its EMEA segment and in APAC are almost entirely software and
software-related services.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: One Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remaining
--------------------------------------------------------------
Only one appeal from the approval of a settlement of a class
action lawsuit involving the initial public offering of Keynote
Systems, Inc., remains, according to the Company's August 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

In August 2001, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers were named as defendants in two securities class-action
lawsuits based on alleged errors and omissions concerning
underwriting terms in the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
Violation of the Federal Securities Laws was filed on or about
April 19, 2002, and alleged claims against the Company, certain of
its officers, and underwriters of the Company's September 24, 1999
initial public offering, under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The
lawsuit alleged that the defendants participated in a scheme to
inflate the price of the Company's stock in its initial public
offering and in the aftermarket through a series of misstatements
and omissions associated with the offering. The lawsuit is one of
several hundred similar cases pending in the Southern District of
New York that have been consolidated by the Court.

The Company was a party to a global settlement with the plaintiffs
that would have disposed of all claims against it with no
admission of wrongdoing by the Company or any of its present or
former officers or directors. The settlement agreement had been
preliminarily approved by the Court. However, while the settlement
was awaiting final approval by the District Court, in December
2006 the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's
determination that six focus cases could be certified as class
actions. In April 2007, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that the District Court
might certify a more limited class. At a June 26, 2007 status
conference, the Court approved a stipulation withdrawing the
proposed settlement. On August 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in the focus cases, and a motion for class
certification in the focus cases on September 27, 2007. On
November 13, 2007, defendants in the focus cases filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaints for failure to state a claim, which
the District Court denied in March 2008. Plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants (including the Company), the underwriter defendants,
and the insurance carriers for the defendants, engaged in
mediation and settlement negotiations. The parties reached a
settlement agreement, which the District Court preliminarily
approved on June 10, 2009. After a September 10, 2009 hearing, the
District Court gave final approval to the settlement on October 5,
2009. As part of this settlement, the Company's insurance carrier
has agreed to assume the Company's entire payment obligation under
the terms of the settlement. Several objectors have filed notices
of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. The deadline for the objectors to file opening briefs on
appeal was October 6, 2010. Two objectors filed opening briefs.
All of the remaining objectors filed a stipulation of settlement
on October 6, 2010 withdrawing those objectors' appeals with
prejudice. Answering briefs were due on or before December 17,
2010. However, plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice one of
the objector's appeals based on alleged violations of the Second
Circuit's rules, and the other objector's appeal for lack of
standing. The deadline for filing answering briefs to the
objectors' appeals was suspended pending the resolution of the
motion to dismiss. On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit granted
plaintiffs' motion to dismiss one objector's appeals based on
violations of the Second Circuit's rules and remanded the other
objector's appeal back to the District Court to determine whether
he is a class member. A mandate of that order was issued on
July 13, 2011. Pursuant to an order of the District Court on
July 20, 2011, the objector was to submit any additional evidence
he wished to be considered on the question of whether he is a
class member by July 29, 2011, and any responses are due by
August 5, 2011.

Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, there can be no guarantee that it will not
be reversed on appeal. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims. If the settlement is not
implemented and the litigation continues against the Company, the
Company would continue to defend against this action vigorously.


KFORCE INC: To Fully Pay $2.5 Million Class Settlement by Year End
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc. expects to fully pay a $2.5 million class action
settlement before the current year ends, the Company disclosed in
its August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Kforce was a defendant in a California class action lawsuit
alleging misclassification of California Account Managers and
seeking unspecified damages.  The tentative settlement referred to
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010, was approved by the Court during the three
months ended June 30, 2011, in the amount of $2.5 million, which
has been recorded within accounts payable and other accrued
liabilities in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated
balance sheets.  The settlement is expected to be paid during the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Kforce (Nasdaq:KFRC) -- http://www.kforce.com/-- is a
professional staffing and solutions firm providing flexible and
permanent staffing solutions in the areas of technology, finance &
accounting, and health and life sciences.  Kforce operates with 64
offices located throughout the United States and two offices in
the Philippines.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against Level 3 Communications, Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In February 2009, Level 3 Communications, Inc., certain of its
current officers and a former officer were named as defendants in
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, which have been
consolidated as In re Level 3 Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Civil Case No. 09-cv-00200-PAB-CBS).  The plaintiffs
in each complaint allege, in general, that throughout the
purported class period specified in the complaint that the
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's integration activities, business and operations.  The
complaints seek damages based on purported violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On May 4, 2009, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the case, and on September 29,
2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Complaint").  A motion to dismiss the Complaint
was filed by the Company and the other named defendants.  While
the motion to dismiss the Complaint was pending, the court granted
the lead plaintiff's motion to further amend the Complaint (the
"Amended Compliant").  Thereafter, the Company and the other
defendants named in the Amended Complaint filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice.  The court granted
this motion to dismiss with prejudice, and the plaintiff has
appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It remains too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these actions.  However, management
believes that the Company has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in all of these actions (and any similar claims which may
be named in the future) and intends to defend these actions
vigorously.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Still Preparing Settlement Documents in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., is still preparing settlement
documents for presentation to the court in the consolidated class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, according to the Company's August 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In March 2009, late April 2009 and early May 2009, Level 3
Communications, Inc., the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k) Plan
Committee and certain current and former officers and directors of
Level 3 Communications, Inc. were named as defendants in purported
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.  These cases have been consolidated as
Walter v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., (Civil Case No.
09cv00658).  The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary and other
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")
with respect to investments in the Company's common stock held in
individual participant accounts in the Level 3 Communications,
Inc. 401(k) Plan.  The complaint claims that those investments
were imprudent for reasons that are similar to those alleged in
certain securities and derivative actions against the Company.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle and are
preparing settlement documents for presentation to the court for
approval.  Additionally, management believes that any resulting
liabilities for these actions, beyond amounts reserved, will not
materially affect the Company's financial condition or future
results of operations, but could affect future cash flows.

It remains too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these ERISA actions.  However, management
believes that the Company has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in all of these actions (and any similar claims which may
be named in the future) and intends to defend these actions
vigorously if the settlement is not approved.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Presents Idaho Suit Settlement to Other States
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement affecting current and former landowners in the state
of Idaho has been presented to federal courts in several
additional states for approval, according to Level 3
Communications, Inc.'s August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries (the
"Companies") are parties to a number of purported class action
lawsuits involving the Companies' right to install fiber optic
cable network in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs'
land.  The only lawsuit in which a class has been certified
against the Companies occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3
Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho.  In November 2005, the court granted class certification
only for the state of Idaho.  The Companies have defeated motions
for class certification in a number of these actions but expect
that plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to seek
certification of statewide or multi-state classes.  In general,
the Companies obtained the rights to construct their networks from
railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed their
networks along the rights-of-way so granted.  Plaintiffs in the
purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands
over which the Companies' fiber optic cable networks pass, and
that the railroads, utilities, and others who granted the
Companies the right to construct and maintain their networks did
not have the legal authority to do so.  The complaints seek
damages on theories of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of
title and property, as well as punitive damages.  The Companies
have also received, and may in the future receive, claims and
demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the issues in
these cases that may be based on similar or different legal
theories.

The Companies negotiated a series of class settlements affecting
all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights
of way in which the Companies have installed their fiber optic
cable network.  The United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P.
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however,
on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final
approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Companies negotiated revised settlement
terms for a series of state class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which the Companies have installed their fiber optic cable
network.  The Companies are currently negotiating certain
procedural issues with legal counsel representing the interests of
the current and former landowners with respect to presentment of
the settlement in applicable jurisdictions.  The settlement
affecting current and former landowners in the state of Idaho was
presented to the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho and final approval of the settlement was granted on
June 23, 2011.  The settlement has been presented to federal
courts in several additional states for approval.

It is still too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these actions.  However, management
believes that the Companies have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in all of these actions (and any similar claims
which may be named in the future), and intends to defend them
vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved
for all affected landowners.  Additionally, management believes
that any resulting liabilities for these actions, beyond amounts
reserved, will not materially affect the Company's financial
condition or future results of operations, but could affect future
cash flows.


MELA SCIENCES: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mela Sciences, Inc., and other defendants seek dismissal of an
amended consolidated complaint filed by plaintiffs in a securities
class action lawsuit, according to the Company's August 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On November 19, 2010, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, entitled Randall J. Pederson,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I. Steinhart, and
Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-08774-JFM. Two similar complaints
were also filed, one on December 2, 2010 and the other on
January 20, 2011, in the same District Court, entitled Amy
Steigman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo, Richard I.
Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 7:10-cv-09024-JFM; and Martin
Slove and Linda Slove, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MELA Sciences, Inc., Joseph V. Gulfo,
Richard I. Steinhart, and Breaux Castleman, No. 1:11-cv-00429-JFM.
These three securities class actions were consolidated into one
action on February 15, 2011, entitled In re MELA Sciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 10-Civ-8774-JFM. The securities class
action plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, alleging, among other things, that defendants made
misstatements and omissions regarding the Company's product,
MelaFind(R), and its prospects for FDA approval, on behalf of
stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period from February 13, 2009 through November 16, 2010, and seek
unspecified damages. On May 2, 2011, the securities class action
plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint, alleging
similar claims to their prior complaints. On July 29, 2011,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to
dismiss is due on September 15, 2011.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend against the securities class action; however,
as with any litigation, the Company cannot predict with certainty
the eventual outcome of this litigation. An adverse outcome could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and its
business could be materially harmed.


MICHAELS STORES: Accused of Not Paying Wages and Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anita C. Ragano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Michaels Stores, Inc., and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. CIV 506818 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo
Cty., July 5, 2011) is a class action seeking unpaid wages,
including meal and rest period compensation, interest thereon, and
other penalties.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was, during the relevant time
period, employed by the Defendant and asserts claims for failure
to pay wages and overtime pay, failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
violation of California's unfair competition laws.

Ms. Ragano was employed by Michaels as a non-exempt "Floor
Manager" at several of its California retail stores.

Michaels is a corporation and business entity, duly licensed,
located and doing business in the county of San Mateo, in
California.  The Doe Defendants are and were, at all relevant
times, business affiliates, successors- and predecessors-in-
interest, officers, directors, partners, and managing agents of
some or each of the remaining defendants.

Michaels removed the lawsuit on August 9, 2011, from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Michaels
argues that the removal is proper because the lawsuit is a civil
action of which the District Court has original jurisdiction.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:11-cv-03908 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Hannah R. Salassi, Esq.
          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  hsalassi@scalaw.com
                  silg@scalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
          Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
          Gary M. McLaughlin, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: cconway@akingump.com
                  gknopp@akingump.com
                  gmclaughlin@akingump.com


OVERSEA CHINESE FUND: Rochon Genova Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP has commenced a class action on behalf of
investors who purchased partnership interests in an investment
fund called Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership which was
founded and operated by Weizhen Tang, a prominent figure in the
North American Chinese community.

Mr. Tang, his wife Hong Xiao, and his incorporated companies (also
named as defendants in the action) allegedly lured investors into
the fund by promoting Mr. Tang as the "Chinese Warren Buffett" and
guaranteeing returns of 1% per week.  The defendants, however,
were allegedly running a Ponzi scheme.  In February 2009, Mr. Tang
revealed to investors that their account statements had been
forged and approximately $60 million of investor funds had been
lost.  The vast majority of those funds remains unaccounted for.

There are currently ongoing criminal proceedings and an
investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission against
Mr. Tang.  He was also charged by the Securities and Exchange
Commission in the United States for running a similar Ponzi
scheme.

The statement of claim alleges misappropriation, fraudulent
conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
among other causes of action.  The allegations are not yet proven.
Rochon Genova LLP is one of Canada's leading class action firms
dedicated to protecting the interests of the public.

For further information: please contact Joel Rochon at
jrochon@rochongenova.com or John Archibald at
jarchibald@rochongenova.com


PACKAGING CORP: Still Defends Containerboard Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Corporation of America continues to defend itself
against a consolidated class action lawsuit relating to its
containerboard products, according to the Company's August 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

During September and October 2010, PCA and eight other U.S. and
Canadian containerboard producers were named as defendants in five
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging
violations of the Sherman Act.  The lawsuits have been
consolidated in a single complaint under the caption Kleen
Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America et al.  The
consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to
limit the supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and
effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase
prices of containerboard products during the period of August 2005
to the time of filing of the complaints.  The complaint was filed
as a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of
containerboard products during such period.  The complaint seeks
treble damages and costs, including attorney's fees.  The
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were denied by the
court in April 2011.

PCA believes the allegations are without merit and will defend
this lawsuit vigorously.  However, as the lawsuit is in
preliminary stages, PCA is unable to predict the ultimate outcome
or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.


PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Awaits Final Approval "Gobel" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Development Corporation is awaiting final court approval
of its settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit commenced by
David W. Gobel, according to the Company's August 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

David W. Gobel, individually and allegedly as representative of
all royalty owners in the Company's West Virginia oil and gas
wells, filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging that it failed
to properly pay royalties.  The lawsuit is captioned Gobel et al
v. Petroleum Development Corporation, filed on January 27, 2009,
in Circuit Court of Harrison County, CA No. 09-C-40-2.  The
allegations stated that the Company improperly deducted certain
charges and costs before applying the royalty percentage.
Punitive damages were requested in addition to breach of contract,
tort and fraud allegations.  On October 27, 2010, the state court
set a trial date of April 2012.

In April 2011, the Company entered into an oral settlement
agreement with respect to this lawsuit, settling all claims
between the parties for an aggregate payment of $8.7 million.  On
June 15, 2011, a written settlement agreement was signed
confirming these terms and on June 30, 2011, the state court
granted initial approval of the settlement agreement, subject to
notice to class members and final court approval.  As of June 30,
2011, the total settlement amount of $8.7 million was accrued and
included in other accrued expenses on the accompanying balance
sheet.  A related escrow account was fully funded on July 22,
2011.


PMI GROUP: Defends "Foreclosures" Suits in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------
The PMI Group, Inc. is defending a lawsuit relating to alleged
invalid foreclosures against its subsidiary, according to the
Company's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. (MIC), in its capacity as an alleged
shareholder of MERSCORP, is a defendant in two putative class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in which plaintiffs assert various claims based on their
contention that foreclosure actions undertaken in the name of
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") were
invalid.  MIC is a subsidiary of PMI.  PMI denies the allegations
and will vigorously defend the actions.

Walnut Creek, Calif.-based The PMI Group, Inc., through its
subsidiary, PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. and its affiliated
companies, provides residential mortgage insurance in the United
States.


RECONTRUST CO: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Foreclosures
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
challenges every foreclosure by ReconTrust Co. in Washington state
since June 2008.

A copy of the Complaint in Douglas v. Recontrust Company, N.A.,
Case No. 11-2-26988-4 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/09/Foreclose.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Urie, Esq.
          Marja Starczewski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. URIE, PLLC
          18130 Midvale Ave N Ste A
          Shoreline, WA 98133-4536
          Telephone: (206) 542-4066


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all persons who transacted in Research In Motion
Limited securities between December 16, 2010 and June 16, 2011
inclusive.

A copy of the complaint can be viewed on the firm's Web site at
http://www.faruqilaw.com

RIM and certain of its officers and directors are charged with
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants, failed to inform investors that: (1) its aging
product line and inability to introduce new products to the market
was negatively impacting the Company's business and margins; (2)
the Company was unable to introduce new products in a timely
manner, which hurt the Company's ability to maintain its market
share in the smartphone market; (3) the Company's resources had
become limited as it attempted to develop new products; (4) the
Company experienced lower-than-expected Blackberry smartphone
sales and shipments in the United States and Latin America; and
(5) the Company relied on sales of older-model smartphones at
lower retail price points than their newer, but delayed, products.

On March 24, 2011, the Company announced disappointing guidance
and financial results from the fourth quarter and fiscal year
2011, causing RIM common stock to drop 11.2% on March 25, 2011.
On June 16, 2011, the Company announced its financial result for
the first quarter of fiscal 2012, ended May 28, 2011.  For the
quarter the Company disappointed analysts and investors, reporting
earnings of $1.33 per share, down $0.05 from the first quarter of
fiscal 2011.  The Company also revised its expectations for full
year per share earnings.  On that news, RIM's common stock
plummeted even further to close on June 17, 2011 at $27.75, off
21.5% or $7.58 from the prior day's close of $35.33.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and all
other individual and institutional investors who transacted in RIM
securities between December 16, 2010 and June 16, 2011, excluding
defendants and their affiliates.  Plaintiffs are represented by
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in
prosecuting class actions and actions involving corporate fraud.

If you wish to obtain information concerning joining this action
you can do so under the "Join Lawsuit" section of our Web site or
by clicking here: http://www.faruqilaw.com/RIMM

If you transacted in RIM securities during the Class Period, you
may, not later than August 12, 2011, move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  In order to serve
as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

     CONTACT: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
              369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
              New York, NY 10017
              Attn: Anthony Vozzolo, Esq.
              E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
              Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
              Telephone: (212) 983-9330


ROYAL DUTCH SHELL: Sued Over Niger Delta Oil Spills
---------------------------------------------------
Rowena Mason, writing for The Telegraph, reports that Royal Dutch
Shell is being sued by an African king in a second case related to
two oil spills at Bodo in the Niger Delta.

The suit was filed at London's High Court less than two weeks ago
on behalf of King Felix Sunday Berebon of Bodo and 18 other
parties.

Shell and its joint venture with the Nigerian government, Shell
Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), were already facing a class
action on behalf of 69,000 people in Bodo over the spills in 2008.

In this first case, SPDC said it will take responsibility and pay
compensation.  It is currently in negotiations over a settlement
and the claim against Shell, the parent company, has ceased.

However, the joint venture moved to quash early estimates that the
case could cost it upwards of $210 million (GBP128 million) in
compensation, saying this was "misguided and massively in excess
of the true position".  Damages are likely to be in the tens of
millions of dollars.

The second case, filed on behalf of King Felix Sunday Berebon, is
understood to be at a much earlier stage of negotiation.

Ogoniland in the Niger Delta has seen millions of barrels of oil
spilt by various companies in past decades.  UN figures show more
than 6,800 spills between 1976 and 2001.

Shell admits that 4,000 barrels were spilt in the 2008 leaks,
which were caused by operational failure.  But it says the vast
majority of spills are the result of illegal activity.

"Even when, as is true in the great majority of cases, spills are
caused by illegal activity such as sabotage or theft, we are also
committed to cleaning up spilt oil and restoring the surrounding
land," said Mutiu Sunmonu, managing director of SPDC in an open
letter.

The class action suit was brought by Leigh Day & Co.  The firm's
Martyn Day, acting on behalf of the Bodo Community plaintiffs,
declined to comment.


SLM CORPORATION: Signs Memo of Understanding in "Arthur" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation has signed a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's
August 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

Mark A. Arthur et al. v. Sallie Mae, Inc., is a class action
lawsuit that involves allegations made in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington that the Company contacted
consumers on their cellular telephones via autodialer without
their consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. Each violation under the TCPA
provides for $500 in statutory damages ($1,500 if a willful
violation is shown). Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages,
damages for willful violations, attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief. The Company has denied vigorously all claims
asserted against the Company, but previously agreed to a
preliminary settlement of $19.5 million to avoid the burden and
expense of continued litigation. Subsequent to reaching this
preliminary settlement, the Company filed submissions with the
Court to advise that additional individuals were omitted from the
original notice list of class members.

On August 3, 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle
through a memorandum of understanding with the Plaintiffs on
behalf of the settlement class, and expects to formalize that
agreement and request Court approval during the next several
months. Under the memorandum of understanding, the Company agreed
to increase the settlement fund to $24.15 million. The Company has
$24.15 million accrued related to this matter as of June 30, 2011.


SONY COMPUTER: More Suit Filed Over April Network Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Karl Detert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Daniel Ostern, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and James Sears, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Sony Computer
Entertainment America Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sony
Corporation of America, a New York corporation; and Sony Network
Entertainment International LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and Does 1-25, Case No. cv-507014 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Mateo Cty., July 14, 2011) is brought in connection with the
security breach in Sony's networks on April 17 and April 19, 2011,
which resulted in third party's access of Sony consumers' data and
information.

The Plaintiffs argue that they had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in their personal and financial information that the
Defendants mishandled.  They allege that by foiling to keep their
information safe, and by misusing and disclosing the information
to unauthorized parties for unauthorized use, the Defendants
invaded the Plaintiffs' privacy by intruding into their private
affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person.

Mr. Detert is a resident of California.  Messrs. Ostern and Sears
are also residents of Minnesota.

Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, Sony Computer
Entertainment America Inc. and Sony Network Entertainment
International LLC are Delaware limited liability companies.  Sony
Corporation is a New York corporation.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs at
the moment.

The Defendants removed the lawsuit on August 8, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Defendants argue that the removal is proper
because two of the Defendants, Sony Computer Entertainment America
LLC and Sony Network Entertainment International LLC, have offices
in Foster City, California.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:11-cv-03871 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Victor S. Elias, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: nfineman@cpmlegal.com
                  swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  velias@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Josef D. Cooper, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRKHAM, P.C.
          655 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-3030
          Facsimile: (415) 882-7040
          E-mail: jdc@coopkirk.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          650 Northstar East
          608 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  jbourne@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          William H. Crowder, Esq.
          Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
          Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
          CROWDER TESKE, PLLP
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 3210
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 746-1558
          Facsimile: (651) 846-5339
          E-mail: crowder@crowderteske.com
                  teske@crowderteske.com
                  katz@crowderteske.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thad A. Davis, Esq.
          Rocky C. Tsai, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4006
          Telephone: (415) 315-6300
          Facsimile: (415) 315-6350
          E-mail: thad.davis@ropesgray.com
                  rocky.tsai@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Harvey J. Wolkoff, Esq.
          Mark P. Szpak, Esq.
          Lara A. Oravec, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7606
          Facsimile: (617) 235-0215
          E-mail: harvey.wolkoff@ropesgray.com
                  mark.szpak@ropesgray.com
                  lara.oravec@ropesgray.com


ST. JOE CO: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Meyer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Joe Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
Florida, according to the Corporation's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On November 3, 2010, and December 7, 2010, two securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors in the Northern District of Florida.
These cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Florida and are captioned as Meyer v. The
St. Joe Company et al. (No. 5:11-cv-00027).  A consolidated class
action complaint was filed in the case on February 24, 2011.  The
complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's securities between February 19, 2008, and October 12,
2010, and alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, among others, violated the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose that, as the
Florida real estate market was in decline, the Company was failing
to take adequate and required impairments and accounting write-
downs on many of the Company's Florida-based properties and as a
result, the Company's financial statements materially overvalued
the Company's property developments.  The plaintiffs also allege
that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that
the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls, and
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading.  The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount in damages.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the action vigorously.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on April 6, 2011.


TEKELEC: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the purported class action
lawsuit against Tekelec alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, according to the Company's August 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On January 6, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  On June 30, 2011, an amended complaint
was filed alleging the same causes of action.  The case purports
to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
stock during the period February 11, 2010, to August 5, 2010.  The
amended complaint generally alleges violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, claimed
misstatements or omissions regarding the Company's business and
prospects in India and for certain signaling products.  The
amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses.

As it is in the very early stages of this potential litigation,
the Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this case
or estimate a range of potential loss related to this matter.
Although the Company denies the allegations in the amended
complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defense, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this case.  An adverse
court determination in the purported class action lawsuit against
the Company could result in significant liability and could have a
material adverse effect on its business, results of operations and
financial condition


TERRIBLE HERBST: Employee Can Seek Wage & Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kanigher, writing for Las Vegas Sun, reports that a Terrible
Herbst employee who sued the company in 2009 to recover minimum
wages and overtime he claims was due to him will be allowed to
pursue a class action lawsuit against the company after rejecting
its settlement offer.

A ruling on August 9 from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed a decision from U.S. District Judge Robert Clive Jones in
Las Vegas that required Terrible Herbst to pay employee Gareth
Pitts $900, plus $3,500 to his attorney.

The amount far exceeded the $88 Mr. Pitts was seeking for himself,
but he had rejected the offer because he wanted to pursue a class
action suit on behalf of other employees in a similar situation.
Judge Jones, though, stuck to the monetary award and rejected
Mr. Pitts' bid to pursue a class action lawsuit, declaring the
issue moot.

But the Circuit Court sent the case back to District Court,
arguing that Judge Jones erred in rejecting Mr. Pitts' pursuit of
a class action suit because he hadn't filed a motion for class
action prior to the deadline for initial discovery in the case.
The Circuit Court said that wasn't Mr. Pitts' fault because the
lower court never ruled on his motion to compel Terrible Herbst to
produce certain documents that he believed would help him prove
the need for a class action.


THOMAS VETERINARY: Sued Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Thomas Veterinary Drug, Inc. a/k/a
Thomas Laboratories, Case No. 2011-CH-26558 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., July 28, 2011) challenges the Defendant's practice of faxing
unsolicited advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sent
faxes without prior permission to market its goods or services.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Illinois.

The Defendant is an Arizona corporation with principal place of
business in Tolleson, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          3701 Algoquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


TIMBERLAND CO: Accused of Defrauding Stockholders in New Hampshire
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Timberland Company is accused of perpetrating a scheme to
defraud its stockholders in a lawsuit commenced by the City of
Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System in New Hampshire,
according to the Company's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 1, 2011.

A purported class action, City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement
System, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
The Timberland Company and Jeffrey B. Swartz, U.S.D.C., District
of New Hampshire, was filed on June 3, 2011, on behalf of persons
who purchased the common stock of Timberland between February 17,
2011, and May 4, 2011, seeking remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges false and misleading
statements and a scheme to defraud during the class period.

While this litigation is at an early stage, the Company believes
this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the
litigation vigorously.


TIMBERLAND CO: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Timberland Company is defending a consolidated shareholder
lawsuit arising from its proposed merger with a subsidiary of V.F.
Corporation, according to the Company's August 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 1, 2011.

On June 12, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with V.F. Corporation and VF Enterprises, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of VF ("Merger Sub").  The Merger Agreement
provides that Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company,
with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of VF.

Shortly after the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with
V.F. Corporation, three putative stockholder class action
complaints were filed, on behalf of Timberland's public
stockholders, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Timberland, the members of the Timberland Board, V.F.
Corporation, and V.F. Enterprises, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of V.F. Corporation.  The complaints generally allege, among other
things, that the members of the Timberland Board breached their
fiduciary duties owed to Timberland's public stockholders by
causing Timberland to enter into the Merger Agreement, approving
the merger, failing to take steps to ascertain and maximize the
value of Timberland, failing to conduct a public auction or other
market check, and failing to provide Timberland's public
stockholders with the right to vote on whether to approve the
merger, and that V.F. Corporation and V.F. Enterprises, Inc. aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.  In addition, the
complaints allege that the Merger Agreement improperly favors V.F.
Corporation and unduly restricts Timberland's ability to negotiate
with other potential bidders.  The complaints generally seek,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning
the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting
defendants from consummating the merger, other forms of equitable
relief, and compensatory damages.  On June 30, 2011, the three
actions were consolidated under the caption In re The Timberland
Company Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6577-CS.

While this litigation is at an early stage, the Company believes
that the claims are without merit and intends to defend against
the litigation vigorously.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Await Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Bartholomew Sullivan, writing for Scripps Howard News Service,
reports that the Middleton brothers, who used to grow vegetables
on 12 acres in southwest Tennessee, have waited more than 10 years
to see their late father vindicated.

The old man was turned down for a crop loan for seed and tractor
fuel in 1981, they say, and had to quit farming.  James Middleton
ended up driving a gasoline tanker truck.

Jeffrey Eugene Middleton, 57, and Windell Maurice Middleton, 55,
have claims pending in a huge black farmers class-action lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of Agriculture that is expected to
reach a final settlement in federal court here in the weeks ahead.

Asked what he wanted from the settlement, Jeffrey Middleton said
he'd like $500,000, "but if we get some, it will beat none." Asked
the same question, Windell Middleton said, "Satisfaction for my
daddy." He died about 10 years ago.

The Middletons are part of a proposed settlement with black
farmers who missed participating in Pigford v. Glickman, a lawsuit
settled in 1999.  Tens of thousands of black farmers missed the
deadline for making claims in that case, and lawyers worked for
years to persuade Congress to give them a second chance.

That opportunity came in the 2008 Farm Bill, which set aside $100
million for the relief of so-called "late filers."  Congress last
December appropriated another $1.15 billion for what could be as
many as 70,000 claims.

Today, Aug. 12, is the deadline to object to the proposed
settlement for the more than 28,000 plaintiffs named in the 17
lawsuits consolidated in U.S. Dist. Judge Paul L. Friedman's
courtroom in Washington.

Thomas Burrell, president of the Memphis-based Black Farmers and
Agriculturalists Association Inc., a party in one of the
consolidated cases, has already filed his objections and has asked
to testify at a scheduled Sept. 1 hearing.

Among his complaints: The 25 law firms involved in the lawsuit
could make between 4.1% and 7.4% of the total amount appropriated
for the settlement, minus the $22.5 million estimated for setting
up the apparatus for evaluating claims.  That's between $50.3
million and $90.8 million in attorneys' fees.

"There can be no rational basic (sic) for this inordinate and,
otherwise, ravenous amount of fees being siphoned off by the
attorneys from a deprived, defenseless and aggrieved class of
citizens (Black farmers)," Mr. Burrell wrote to the court.

Mr. Burrell, who is not a lawyer, insists that the 1998
agriculture appropriations bill signed by President Bill Clinton
kept the door open to claims in the original Pigford lawsuit.
That means, he argues, that efforts to bar claims after 2000 were
unfair.  The estimated 65,000 individuals deprived of the earlier
opportunity should not be limited to the pending settlement
agreement's terms because that would violate Congress' intent and
the Constitution, he says.

The proposed agreement does not permit appealing an adverse
decision by the proposed neutral fact-finders.  It doesn't permit
a claimant to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses, such as
USDA employees, points "fatal to the constitutional adequacy of
the procedure," Mr. Burrell argues.

The proposed settlement sets up two "tracks" for farmers.  One
requires proof of discrimination and would result in a $50,000
payment and other relief.  The other track requires proof of
discrimination and permits for an accounting of actual damages,
where the judgment could be a higher dollar figure.

Gary R. Grant of Tillery, N.C., who founded the black farmers
group that Burrell's association split off from in 2000, said his
members are happy the litigation is ending but think the
settlement is "too little, too late."  They won't file objections,
but he said he was offended that safeguards against fraud have
been made a major element of the agreement.

"Its not like everyone's going to walk in and walk out with
$50,000," he said.  "There's a burden of proof."

Messrs. Grant and Burrell say it's unfair that proposed
settlements with Hispanic and women farmers, based on the same
claims of discrimination by the same government department, are
being handled differently.  Mr. Burrell points out that attorneys
fees in the first Pigford case didn't come out of the funds set
aside for farmers, and amounted to just $15 million.

As of July 14, according to the court-appointed monitor in the
earlier class action, 22,720 members have received $1.013 billion,
including $42.5 million in debt relief.

If as many as 70,000 members of the new class are certified and
evenly split the available funds after the lower amount of
attorneys' fees and administrative costs are subtracted, they
would receive less than $17,000 each.

A 2006 Government Accountability Office report counted more than
97,000 people who had filed claims under the earlier consent
decree or made requests to file late claims.  That was between
five and six times what had been anticipated.


VECTOR GROUP: Unit Awaits Appellate Decision in "Cleary" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A decision is pending on an appeal from the denial of a motion to
reconsider the dismissal of a fourth amended complaint against
Liggett Group LLC, according to Vector Group Ltd.'s August 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Since 1954, the Company's subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC
("Liggett"), and other United States cigarette manufacturers have
been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and
purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette
manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been
caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.  New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett
and other cigarette manufacturers.

In June 1998, in Cleary v. Philip Morris, a putative class action
was brought in Illinois state court on behalf of persons who were
allegedly injured by: (i) defendants' purported conspiracy to
conceal material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine;
(ii) defendants' alleged acts of targeting their advertising and
marketing to minors; and (iii) defendants' claimed breach of the
public's right to defendants' compliance with laws prohibiting the
distribution of cigarettes to minors.  Plaintiffs sought
disgorgement of all profits unjustly received through defendants'
sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs and the class.  In March 2009,
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding, among other
things, allegations regarding defendants' sale of "lights"
cigarettes.  The case was then removed to federal court on the
basis of this new claim.

In November 2009, plaintiffs filed a revised motion for class
certification as to the three proposed classes, which motion was
denied by the court.  In February 2010, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants as to all claims, other than a
"lights" claim involving another cigarette manufacturer.  The
court granted leave to the plaintiffs to reinstate the motion as
to the addiction claims.  Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended
Complaint in an attempt to resurrect their addiction claims.  In
June 2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
Fourth Amended Complaint and in July 2010, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.  In August 2010,
plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.  Oral argument occurred on April 7, 2011.  A
decision is pending.


VECTOR GROUP: Briefing Is Ongoing in "Smith" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Briefing is underway in connection with the summary judgment
motion filed by Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary in the case Smith
v. Philip Morris, according to the Company's August 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Since 1954, the Company's subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC
("Liggett"), and other United States cigarette manufacturers have
been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and
purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette
manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been
caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.  New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett
and other cigarette manufacturers.

In Smith v. Philip Morris, a Kansas state court case filed in
February 2000, plaintiffs allege that cigarette manufacturers
conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount in actual and
punitive damages.  Class certification was granted in November
2001.  Discovery is ongoing.  In November 2010, defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment.  In addition to joining that summary
judgment motion, Liggett filed its own summary judgment motion on
June 1, 2011.  Briefing is underway.


VECTOR GROUP: "Brown" Plaintiffs Filed 11th Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit Brown v. Philip Morris USA filed in July
2011 their eleventh amended complaint, which adds new class
representatives, according to Vector Group Ltd.'s August 4, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Since 1954, the Company's subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC
("Liggett"), and other United States cigarette manufacturers have
been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and
purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette
manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been
caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.  New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett
and other cigarette manufacturers.

In April 2001, in Brown v. Philip Morris USA, a California state
court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and certified a class comprised of adult residents of California
who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes "during the
applicable time period" and who were exposed to defendants'
marketing and advertising activities in California.  In March
2005, the court granted defendants' motion to decertify the class
based on a recent change in California law.  In June 2009, the
California Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the
trial court for further proceedings regarding whether the class
representatives have, or can, demonstrate standing.  In August
2009, the California Supreme Court denied defendants' rehearing
petition and issued its mandate.  In September 2009, plaintiffs
sought reconsideration of the court's September 2004 order finding
that plaintiffs' allegations regarding "lights" cigarettes are
preempted by federal law, in light of the United States Supreme
Court decision in Altria Group v. Good.  In March 2010, the trial
court granted reconsideration of its September 2004 order granting
partial summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs'
"lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions issued since
its order was issued, including Good, thereby reinstating
plaintiffs' "lights" claims.  Since the trial court's prior ruling
decertifying the class was reversed on appeal by the California
Supreme Court, the parties and the court are treating all claims
currently being asserted by the plaintiffs as certified, subject,
however, to defendants' challenge to the class representatives
standing to assert their claims.

In December 2010, defendants filed a motion for a determination
that the class representatives, as set forth in plaintiffs' tenth
amended complaint, lack standing to pursue the claims, which was
granted by the court.  Plaintiffs moved to file an amended
complaint adding new class representatives.  On June 21, 2011, the
motion was granted by the court and on July 1, 2011, plaintiffs
filed their eleventh amended complaint.


VECTOR GROUP: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
Since 1954, Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC
("Liggett"), and other United States cigarette manufacturers have
been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and
purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette
manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been
caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.  New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett
and other cigarette manufacturers.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, are alleged to have been exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the
defendants, and who suffered injury as a result of that exposure.
The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.  In October 2004, the trial
court stayed this case pending the outcome of an appeal in another
matter.

No updates were reported in the Company's August 4, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


VITA COCO: Faces Class Action Over Coco Water Nutritional Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that popular coconut
water drinks are the latest target of class action lawsuits
claiming the products don't deliver on their nutritional or health
claims.

Two lawsuits, filed on August 8 in Los Angeles Superior Court,
accuse Vita Coco and One World Enterprises of overstating the
amount of electrolytes in their beverages and exaggerating their
hydrating benefits.

The lawsuits, brought by Kevin Shenkman on behalf of coconut water
consumers, were spurred by a new study by ConsumerLab.com that
tested the contents of three brands of coconut water: Vita Coco,
O.N.E. and Zico.  Only one of the drinks, Zico, delivered on its
nutritional claims in the study.  The other two had "far fewer"
electrolytes than claimed, according to the report issued last
week, with considerably less sodium and magnesium than the amounts
listed on their nutrition labels.

Edwin Aiwazian, a lawyer who represents Mr. Shenkman in both
suits, said his client is an avid runner who turned to coconut
water for its purported "super-hydrating" attributes.  When
Mr. Shenkman learned of the ConsumerLab.com study, he was
"disheartened" and decided to take legal action, Mr. Aiwazian
said.

The suits accuse the makers of Vita Coco and O.N.E.  Coconut Water
of deceiving consumers by concealing the drinks' true nutrient
levels.  They say claims about the products' superior hydration
benefits amount to fraud and false advertising.  Each suit seeks
unspecified damages, a corrective advertising campaign as well as
an apology to members of the plaintiff class.

Michael Kirban, the founder and CEO of Vita Coco, said the company
is investigating and questioning the accuracy of the
ConsumerLab.com results.  Because Vita Coco is a natural juice,
the nutrient content can deviate slightly from the label.  But the
company tests multiple batches of the product every month and has
never encountered variance greater than 15 percent, which falls
within the Food and Drug Administration's 20 percent allowance, he
said.

Mr. Kirban did note that the study raised a "big red flag
internally" and that the company is considering adding a
disclaimer to its packaging that amounts of nutrients may differ
slightly from the label.

One World Enterprises did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

Mr. Shenkman, himself a lawyer, has also filed a proposed class
action against fast-food restaurant Panda Express for allegedly
adding chicken powder to its vegetarian dishes.  The same
attorneys represent him in that case.

The coconut water cases in Los Angeles Superior Court are Shenkman
v. All Market Inc et al, No. BC467166 and Shenkman v. One World
Enterprises LLC, No. BC467165.

For Shenkman: Edwin Aiwazian of The Aiwazian Law Firm; R. Rex
Parris and Alexander Wheeler of the R. Rex Parris Law Firm.

For All Market Inc d/b/a Vita Coco: Not immediately available.

For One World Enterprises: Not immediately available.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a class action complaint filed against
Weyerhaeuser Company in Washington is pending, according to the
Company's August 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On April 25, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of
a person alleged to be a participant in the Company's U.S.
Retirement Plan for salaried employees.  The complaint alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) with
respect to the management of the plan's assets and seeks
certification as a class action.  The Company believes that its
pension plans have been consistently managed in full compliance
with established fiduciary standards and is vigorously contesting
the claim.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the claim.


YAHOO! INC: Faces a Securities Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Yahoo! Inc., Carol A. Bartz and
Jerry Yang, Case No. 3:11-cv-03870 (N.D. Calif., August 5, 2011)
is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons, who
purchased or acquired the common stock of Yahoo! Inc. between
April 19, 2011, and May 13, 2011, inclusive.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically, the
Plaintiff argues that the Defendants failed to disclose that an
important corporate asset in China had been transferred at much
less than market value, which resulted to an artificially inflated
prices of Yahoo's stocks during the Class Period.

Twin City is a stockholder of Yahoo and has purchased Yahoo's
common stock during the Class Period.

Yahoo is a digital media company that delivers personalized
digital content and experiences across devices and worldwide.
Ms. Bartz is Yahoo's chief executive officer and a director of the
Company.  Mr. Yang founded Yahoo and is a director of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Seefer, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: cseefer@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  dmyers@rgrdlaw.com


* FDA Alerts Consumers on Possible Bladder Cancer Link
------------------------------------------------------
The Actos bladder cancer attorneys working with Class Action.org
are alerting consumers to a June FDA announcement regarding a
possible link between Actos and bladder cancer.  According to the
Actos and bladder cancer safety communication, patients taking
this Type 2 diabetes drug for longer than a year may have an
increased risk of developing bladder cancer.  If you or a loved
one has been diagnosed with bladder cancer after taking Actos, you
may have legal recourse in light of this information.  To learn
more about the possible Actos bladder cancer link, and to find out
if you can file a claim seeking financial compensation, visit
http://www.classaction.org/actos.htmltoday.

The Actos and bladder cancer FDA announcement was made after the
agency reviewed data from a five-year analysis of an ongoing study
of the drug by its manufacturer.  While the results did not
indicate an overall increased risk of bladder cancer among users,
an increased risk of bladder cancer was reportedly noted in
patients who were exposed to the drug the longest.  Due to the
possible Actos bladder cancer link, the agency advised doctors not
to use the drug in patients with bladder cancer and to prescribe
it with caution in those with a history of the disease.  It also
recommended that patients who develop symptoms of bladder cancer,
such as blood in the urine, back or abdominal pain, and urinary
urgency, contact their doctor immediately.

In light of the Actos and bladder cancer announcement, users of
the drug who were diagnosed with bladder cancer may have legal
recourse.  Potentially, these individuals may have an opportunity
to file a claim seeking compensation for pain and suffering,
medical bills and other damages resulting from their disease.  To
find out if you are eligible for an Actos bladder cancer lawsuit,
visit Class Action.org for a free review of your claim.  The Actos
bladder cancer attorneys working with the site are offering this
case evaluation at no cost and with no obligation.

                      About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Reserves $53MM at June 30 for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's Exelon Generation Company, LLC subsidiary had
reserved about US$53 million total for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims at June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 27, 2011.

Generation had reserved about US$51 million at March 31, 2011.
(Class Action Reporter, May 13, 2011)

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company.

As of June 30, 2011, about US$15 million of this amount related
to 175 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining
US$38 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050
based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on
an annual basis.

Headquartered in Chicago, Exelon Corporation distributes
electricity to 5.4 million customers in northern Illinois
(including Chicago) and southeastern Pennsylvania (including
Philadelphia) through subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and
PECO Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces Ongoing Asbestos Disputes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured or distributed by the Company's heritage companies in
the past.

Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were primarily encapsulated and used as internal components of
process equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that
any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the
use of this equipment.

Headquartered in Irving, Tex., Flowserve Corporation is
principally engaged in the worldwide design, manufacture,
distribution and service of industrial flow management equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Posts $25.53MM June 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities
amounted to US$25,533,000 as of June 30, 2011, compared with
US$24,792,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company report,
on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 27, 2011.

The Company's accrued asbestos liabilities amounted to
US$25,480,000 as of March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May
20, 2011)

Headquartered in New York, Standard Motor Products, Inc.
manufactures and distributes engine management and air
conditioning replacement parts for auto aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Posts $35MM Payments at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments during the
second quarter of 2011 were US$35 million, compared to US$43
million in the second quarter of 2010, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 27, 2011.

The Company recorded asbestos-related payments of US$33 million
during the three months ended March 31, 2011, compared with US$34
million during the three months ended March 31, 2010.  (Class
Action Reporter, May 13, 2011)

New lawsuits and claims filed during the first six months of 2011
were about 7% lower than the same period in 2010.

The current portion of asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$170 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$175 million
as of June 30, 2010.

Long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$238 million
as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$233 million as of June 30,
2010.

Headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio, Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass
container manufacturer and partner for many of the world's leading
food and beverage brands.  The Company delivers safe, effective
and sustainable glass packaging solutions to a growing global
marketplace.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inactive Quaker Unit Still Has Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation, which was
acquired in 1978 and sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, is among the defendants in
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received.  To date, the overwhelming majority of these
claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been
no adverse judgments against the subsidiary.

Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is about US7.7 million (excluding costs of defense).

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain
of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the
Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or
settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary.

These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their
policies have been exhausted.  The subsidiary challenged the
applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against
the subsidiary.

In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate
settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005
and in the first quarter of 2007 for US$15 million and US$20
million, respectively.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
were structured to be received over a four-year period with annual
installments of US$5 million, the final installment of which was
received in the first quarter of 2010.

The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be
used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the
subsidiary's asbestos litigation.  During the third quarter of
2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier
entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which
the carrier will pay 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred
by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos
bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1,
2007.

At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose
to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the
application of the policy limits.

The Company also said it believes that, if the coverage issues
under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved
adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds are used,
the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state
guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the
subsidiary?s primary insurers.

Headquartered in Conshohocken, Pa., Quaker Chemical Corporation
provides process chemicals, chemical specialties, services, and
technical expertise to a wide range of industries -- including
steel, aluminum, automotive, mining, aerospace, tube and pipe,
coatings and construction materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Still Party to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like many industrial manufacturers, Columbus McKinnon Corporation
is involved in asbestos-related litigation, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 27, 2011.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$7 million and US$17 million using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from
the end of the current fiscal year.

The Company's estimation of its discounted asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
US$11 million, which has been reflected as a liability in the
condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2011.

Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of about US$500,000 over the next 12 months.

Headquartered in Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corporation
designs, markets and manufactures material handling products and
services, which efficiently and safely move, lift, position and
secure material.  Key products include hoists, rigging tools,
cranes, and actuators.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Has $643MM Non-Current Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$643 million as of June 30, 2011,
compared with US$663 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were US$655
million as of March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 13,
2011)

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
amounted to US$217 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with
US$220 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$217
million as of March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 13,
2011)

Headquartered in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company's
portfolio of specialty chemical, advanced materials, agrosciences
and plastics businesses deliver a broad range of technology-based
products and solutions to customers in about 160 countries and in
high growth sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings
and agriculture.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anadarko Continuing to Face Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to be a defendant in
various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of
third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and
benzene while working at refineries previously owned by acquired
companies.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 27, 2011.

Headquartered in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation explores for, develops, produces, and markets natural
gas, crude oil, condensate, and natural gas liquids (NGLs).  The
Company also engages in the gathering, processing, and treating of
natural gas, and the transporting of natural gas, crude oil, and
NGLs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankruptcy Court Issues Rulings in Placid Oil
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, issued various rulings in a case involving asbestos
styled Placid Oil Company, Plaintiff v. Jimmy Williams, Sr., Jimmy
Williams, Jr., Dalton Glen Williams, Jeanette Williams Shows, &
Gwendolyn Williams Peacock, Individually and on behalf of the
deceased, Myra Williams, Defendants.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stacey G. Jernigan entered judgment in
Adversary Proceeding No. 09-03356-SGJ on March 21, 2011.

This Adversary Proceeding was filed by Placid Oil Company, about
two decades after confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan and closure of
its bankruptcy case, in order to determine whether certain tort
claims that have been asserted in state court post-confirmation by
Jimmy Williams, Sr., Jimmy Williams, Jr., Dalton Glen Williams,
Jeanette Williams Shows, and Gwendolyn Williams Peacock,
individually and on behalf of the deceased, Myra Williams --
collectively, the "Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants," "Williams
Defendants," or "Defendants" -- were discharged by the
Confirmation Order in Placid's chapter 11 case.

Placid is an oil and gas company that was, at least at the time of
its bankruptcy filing, headquartered in Dallas.  In connection
with its business, Placid formerly owned and operated a large
natural gas field and processing facility in Black Lake,
Natchitoches Parish, La., (Black Lake Facility).

In the mid-1980s, the price of oil dropped precipitously, and
Placid was unable to continue paying its debts.  In order to
prevent a threatened foreclosure, Placid commenced its bankruptcy
case.  On Nov. 19, 1986, the court entered an Order Setting Bar
Date, which set Jan. 31, 1987 as the bar date for potential
creditors to file claims.

During the course of the Bankruptcy Case, Placid sold the Black
Lake Facility to NERCO Oil and Gas, Inc.  Three months later, on
Sept. 30, 1988, Placid confirmed its Fourth Amended Plan of
Reorganization (Plan).

The Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants are the surviving widower and
four adult offspring (in their 30s and 40s) of Mrs. Myra Williams.
The Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants alleged that they had
suffered damages due to the death of Mrs. Williams, on Aug. 9,
2003, allegedly caused by Mrs. Williams' exposure to asbestos dust
and fibers when she handled and laundered the allegedly asbestos-
laden clothing of her husband, Jimmy Williams, Sr. (Mr.Williams).

Mr. Williams was employed at the Black Lake Facility, first
by Placid, between 1966 and 1988, and then by NERCO and other
subsequent owners of the Black Lake Facility, from 1988 to 1995.
Thus, Mr. Williams worked at the Black Lake Facility for almost 30
years (1966-1995).

In the course of performing his work, the parties agree that Mr.
Williams was occupationally exposed to large quantities of
asbestos-containing insulation products that were utilized and/or
handled by, or in the close proximity of, Mr. Williams.

In 2003, Mrs. Williams suddenly developed pain and trouble
breathing.  Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Williams was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.  She died on Aug. 9, 2003.

On March 15, 2004, the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants filed
their Petition for Survival and Wrongful Death Damages in the
Tenth Judicial District of the Parish of Nachitoches, La., which
has since been amended by the First Supplemental and Amending
Petition, the Second Supplemental and Amending Petition, and the
Third Supplemental and Amending Petition -- the "State Court
Petition".

On Nov. 19, 2008, Placid filed its Motion to Reopen Chapter 11
Case to Determine that Certain Pre-Petition Claims Were Discharged
and to Enforce the Discharge Injunction.  On Jan. 22, 2009, the
court granted Placid's motion, reopening the Bankruptcy Case.

On Sept. 30, 2009, Placid filed its Complaint to Determine the
Defendants' Claims Were Discharged and to Enforce Discharge
Injunction, thereby commencing the Adversary Proceeding.  Placid
did not dispute that Mrs. Williams was exposed through her
husband's asbestos-laden clothes to asbestos dust and fibers while
her husband, Mr. Williams, was employed by Placid, at the Black
Lake Facility.

It was ordered that Placid's motion for summary judgment was
granted.  It was further ordered that the Post-Confirmation Tort
Claimants' motion for summary judgment was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Split Rulings in Matthews
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, issued split
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Michael J. Matthews,
Jr., Plaintiff v. The New Jersey Institute of Technology, et al.,
Defendants.

Senior District Judge Irenas entered judgment in Civil Action No.
09-2840 (JEI/JS) on Feb. 24, 2011.

Michael Matthews, Jr. initiated this poorly drafted and factually
muddled action against his employer, the City of Atlantic City,
and several of its employees, alleging a series of statutory and
common law claims.

Mr. Matthews began his employment with the City in 1980 as a
mechanic, and from 1997 until 2001 was employed as a Data
Processing Programmer in the City's Management Information Systems
Department (MIS).  In 2001, he was provisionally promoted to
Senior Data Processing Systems Programmer (SDPSP).

In early 2005, the City outsourced the work being performed by MIS
to the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) and its director
Ernest Muro under several contracts.

On April 28, 2005, Mr. Matthews met with Domenic Cappella,
Business Administrator, who informed him that he was being
transferred from MIS to the Radio Shop due to tensions between Mr.
Matthews and Mr. Muro.

Mr. Matthews' transfer was effective June 8, 2005, and for about
eight months following his transfer, he maintained his salary and
SDPSP title.  On Jan. 27, 2006, he was demoted from his
provisional SDPSP title to his permanent Data Processing
Programmer title with a corresponding 11% salary reduction.

Mr. Matthews made complaints about dust particles, including
asbestos, in connection with the installation and wiring of a PA
system, which began around March 2008.  Mr. Matthews, who
allegedly suffers from asthma, began to have respiratory problems
due to particles on the ceiling tiles.

Mr. Matthews expressed his health and safety concerns to his
immediate supervisor, Defendant Richard Sooy, who gave him
permission to contact the City Health Department.  Mr. Matthews
spoke to Mr. Colella, a Registered Environmental Health Specialist
in the Atlantic City Division of Health, Environmental Health Unit
(ACDH-EHU).

On April 7, 2009, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, Office of Public Employees' Occupational Safety and
Health (NJDLWD) conducted a scheduled inspection of the Radio Shop
(PEOSH inspection).  The parties agree that Mr. Matthews'
involvement with the PEOSH inspection was that he accompanied the
inspector throughout the premises, as directed by Mr. Sooy.

On May 4, 2009, Mr. Matthews received a written reprimand for
failing to retrieve and properly store Radio Shop equipment from
City Hall as directed by Mr. Sooy.  On Oct. 14, 2009, he submitted
a discrimination complaint to NJDLWD, alleging that the May 4,
2009 written reprimand was in retaliation for his involvement with
the PEOSH inspection.

In May 2010, following the expiration of the contracts between
NJIT and the City, Mr. Matthews submitted applications for
positions in the now de-privatized MIS which were allegedly
ignored.

On March 4, 2009, Mr. Matthews filed a Complaint in this action in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County.
Defendants removed the case to this Court on April 30, 2009.

On March 23, 2010, this Court granted in part and denied in part
NJIT and Mr. Muro's Motion to Dismiss.  On June 15, 2010, this
Court granted Mr. Matthews' Motion to Amend the Complaint.

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 28, 2010 that did not
include any claims against NJIT or Mr. Muro.  Subsequently, Mr.
Matthews' filed a stipulation of dismissal as to NJIT and Muro.
On Oct. 15, 2010, the remaining Defendants filed the instant
Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted in part
and denied in part.  Defendants' Motion will be denied with
respect Mr. Matthews' (1) CEPA claim based on complaints made in
connection with the PA project, (2) NJLAD claim based on
Defendants' failure to engage in the interactive process, and (3)
FMLA interference claim based on Defendants' failure to act on Mr.
Matthews' November 2009 FMLA request.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Decision in Evans Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued rulings in a
case involving asbestos styled James I. Evans, Appellant v. Eric
K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judges Moorman, Lance, and Schoelen entered judgment in Case No.
08-2133 on March 17, 2011.

On Jan. 28, 2011, the Court issued a panel decision reversing the
April 17, 2008, Board of Veterans' Appeals decision with respect
to the Board's determination that Mr. Evans' claims for asbestos
exposure, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C were no longer in appellate
status, and remanded the matters for further proceedings.

The Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Mr. Evans' appeal as
to his claims for service connection for memory loss, migraines,
and plantar fasciitis.  On Feb. 16, 2011, the Secretary filed a
motion for partial reconsideration under Rule 35 of the Court's
Rules of Practice and Procedure.

It was ordered that Mr. Evans may file a response to the
Secretary's motion for reconsideration within 14 days after the
date of this order.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Decision in Burdex v. Wyatt
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Elgret L.
Burdex, Plaintiff v. Shane Wyatt, Defendant.

District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti entered judgment in Case No.
CIV-08-1032-D on March 10, 2011.

Mr. Burdex, a state prison appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this action alleging Defendants violated his
constitutional rights during his incarceration as a pretrial
detainee at the Grady County, Okla., Law Enforcement Center (Grady
County Center).

Mr. Burdex named as defendants 1) Shane Wyatt, the warden/jail
administrator of the Grady County Center; 2) Susan Winchester (Ms.
Winchester) in her capacity a member of the Board of County
Commissioners of Grady County; 3) Lieutenant Larry McGill of the
Grady County Center; 4) Lieutenant Bill Daugherty of the Grady
County Center; 5) Charlene Douchet, nurse assistant at Grady
County Center; and 6) the Board of County Commissioners of Grady
County (Commissioners).

This matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bana Roberts for
initial proceedings.

Mr. Burdex was subsequently transferred into the custody of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) and is now incarcerated
at the Lawton, Okla., Correctional Facility.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, and
Mr. Burdex also filed a motion for summary judgment.  In addition,
he filed a motion for appointment of counsel.

In a Jan. 27, 2011 Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
addressed six pending motions: Ms. Winchester's motion to dismiss,
which was construed as a motion for summary judgment; Mr. Burdex's
motion for summary judgment; Douchet's motion for summary
judgment; the joint motion for summary judgment of Daugherty and
McGill; Wyatt's summary judgment motion; and Mr. Burdex's motion
for appointment of counsel.

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended
the Court grant summary judgment in favor of all Defendants and
against Mr. Burdex; she also recommended denial of Mr. Burdex's
summary judgment motion as well as his motion seeking appointment
of counsel.

Finally, she recommended that Mr. Burdex's claims against the
Commissioners be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
perfect service of process.  He was granted an extension of the
deadline for objecting to the Report and Recommendation, and he
filed an objection within the extended time period.  Accordingly,
the matters were reviewed de novo.

The motions for summary judgment of Ms. Winchester, Douchet,
Daugherty and McGill, and Wyatt were granted; the summary judgment
motion of Mr. Burdex was denied and judgment shall be entered
accordingly.

Mr. Burdex's motion for appointment of counsel was denied.  The
claims against the Commissioners were dismissed without prejudice
for failure to perfect service of process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Ruling to Remand Abednego Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix,
issued a ruling to remand a case involving asbestos styled Laurie
L.A. Abednego, et al. v. Alcoa, Inc., et al.

Chief Judge Bartle entered judgment in Civil Action No. 10-009 on
March 17, 2011.

Some 2,000 individual plaintiffs originally filed their complaint
in the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Defendants
subsequently removed the action to this court.  Plaintiffs have
moved to remand.

The defendants in this action are Alcoa, Inc., St. Croix Alumina,
LLC, Glencore Ltd. (a/k/a Clarendon Ltd.), and Century Alumina
Company.

Plaintiffs filed their initial motion to remand on March 30, 2010.
The initial motion to remand was denied without prejudice.  On
Dec. 21, 2010, plaintiffs' motion to remand was denied without
prejudice.  On Dec. 21, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended
Complaint, which is the operative pleading in this action.

On Feb. 8, 2011, the court ordered the parties to file briefs on
the issue of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.
In response, plaintiffs renewed their motion to remand.

The Third Amended Complaint contained claims arising from the
release of various hazardous substances from an alumina refinery
on St. Croix as a result of Hurricane Georges in 1998.

Plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of exposure to a variety of
particulates and toxic substances, they have "suffered physical
injuries, medical expenses, damages to their properties and
possessions, loss of income, loss of capacity to earn income,
mental anguish, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life,
a propensity for additional medical illness, a reasonable fear of
contracting illness in the future."

The lawsuit met many of the criteria of a mass action.  It
contains claims by more than 100 persons whose claims involve
common questions of law and fact and whose claims in the aggregate
exceed US$5 million exclusive of interest and costs.  In addition,
the minimal diversity requirement was satisfied.

The action will be remanded to the Superior Court of the U.S.
Virgin Islands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Judgment in Butte's Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Third District, California, upheld a judgment
in a case involving asbestos styled Butte Equipment Rentals, Inc.,
Plaintiff and Appellant v. California Air Resources Board et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Blease, Nicholson, and Hull entered judgment in Case No.
No. C060455 on March 23, 2011.

Butte Equipment Rentals, Inc., the owner of the Bear Creek Quarry
in El Dorado County, appealed from a summary judgment that granted
the defendant California Air Resources Board (ARB) in consolidated
actions challenging whether the ARB's regulation of the quarrying
and sale of rock containing asbestos constituted a regulatory
taking of Butte Equipment's property interest in the rock.

Butte Equipment is a corporation owned by Boyd Sears.  It mines
and sells rock from the Bear Creek Quarry in El Dorado County.
The quarry is located in an ultramafic rock zone containing
serpentine rock which contains asbestos and therefore is subject
to the asbestos regulations issued by the ARB.

This case began as an administrative challenge to the dust control
regulation.  When that failed, on April 1, 2003, Boyd Sears, as
the alleged owner of the Bear Creek Quarry, filed a petition for
administrative mandate seeking to rescind section 93105 on the
grounds the ARB had insufficient scientific evidence to adopt the
regulation and failed to follow the procedures of the Tanner Act.

The petition for extraordinary relief was accompanied by a
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.  The claim for
writ relief was denied on Aug. 5, 2004, and a statement of
decision was filed on Nov. 24, 2004.

A second petition was filed by Boyd Sears challenging the adoption
of section 93106 by the ARB.  The record did not contain a copy of
the initial pleading but did contain a copy of the second amended
petition for writ of mandate.

The record also contained Butte Equipment's motion, filed June 3,
2005, to consolidate the two actions.  The motion was not opposed
by the ARB and it was granted on July 21, 2005.

The ARB filed a first motion for summary judgment in the
consolidated actions, together with a Statement of Undisputed
Facts, on Jan. 27, 2006.  Boyd Sears, then listed as plaintiff,
responded with a separate Statement in Opposition to defendant's
motion for summary judgment.  The motion for summary judgment was
denied on March 28, 2007, for failure of the ARB to support its
claims with facts.

The parties stipulated to the filing by the ARB of a second
summary judgment motion on Dec. 20, 2007, in exchange for an
amendment to the complaints substituting Butte Equipment, a
corporation, as the owner of Bear Creek Quarry and as the
plaintiff in lieu of Boyd Sears.

The ARB then filed a second summary judgment motion on Jan. 8,
2008, and a corrected motion on Jan. 16, 2008, addressed to the
remaining regulatory-taking causes of action.

The trial court issued a tentative ruling, which was confirmed in
the order granting the motion for summary judgment.  Judgment was
entered on Oct. 6, 2008.  The notice of appeal from the judgment
was filed on Nov. 7, 2008.  The judgment was affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Posts $649.9MM Net Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's net asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$649.9 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$674.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 28, 2011.

Total asbestos-related liabilities were US$985.1 million as of
June 30, 2011, compared with US$1.020 billion as of Dec. 31, 2010.
The asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries was
US$335.2 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$346.2
million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts.  In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants.

The vast majority of those claims has been filed against either
Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane and generally
allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain
historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily
pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes.

Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings
purchased from third-party suppliers.

At Dec. 31, 2010, over 90% of the open claims against the Company
are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on
inactive or deferral dockets.

Asbestos costs were US$3.1 million during the three months ended
June 30, 2011, compared with US$3.8 million during the three
months ended June 30, 2010.  Asbestos costs were US$8.2 million
during the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared with US$11.4
million during the six months ended June 30, 2010.

Trane continues to be in litigation against certain carriers whose
policies it believes provide coverage for asbestos claims.  Trane
has now settled with the majority of its insurers, collectively
accounting for about 95% of its recorded asbestos-related
liability insurance receivable as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Most, although not all, of Trane's settlement agreements
constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer
signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its
costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to
certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer
signatories certain releases and indemnifications.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified,
global company that provides products, services and solutions to
enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings,
transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and
commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and
efficiency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Defending v. Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is one of several unrelated
defendants in lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2011.

These cases allege that defendants manufactured, distributed or
utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's
case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its
offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  The Company expects to receive complete defense
and indemnity from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under
the terms of the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with
them.

Headquartered in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides
contract drilling services to the energy industry around the
globe.  Its current fleet of 46 offshore drilling rigs consists of
32 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-ups and one drillship.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Party to 82,700 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faced 82,700 pending asbestos
claims during the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared with
83,700 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on July 28, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 83,300 pending asbestos claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 13,
2011)

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
1,000 new claims filed and 2,000 claims settled or dismissed.
Payments made during the period were US$9 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 1,700
new claims filed and 8,200 claims settled or dismissed.  Payments
made during the period were US$26 million.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the
Company or present in certain of its facilities.

Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts.  To date, the Company has
disposed of about 92,700 claims by defending and obtaining the
dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement.

The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-related liability and
gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about
US$374 million through June 30, 2011 and US$365 million through
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$128
million at June 30, 2011 and US$126 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

At June 30, 2011, the Company estimates that it is reasonably
possible that its gross liabilities, net of its estimate for
probable insurance recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts
by about US$10 million.

The Company recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of
US$68 million as of June 30, 2011 and US$67 million as of Dec. 31,
2010.

The Company expects that about 50% of asbestos claim related
losses would be recoverable through insurance through the period
covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, about US$9
million at June 30, 2011 and US$8 million at Dec. 31, 2010 were
included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable.

The Company said it believes that, at June 30, 2011, it had about
US$170 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products
claims, in addition to limits of available primary insurance
policies.

The Company also had about US$14 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis, and defense costs available with its primary
insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at
June 30, 2011.

The Company recorded US$6 million in the second quarter of 2011
and US$5 million in the second quarter of 2010 of expense related
to asbestos claims.  In addition, the Company recorded US$3
million of income related to probable insurance recoveries and a
US$2 million decrease in probable insurance recoveries in the
second quarter of 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The Company recorded US$11 million and US$12 million of expense
related to asbestos claims in the first six months of 2011 and
2010, respectively.  In addition, the Company recorded US$5
million and US$1 million of income related to probable insurance
recoveries in the first six months of 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
manufactures tires.  The Company has a global footprint with 54
manufacturing facilities in 22 countries, including the United
States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5,700 Claims Open v. Owens-Illinois at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. says that, as of June 30, 2011, it has
determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and
claims involving about 5,700 plaintiffs and claimants, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2011.

As of March 31, 2011, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about
5,900 plaintiffs and claimants.  (Class Action Reporter, March 31,
2011)

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily
injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust.  From
1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos.  The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of Dec. 31, 2010,
about 76% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages
sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court.

About 22% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of US$15
million or less, and 2% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
greater than US$15 million but less than US$100 million.  Fewer
than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages $100 million or
greater but less than US$122 million.

The Company believes that as of June 30, 2011, there are about
500 claims against other defendants which are likely to be
asserted some time in the future against the Company.  The Company
is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims
involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-
defendants and property damage claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
June 30, 2011, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
384,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$7,900.

Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$21 million at June 30,
2011 (US$26 million at Dec. 31, 2010) and are included in the
foregoing average indemnity payment per claim.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established
in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about US$3.82 billion
through 2010, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability.

On March 11, 2011, the Company received a verdict in an asbestos
case in which conspiracy claims had been asserted against the
Company.  Of the total nearly US$90 million awarded by the jury
against the four defendants in the case, almost US$10 million in
compensatory damages were assessed against all four defendants,
and US$40 million in punitive damages were assessed against the
Company.

The Company continues to deny the conspiracy allegations in this
case and will vigorously challenge this verdict, if necessary, in
the appellate courts, and, therefore, has made no change to its
asbestos-related liability as of June 30, 2011.

Headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio, Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass
container manufacturer and partner for many of the world's leading
food and beverage brands.  The Company delivers safe, effective
and sustainable glass packaging solutions to a growing global
marketplace.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,102 Cases Pending v. TriMas Corp. at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of June 30, 2011, was a party to about
1,102 pending cases involving an aggregate of about 8,229
claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials.

As of March 31, 2011, the Company was a party to about 1,095
pending cases involving an aggregate of about 8,194 claimants
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials.  (Class Action Reporter, May 13, 2011)

The asbestos was formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
293 claims filed, 256 claims dismissed, and eight claims settled.
The average settlement amount per claim was US$31,250 and total
defense costs were US$1,230,000.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 892
claims filed, 456 claims dismissed, and 52 claims settled.  The
average settlement amount per claim was US$7,029 and total defense
costs were US$2,870,000.

Of the 8,229 claims pending at June 30, 2011, about 50 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum), about 31 of the 50 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages), about 16 sought
between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages) and three sought over
US$10 million (which includes compensatory and punitive damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, about 33 of the
50 claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000, about
14 sought between US$600,000 and US$5 million and 3 sought over
US$5 million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, about 31 of the 50 claims
sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million, about 16 sought
between $2.5 million and $5.0 million and 3 sought over $5.0
million. In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached
the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the
discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been about
US$6 million.

All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature.  To
date, about 50% of the Company's costs related to settlement and
defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary
insurance.

Headquartered in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corporation is a
global manufacturer and distributor of products for commercial,
industrial and consumer markets.  The Company is principally
engaged in six reportable segments with diverse products and
market channels: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace & Defense,
Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent North
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Involved in Three Filter Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in three asbestos-related Filter
Cases, including two that also name its Lorillard Tobacco Company
subsidiary, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
July 28, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and the Company
by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard
Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years
ago.

Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 37 Filter Cases.  Since Jan.
1, 2009, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to
pay, a total of about US$21.5 million in settlements to finally
resolve 69 claims.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, verdicts have been returned in two Filter
Cases, Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al, which was tried
in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, and
Lenney v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., tried in the
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County. The jury in
the Cox case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco.

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their
appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the Cox case is
concluded.

In the Lenney trail, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs as
to their claims for compensatory damages and damages for loss of
consortium, but it determined that plaintiffs were not entitled to
an award of punitive damages from Lorilland Tobacco or
Hollingsworth & Vose.

The final judgment enered by the trail court awarded plaintiffs a
total of about US$1.1 million in compensatory damages, damages for
loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose.

As of July 20, 2011, the deadline for Lorillard Tobacco to seek
review of the verdict in Lenney had not expired.

As of July 20, 2011, 14 Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or
have been placed on courts' trial calendars.  Trial dates are
subject to change.

Headquartered in Greensboro, N.C., Lorillard, Inc. is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products
are marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the
United States of America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Named in Aaron Case in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to face the asbestos case
entitled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company et al.
Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones County, Miss.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course of
their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints name certain TODCO subsidiaries and certain
subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent to whom TODCO may owe
indemnity, and other unaffiliated defendant companies, including
companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products
containing asbestos, which are the subject of the complaints.

The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each
complaint ranges from about 20 to 70.  The complaints allege that
the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing
products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling
operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and
other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  All of these cases were assigned to a special
master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed by
plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served against
specific defendants.

About 700 questionnaires were returned and the remaining
plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire reply, have had
their suits dismissed without prejudice.  Of the respondents,
about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and its former
parent which could lead to claims against either company, even
though many of these plaintiffs did not state in their
questionnaire answers that the employment actually involved
exposure to asbestos.

After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct claim
as identified in the questionnaire answers.  Defendants not
identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the
plaintiffs' litigation.  To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as
a defendant in their amended complaints.

It is possible that some of the plaintiffs who have filed amended
complaints and have not named TODCO as a defendant may attempt to
add TODCO as a defendant in the future when case discovery begins
and greater attention is given to each individual plaintiff's
employment background.

The Company has not determined which entity would be responsible
for such claims under the Master Separation Agreement between
TODCO and its former parent.  More than three years has passed
since the court ordered that amended complaints be filed by each
individual plaintiff, and the original complaints.

No additional plaintiffs have attempted to name TODCO as a
defendant and such actions may now be time-barred.

Headquartered in Houston, Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides
shallow-water drilling and marine services to the oil and natural
gas exploration and production industry globally through its
Domestic Offshore, International Offshore, Inland, Domestic
Liftboats and International Liftboats segments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16T Cases Pending v. BorgWarner Inc. at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had about 16,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims as of June 30, 2011, compared with 17,000 claims
as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on July 28, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.

The Company said it believes that its involvement is limited
because, in general, these claims relate to a few types of
automotive friction products that were manufactured many years ago
and contained encapsulated asbestos.

Of the 16,000 outstanding claims at June 30, 2011, about half were
pending in jurisdictions that have undergone significant tort and
judicial reform activities subsequent to the filing of these
claims.

In 2011, of about 900 claims resolved, 157 (17.4%) resulted in any
payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

In the full year of 2010, of about 7,700 claims resolved, only 245
(3.2%) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on
behalf of the Company.

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered automotive systems and components primarily for
powertrain applications.  Its products help improve vehicle
performance, fuel efficiency, stability and air quality.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continental Case v. BorgWarner Pending in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general
liability insurers are still involved in an asbestos-related
declaratory judgment action, filed in January 2004 in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill., by Continental Casualty Company and
related companies (CNA).

The court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is
continuing.

CNA and the Company have entered into a settlement agreement
resolving their coverage disputes under which CNA will pay amounts
over the next four years to the Company.

The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against the
remaining insurers.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued US$174.1 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received US$80.9 million in cash and notes from insurers
including CNA.

The net balance of US$93.2 million is expected to be fully
recovered, of which about US$29.9 million is expected to be
recovered within one year.  At Dec. 31, 2010, insurers owed
US$120.6 million in association with these claims.

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered automotive systems and components primarily for
powertrain applications.  Its products help improve vehicle
performance, fuel efficiency, stability and air quality.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Accrues $55.2MM Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has estimated a liability of US$55.2 million for
asbestos claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related
defense costs at June 30, 2011.

The Company also has a related asset of US$55.2 million to
recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100% is expected based on the
Company's experience, its insurance contracts and decisions
received to date in a declaratory judgment action.

At December 31, 2010, the comparable value of the insurance asset
and accrued liability was US$50.6 million.

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered automotive systems and components primarily for
powertrain applications.  Its products help improve vehicle
performance, fuel efficiency, stability and air quality.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4,400 Lawsuits Still Pending v. Tyco at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 4,400 asbestos lawsuits as of June 24, 2011 that
were pending against Tyco International Ltd., its subsidiaries or
entities for which the Company has assumed responsibility.

There were about 4,400 lawsuits as of March 25, 2011 pending
against the Company and its subsidiaries or entities for which the
Company has assumed responsibility.  (Class Action Reporter, May
13, 2011)

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous
other companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.  Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds
of corporate defendants.

Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company
has determined that there were about 5,100 claims outstanding as
of June 24, 2011, which reflects the Company's current estimate of
the number of viable claims made against it, its affiliates or
entities for which it has assumed responsibility in connection
with acquisitions or divestitures.

As of June 24, 2011, the Company's estimated net liability of
US$91 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and
related defense costs of US$327 million, and separately as an
asset for insurance recoveries of $236 million.

Similarly, as of Sept. 24, 2010, the Company's estimated net
liability of US$106 million was recorded within the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future
claims and related defense costs of US$309 million, and separately
as an asset for insurance recoveries of US$203 million.

Tyco International Ltd.'s Tyco Security Solutions unit designs,
sells, installs, services and monitors electronic security,
productivity and lifestyle enhancement systems for residential,
commercial, industrial and governmental customers.  Other segments
include Tyco Fire Protection and Tyco Flow Control.  The Company
is based in Schaffhausen, Switzerland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $793MM for Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was
US$793 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US4841 million
as of Sept. 30, 2011, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28,
2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$813
million as of March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 6,
2011)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$452
million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$459 million as of
Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides the
specialty chemicals, technologies and insights to help customers
create new and improved products for today and sustainable
solutions for tomorrow.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms SeaRiver Summary Judgment Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, upheld
SeaRiver Maritime, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, in a case
involving asbestos filed by Alan Bartholomew.

Patricia Sepulveda, Ignazio Ruvolo, and Maria Rivera entered
judgment in the case.

Between 1977 and 1980, Mr. Bartholomew worked as a marine
machinist at West Winds, a ship repair company located in San
Francisco.  During his employment, he worked on the maintenance
and repair of numerous ships owned by SeaRiver.

Mr. Bartholomew was diagnosed with asbestosis in or about October
2006.  He contended that his condition resulted from exposure to
asbestos-containing products while working aboard SeaRiver's
vessels, as well as from airborne asbestos fibers on those ships.

On April 4, 2007, Mr. Bartholomew filed a complaint seeking
damages for his asbestos exposure against numerous defendants,
including SeaRiver.  He claimed that SeaRiver was liable for
vessel owner negligence under the LHWCA.

SeaRiver was known as Exxon Shipping Company from 1982 to 1993 and
as the Marine Department of Exxon Company, U.S.A., from 1973 to
1982.

Subsequently, in response to written discovery propounded by
SeaRiver, Mr. Bartholomew reiterated that he was unable to name a
specific SeaRiver vessel.  Then, in October 2008, as part of his
supplemental interrogatory responses, Mr. Bartholomew identified
the EXXON HAWAII and the EXXON VALDEZ as ships on which he worked.
SeaRiver moved for summary judgment.

In opposition, Bartholomew did not contest the motion as to the
EXXON HAWAII or the EXXON VALDEZ.  Rather, he claimed a refreshed
recollection of working on two different ships, the EXXON BATON
ROUGE and the EXXON GALVESTON.

Following a hearing on April 10, 2009, the trial court granted
SeaRiver's motion for summary judgment.  The ensuing judgment in
SeaRiver's favor was filed on Nov. 2, 2009.  This instant appeal
followed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Desnoyers' Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, vacated the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York,
which entered a post-verdict judgment of acquittal in favor of
Mark Desnoyers on one count of conspiracy to violate the Clean Air
Act and to commit mail fraud.

The matter was remanded to the district court with instructions to
reinstate the jury verdict, enter a judgment of conviction on the
conspiracy count, and resentence Mr. Desnoyers.

The case is styled United States of America, Appellant v. Mark
Desnoyers, Defendant-Appellee.

Judges Jacobs, Wesley, and Chin entered judgment in Docket No. 10-
0447-cr on March 14, 2011.

Mr. Desnoyers was licensed in New York to conduct air monitoring
at asbestos abatement projects and to document the results of
asbestos removal work.  Based on evidence that Mr. Desnoyers
conducted his work fraudulently and sometimes not at all, the
Government charged Mr. Desnoyers.

After trial, Mr. Desnoyers filed a motion challenging his
conspiracy conviction.  He conceded that the Government introduced
sufficient evidence at trial to support the mail fraud object of
the conspiracy.  He argued that his conspiracy conviction is
nevertheless defective because the CAA object rendered the
conspiracy count both factually and legally defective.

The district court agreed that the conspiracy count was factually
and legally defective and on June 19, 2009, entered a judgment of
acquittal on the conspiracy count.

The Government appealed the district court's entry of a judgment
of acquittal on the conspiracy count.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Heckerman Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York,
issued rulings in a case involving asbestos styled In the Matter
of the Claim of Bernard Heckerman, Respondent v. Daimler Chrysler
Corporation, Appellant, Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Judges Karen Peters, Robert Rose, John Lahtinen, Bernard Malone
Jr. and Elizabeth A. Garry entered judgment in Case No. 510564 on
May 12, 2011.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation
Board filed Dec. 16, 2009, which ruled that claimant sustained a
work-related accident.

Claimant worked for many years in an area of the employer's plant
where overhead pipes were wrapped in asbestos insulation.  In
2002, he was diagnosed with an asbestos-related lung disease and
he filed a claim, which the employer contested.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim in 2007,
finding that claimant failed to prove an occupational disease.
The Workers' Compensation Board directed that he be examined by an
impartial pulmonary specialist and, after receiving the
specialist's reports, the Board determined that claimant's
asbestos-related lung condition was causally related to his
employment and established the case for an occupational disease.

The Board thereafter amended its decision changing the finding of
occupational disease to accidental injury, with an Aug. 2, 2002
accident date.  The employer appealed.

The employer's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found
to be without merit.  The decision was affirmed without costs.


                            *********

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  * * *