CAR_Public/110815.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 15, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 160

                             Headlines

3M COMPANY: Unveils Updates on MCPA 2007 Settlement Agreement
ALLIANT ENERGY: Pension Plan Suit Still Pending in Wisconsin
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Six Class Suits Over AMAG Merger
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Awaits Court Approval of Securities Suit Deal
AMERICAN ASIA EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Fax Spam

ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ill.
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Nexium Drug
BLACKBOARD INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit in Delaware Pending
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Securities Lawsuit in Oklahoma Remains Pending

BROADWIND ENERGY: Plaintiffs Have Until Aug. 25 to Amend Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Seek Dismissal from Trading Suits
CHARLES SCHWAB: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
CHARLES SCHWAB: Enters Into Settlement of Merger-Related Suits
CHUBB CORP: Reviewing Dismissal of Plea to Dismiss New Jersey Suit

COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Unit Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit
CROSS COUNTRY: Court Approved "Petray" Suit Settlement in March
DEAN FOODS: Vermont Court Approves Class Action Settlement
DEAN FOODS: To Seek Review of Class Action Settlement in Tenn.
DIRECTV HOLDINGS: To Compel Arbitration in Cancellation Fee Suits

DORCHESTER MINERALS: Royalty Underpayment Claim Remains Pending
ELECTROLUX: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid Overtime
EL PASO CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of 'Tomlinson' Suit Pending
EME HOMER: Motion to Dismiss Pennsylvania Class Suit Still Pending
FANNIE MAE: Still Defends 2008 Securities Litigation

FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend 2008 ERISA Litigation
FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation in D.C.
FEDERAL HOME: Still Awaits Ruling on "OPERS" Suit Dismissal Motion
FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Plaintiffs File New Complaint
FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Remains Dormant

FEDERAL HOME: IPO-Related Suit vs. Underwriters Remains Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit vs. eFunds
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Antitrust Suit Still in Pre-Trial Stage
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Securities Suit Still in Discovery Stage
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on ERISA Class Suit Appeal

FIRST HORIZON: 'Sims' Class Action Still Pending in Tennessee
FIRST NIAGARA: Hearing on NewAlliance Settlement Set for Aug. 22
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: To File Reply Brief in Dismissal Appeal
FORD MOTOR: Appeal From Denial of Decertification Motion Pending
GREATER DAYTON, OH: RTA Employees File FMLA Class Action

GT SOLAR: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
HEART CHECK: Las Vegas Residents File Class Action
HUNTSMAN CORP: Hearing on Class Suit Settlement Set for Sept. 27
HUNTSMAN CORP: Certification Hearing Set for April 2 in Canada
HUNTSMAN CORP: Calif. Class Suit Remains Stayed

HUNTSMAN CORP: Discovery in Maryland Class Suit is Ongoing
INFORMATICA CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remanded
KKR & CO: Defends Shareholder Class Suits in Delaware & Georgia
KKR & CO: Mass. Plaintiffs Want to File 5th Amended Complaint

KKR & CO: Still Defends Del Monte-Related Suits in Del. & Calif.
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Gainesville Plant Class Suit
LIONBRIDGE TECH: One Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remaining
LOGITECH INT'L: Class Suit Over 2011 Fiscal Results Remain Pending
LUBRIZOL CORP: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits in Ohio

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Workers to Get Payout in Discrimination Suit
MERITOR INC: Continues to Defend Automotive Filters Suit
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Clark" Class Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Faber" Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Keife" Suit in Nevada

METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Claims
METLIFE INC: Defends Suits vs. Units Over Homer City Facility
METLIFE INC: "Kang" Suit Remains Pending in Canada
METLIFE INC: Unit Sued by GM Retirees Over Reduced Insurance
MIDWEST GENERATION: Continues to Defend Negligence Suits in Ill.

NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: Sued Over Inflated Employment Statistics
PERFECT FITNESS: Fined $425T for Not Reporting Fall Injury Hazard
PHILLIP MORRIS: Class Suits in Brazil Remain Pending
PHILLIP MORRIS: Appeal in "Yochkolovski" Suit Rejected in Bulgaria
PHILLIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit to Commence Oct. 17

PHILLIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Suit to Begin on Oct. 17
PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Kunta" Class Suit
PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Adams" Class Suit
PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Semple" Class Suit
PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Dorion" Class Suit

PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "McDermid" Class Suit
PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Bourassa" Class Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Defends Five TCPA-Violations Class Suits
PRESCRIPTION DRUG STORES: W.Va. AG Lawyers Balk at Stay on Suit
PRINCETON REVIEW: Faces Securities Class Suit in Massachusetts

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plea to Vacate "Schultz" Suit Order Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Awaits Settlement Approval in N.J. Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Denies Judgment in "Huffman" Suit

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Garcia" Dismissal Appeal Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends Retained Asset Suit in Mass.
REX ENERGY: Pennsylvania Court Approves 'Synder' Class Settlement
SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: "KTEK-AM" Suit Settlement Pending
SANTARUS INC: Motion to Transfer N.Y. Suit to Calif. Still Pending

SEQUENOM INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
SK COMMUNICATIONS: Data Breach Legal Woes Deepen
SMART BALANCE: Continues to Defend Nucoa-Related Class Suit in Ca.
SOLARWINDS INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily End Class Suit in Texas
SUNRISE PROPANE: Downsview Residents Await Class Action Decision

TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: IPO Suit Appeals Still Pending
THOMAS M. COOLEY: Sued Over Misleading Employment Statistics
TRAVELZOO: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers' Lawyers Seek $90.8MM in Legal Fees
VOLKSWAGEN: Center for Class Action Fairness Files Opening Brief

WARNER MUSIC: Digital Music Pricing Class Suit in Discovery Stage
WELLS FARGO: Settlement Deal Biggest Yet for '33 Act Claims
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Gas-Pricing Suits
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Royalty Payments Suit
XENOPORT INC: Hearing on Plea to Dismiss Suit Set for Sept. 23

ZIPCAR INC: Accused of Imposing Unlawful Late Fees in Mass.
ZYNGA GAME: "Special Offer" Class Action Heads to Arbitration

* India's Class Action Facility Covers Small Investors




                             *********

3M COMPANY: Unveils Updates on MCPA 2007 Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company on Aug. 5 disclosed that the Company continues to work
with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) pursuant to the
terms of the previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement
and Consent Order to address the presence of perfluorinated
compounds in the soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in
Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the
Company's manufacturing facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota.

Under this agreement, the Company's principal obligations include
(i) evaluating releases of perfluorinated compounds from these
sites and proposing response actions; (ii) providing treatment or
alternative drinking water upon identifying any level exceeding a
Health Based Value ("HBV") or Health Risk Limit ("HRL") (i.e., the
amount of a chemical in drinking water determined by the Minnesota
Department of Health to be safe for people to drink for a
lifetime) for any perfluorinated compounds as a result of
contamination from these sites; (iii) remediating any source of
other PFCs at these sites that is not controlled by actions to
remediate PFOA and PFOS; and (iv) sharing information with the
MPCA about perfluorinated compounds.

During 2008, the MPCA issued formal decisions adopting remedial
options for the former disposal sites in Washington County,
Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury).

In August 2009, the MPCA issued a formal decision adopting
remedial options for the Company's Cottage Grove manufacturing
facility.

During the spring and summer of 2010, 3M began implementing the
remedial options at the Cottage Grove and Woodbury sites.  3M
commenced the remedial option at the Oakdale site in late 2010. At
each location the remedial options were among those recommended by
the Company.  Remediation work will continue at all three sites
during 2011.  The Company cannot predict what additional
regulatory actions arising from the foregoing proceedings and
activities, if any, may be taken regarding such compounds or the
consequences of any such actions.

As previously reported, 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 described above 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.

In March 2011, several residents of Lawrence County, Alabama,
filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Lawrence County seeking
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and other relief for
alleged personal injuries due to the exposure to PFCs. The named
defendants in the case include the City of Decatur, Alabama, 3M,
its subsidiary Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Toray Industries,
Inc. and two of its US subsidiaries, Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro
South, LLC and Biological Processors of America, and certain
individuals not associated with 3M.

According to the complaint, Synagro acquired wastewater treatment
sludge that allegedly contained PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals from the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant, and made it into a fertilizer that it sold to farmers who
applied it to their farmland in Morgan, Limestone and Lawrence
counties, including land adjacent to the plaintiffs' residence.
Plaintiffs have dismissed the City of Decatur from the case.

On December 30, 2010, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney
General Lori Swanson, acting in its capacity as trustee of the
natural resources of the State of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit in
Hennepin County District Court against 3M to recover damages
(including unspecified assessment costs and reasonable attorney's
fees) for alleged injury to, destruction of, and loss of use of
certain of the State's natural resources under the Minnesota
Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA) and the Minnesota
Water Pollution Control Act (MWPCA), as well as statutory nuisance
and common law claims of trespass, nuisance, and negligence with
respect to the presence of PFC's in the groundwater, surface
water, fish or other aquatic life and sediments.

The State also seeks declarations under MERLA that 3M is
responsible for all damages the State may suffer in the future for
injuries to natural resources from releases of PFCs into the
environment, and under MWPCA that 3M is responsible for
compensation for future loss or destruction of fish, aquatic life
and other damages.

On January 14, 2011, the City of Lake Elmo filed a motion to
intervene in the State of Minnesota lawsuit and seeks damages in
excess of $50,000 and other legal and equitable relief, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, for alleged contamination of city
property, wells, groundwater and water contained in the wells with
PFCs under several theories, including common law and statutory
nuisance, strict liability, trespass, negligence, and conversion.
The court granted the City of Lake Elmo's motion to intervene in
this lawsuit.

In June 2009, the Company, along with more than 250 other
companies, was served with a third-party complaint seeking
contribution towards the cost of cleaning up a 17-mile stretch of
the Passaic River in New Jersey.

After commencing an enforcement action in 1990, the State of New
Jersey filed suit against Maxus Energy, Tierra Solutions,
Occidental Chemical and two other companies seeking cleanup and
removal costs and other damages associated with the presence of
dioxin and other hazardous substances in the sediment of the
Passaic.

The third-party complaint seeks to spread those costs among the
third-party defendants, including the Company.

Based on the cleanup remedy currently proposed by the EPA, the
total costs at issue could easily exceed $1 billion.

The Company's recent involvement in the case appears to relate to
its past disposal of industrial waste at two commercial waste
disposal facilities in New Jersey. Whether, and to what extent,
the Company may be required to contribute to the costs at issue in
the case remains to be determined.  The Company does not yet have
a basis for estimating its potential exposure in this case,
although the Company currently believes its allocable share, if
any, is likely to be a fraction of one percent of the total costs.

The Company has not recorded any liabilities for the Company's
environmental litigation described in this section because the
Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at
this time.  Because of the limited activity in these cases, the
Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss,
with the exception of the Passaic River litigation, where the
Company indicated that its potential exposure, if any, is likely
to be a fraction of one percent of the total costs.


ALLIANT ENERGY: Pension Plan Suit Still Pending in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against the Alliant Energy Cash Balance
Pension Plan is still pending in Wisconsin, according to Alliant
Energy Corporation's August 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Plan in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
(Court). The complaint alleges that certain Plan participants who
received distributions prior to their normal retirement age did
not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
because the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to
project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age.
The majority of these Plan participants are individuals who, prior
to normal retirement age, received a cash balance lump sum
distribution or received any form of distribution calculated under
the Plan's prior formula after that benefit was determined to be
more valuable than their benefit calculated under the Plan's cash
balance formula. The Court certified two subclasses of plaintiffs
that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested
in the Plan who received these distributions from Jan. 1, 1998
through Aug. 17, 2006 including: 1) persons who received
distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 through Feb. 28, 2002; and 2)
persons who received distributions from March 1, 2002 through
Aug. 17, 2006. In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order
that granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on
liability in the lawsuit and decided with respect to damages that
prejudgment interest on damages will be allowed. In December 2010,
the Court issued an opinion and order that decided the interest
crediting rate that the Plan used to project the cash balance
accounts of the plaintiffs during the class period should have
been 8.2% and a pre-retirement mortality discount will not apply
to the damages calculation. In March 2011, the Court issued an
opinion and order that prejudgment interest on damages will be
calculated using the average prime rate, compounded annually, from
the date that the Plan failed to make the total required payment
to a particular participant through the date of the final
judgment. The parties are currently in the process of calculating
damages owed to class members, have presented additional evidence
to the Court and have been engaging in additional briefing on
damages. The Plan is contesting the Court's adverse decisions and
intends to pursue legal avenues in light of a recent ruling by the
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a similar case, which
may include filing motions before the Court or seeking an appeal
after the final judgment is rendered by the Court. Based on
opinions and orders issued by the Court to date, the likely
outcome of motions pending before the Court, the $9 million of
additional benefits already paid by the Plan in August 2011, and a
recent ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a
similar case, the Plan currently estimates that the final judgment
of damages by the Court may be approximately $6 million, which
does not include any award for plaintiffs' attorney's fees or
costs. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any
potential liability for final judgment of damages from the lawsuit
while this matter is being contested. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL
are currently unable to predict the final outcome of the class
action lawsuit or the ultimate impact on their financial condition
or results of operations but believe an adverse outcome could have
a material effect on their retirement plan funding and expense.

The interest crediting rate used to project the cash balance
account to participants' normal retirement age has also been
considered by the IRS as part of its review of Alliant Energy's
request for a favorable determination letter with respect to the
tax-qualified status of the Plan. Alliant Energy reached an
agreement with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable
determination letter for the Plan during the first quarter of
2011. The agreement with the IRS required Alliant Energy to amend
the Plan in the second quarter of 2011 resulting in $9 million of
aggregate additional benefits paid to certain former participants
in the Plan in August 2011. The $9 million of aggregate payments
are in addition to any final judgment of damages by the Court in
the case.


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Six Class Suits Over AMAG Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics, Inc., entered into a definitive merger
agreement with AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or AMAG, on July 19,
2011, which prompted the filing of six putative class action
lawsuits, 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 plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, to stop or delay
the acquisition of Allos by AMAG, or rescission of the Merger in
the event it is consummated.  One of the conditions to the
completion of the Merger is that no temporary restraining order,
preliminary or permanent injunction or other order preventing the
completion of the Merger shall have been issued by any court of
competent jurisdiction or other Governmental Body and be in
effect. Consequently, if the plaintiffs are successful in
obtaining an injunction prohibiting the parties from completing
the Merger pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, such an
injunction may prevent the completion of the Merger in the
expected timeframe (or altogether).

            Merger Transaction Class Action Lawsuits

On July 21, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Radmore, et al. v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 11-CV-
01895-MSK-MEH, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado. The complaint names as defendants the
members of the Company's board of directors, as well as AMAG. The
plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to its stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger between Allos and AMAG, and were aided and abetted
by Allos and AMAG. The complaint alleges that the merger involves
an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal
protection devices, and that defendants entered into the
transaction to benefit themselves personally. The complaint seeks
injunctive relief, including to enjoin the merger, attorneys' and
other fees and costs, and other relief.

On July 22, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Everage. v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 11-CV-01912-MSK,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado. The complaint names as defendants the members of the
Company's board of directors, as well as AMAG. The plaintiff
alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger between Allos and AMAG, and were aided and abetted
by Allos and AMAG. The complaint alleges that the merger involves
an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal
protection devices, and that defendants entered into the
transaction to benefit themselves personally. The complaint seeks
injunctive relief, including to enjoin the merger, attorneys' and
other fees and costs, and other relief.

On July 26, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Lam v.
Allos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 6714-VCN, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint names as defendants the
members of the Company's board of directors, as well as AMAG and
Merger Sub. The plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to its stockholders in connection
with the proposed merger between Allos and AMAG, and were aided
and abetted by AMAG and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the
merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process,
unreasonable deal protection devices, and that defendants entered
into the transaction to benefit themselves personally. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin the merger,
rescissory damages in the event the merger occurs, attorneys' and
other fees and costs, and other relief.

Also on July 26, 2011, two putative class action lawsuits
captioned Nunn v. Berns, et al., No. 11-CV-3201, and Stevens, et
al. v. Hoffman, et al., No. 11-CV-3190, were filed in the Colorado
Jefferson County District Court, First Judicial District. The Nunn
complaint names as defendants the members of the Company's Board,
as well as AMAG and Merger Sub; the Stevens complaint does not
name Mr. Berns or Mr. de Silva as defendants, but otherwise names
the same defendants as the Nunn complaint. The plaintiffs allege
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
its stockholders in connection with the proposed merger between
Allos and AMAG, and were aided and abetted by AMAG and Merger Sub.
The complaints allege that the merger involves an unfair price and
an inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal protection devices,
and that defendants entered into the transaction to benefit
themselves personally. The complaints seek injunctive relief,
including in the Stevens complaint to enjoin the merger, damages,
attorneys' and other fees and costs, and other relief.

On July 28, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Mulligan v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 6724-VCN, was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint names as
defendants the Company and the members of its Board, as well as
AMAG and Merger Sub. The plaintiff alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to its stockholders in
connection with the proposed merger between Allos and AMAG, and
were aided and abetted by Allos, AMAG and Merger Sub. The
complaint alleges that the merger involves an unfair price and an
inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal protection devices,
and that defendants entered into the transaction to benefit
themselves personally. The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin the merger, rescissory damages in the event
the merger occurs, disgorgement of profits, attorneys' and other
fees and costs, and other relief.

The defendants believe the allegations of all these lack merit and
intend to contest them vigorously.


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Awaits Court Approval of Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassadors Group, Inc., is awaiting preliminary court approval of
its agreement to settle a securities class action lawsuit pending
in Washington, 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 July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased its Common Stock between
February 8, 2007, and October 23, 2007, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  On
March 11, 2010, the Company, and certain of its executive
officers, moved to dismiss the class action.  On June 2, 2010, the
Court issued an order denying these motions to dismiss.  The
current amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's Common Stock.

On March 17, 2011, the Class was certified for persons who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between July 24, 2007, and
October 23, 2007.  The parties had commenced discovery when, on
April 14, 2011, an agreement was reached to settle the action
following a mediation before a retired federal judge.  Under the
terms of the settlement, the Company's insurance carriers have
agreed to pay the settlement amount of $7.5 million, in complete
settlement of all claims, without any admission of wrongdoing or
liability by the Company or any party in the action.

Throughout the litigation, the Company and the individual
defendants have denied, and continue to deny, the allegations made
against them.  The Company agreed with the insurance carriers to
settle the action on these terms, because it was in the best
interests of the Company to avoid the burdens, risk, uncertainties
and expense that would be inherent in continued litigation.  The
settlement agreement, which includes a release for all defendants
and other provisions common in such agreements, was submitted to
the Court on July 13, 2011, for preliminary approval, which will
then be followed by notice to all class members.  Whether or not
the settlement receives final court approval depends on various
factors, including but not limited to the number of and reasons
for any potential objections to the settlement or the number of
class members excluding themselves from the class action
settlement.  The settlement will be subject to final Court
approval following a public hearing.  As the settlement is covered
by the Company's insurance carrier, the settlement is not expected
to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition or results of operations.


AMERICAN ASIA EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Fax Spam
-------------------------------------------------------
Derek Hawkins, writing for Law360, reports that a safety products
manufacturer launched a putative class action against American
Asia Express Corp. in Illinois on Aug. 10, claiming the shipper
violated consumer protection laws by sending fax spam to
noncustomers.

Saf-T-Gard International Inc. claims that AAE sent fax
advertisements to businesses and individuals without their
knowledge, approval or authorization.

New York-based AAE offers delivery services between the United
States and China, and bills itself as the premier shipper between
the countries.


ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anixter International Inc. continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit re-plead by lead plaintiff Indiana
Laborers Pension Fund in Illinois, 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 July 1, 2011.

In September 2009, the Garden City Employees' Retirement System
filed a purported class action under the federal securities laws
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Company, its current and former chief
executive officers and its former chief financial officer. In
November 2009, the Court entered an order appointing the Indiana
Laborers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointing lead
plaintiff's counsel.  In January 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.  The amended complaint principally alleges that
the Company made misleading statements during 2008 regarding
certain aspects of its financial performance and outlook.  The
amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons
who purchased the common stock of the Company between January 29
and October 20, 2008.  In March 2011, the Court dismissed the
complaint but allowed the lead plaintiff the opportunity to re-
plead its complaint.  Plaintiff did so in April 2011.  The Company
and the other defendants intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously against the allegations.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Nexium Drug
-------------------------------------------------------
GCG Inc., Notice Administrator, on Aug. 10 issued a statement
regarding the Commonwealth Care Alliance v. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals L.P., Docket No. 05-0269.

If You Purchased the Drug Nexium(R)(esomeprazole magnesium) in
Massachusetts, A Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Rights.

There is a class action lawsuit pending in Suffolk County Superior
Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The name of the
Lawsuit is Commonwealth Care Alliance v. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals L.P., Docket No. 05-0269.  The Court has certified
a class of individuals and entities that purchased Nexium(R) in
Massachusetts.  The Court has not made any finding or reached any
conclusion as to whether AstraZeneca is liable to the Class.

What do Plaintiffs say about the Lawsuit?

Plaintiffs claim that Defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P.
violated a Massachusetts state law by deceptively marketing the
drug Nexium(R) as superior to another drug, Prilosec(R) or its
generic version, omeprazole.  Plaintiffs are not claiming that
Nexium(R) is unsafe in any way.  The Lawsuit asks the Court to
order AstraZeneca to pay restitution to purchasers for amounts
they allegedly overpaid, to award money damages, or to grant other
relief.

What does AstraZeneca say about the Lawsuit?

AstraZeneca contends that its marketing of Nexium(R) has always
been truthful.  AstraZeneca also contends that physicians
exercised their independent medical judgment to prescribe
Nexium(R) for numerous patient-specific reasons, that many class
members obtained greater relief from their symptoms with Nexium(R)
than with Prilosec(R) or omeprazole, and that many saved money by
purchasing Nexium(R) instead of Prilosec(R) or omeprazole.

Am I involved in the Lawsuit?

You are a member of the Class if you have purchased Nexium(R) in
Massachusetts since March 2001.  If you purchased Nexium(R) since
March 2001 in Massachusetts, you may be eligible to receive money
or benefits from the Lawsuit, if any are recovered.

For a detailed notice about the Lawsuit, as well as information
about how to file a Notice of Appearance on or before December 5,
2011, if you wish to make a personal appearance in the Lawsuit:

    Call toll-free: 1 (866) 881-8313; or
    Visit:  http://www.MassachusettsNexiumLitigation.com;or
    Write:  Massachusetts Nexium Litigation Administrator
            c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
            P.O. Box 9702
            Dublin, OH 43017-5602


BLACKBOARD INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit in Delaware Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blackboard Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits over its
merger with Bulldog Holdings, LLC, 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 June 30, 2011, the Company, Bulldog Holdings, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Parent"), and Bulldog Acquisition Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Acquisition Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "merger agreement") pursuant to which Acquisition Sub
will, upon the terms and subject to the conditions thereof, merge
with and into Blackboard (the "merger"), with Blackboard surviving
the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and
Acquisition Sub are affiliates of Providence Equity Partners
L.L.C. The Company's stockholders must adopt the merger agreement
for the merger to occur.

On July 7, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit relating to the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court against the Company, the Board,
Providence, Parent and Acquisition Sub entitled Astor BK Realty v.
Michael L. Chasen, et. al. On July 8, 2011, a purported class
action lawsuit relating to the transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement was filed in the Superior Court for the District
of Columbia against the Company, the Board, Providence, Parent and
Acquisition Sub entitled Leroy Pogodzinski v. Blackboard Inc. et.
al. On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit relating to
the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement was filed in
the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against the
Company, the Board, Providence, Parent and Acquisition Sub
entitled Eve Wachsler v. Blackboard Inc. et. al.

The lawsuits generally allege that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, which allegedly
were financially unfair to the Company and its stockholders, and
agreeing to provisions in the merger agreement that will allegedly
prevent the Board from considering other offers. The lawsuits
further allege that certain defendants aided and abetted these
breaches. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages and equitable
relief, including an injunction halting the transaction or
rescission of the transaction as applicable.

On July 27, 2011, plaintiffs in the Pogodzinski and Wachsler
matters moved to consolidate the actions in Superior Court for the
District of Columbia and for appointment of their respective
counsel as co-lead counsel. On August 2, 2011, the Pogodzinski and
Wachsler plaintiffs jointly filed an amended complaint which, in
addition to the claims, asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty based on alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material facts in the Company's preliminary proxy statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2011,
relating to, among other things, the sale process conducted by the
Board and the retention of, and analyses conducted by, the
Company's financial advisor. The plaintiffs contemporaneously
filed a motion for limited expedited discovery in connection with
their anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion
to consolidate and the motion to expedite are both currently
pending before the Superior Court. The Company intends to
vigorously defend these matters.

On August 2, 2011, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Delaware action.

The Company, from time to time, is subject to other litigation
relating to matters in the ordinary course of business. The
Company believes that any ultimate liability resulting from any
such other litigation will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash
flows.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action complaint remains pending
against The Blackstone Group L.P.

In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.  These
suits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman
(Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Peter G.
Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman), Hamilton E. James
(Blackstone's President and Chief Operating Officer) and Michael
A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial Officer at the time of
the IPO).  The amended complaint alleged that (1) the IPO
prospectus was false and misleading for failing to disclose (a)
one private equity investment would be adversely affected by
trends in mortgage default rates, particularly for sub-prime
mortgage loans, (b) another private equity investment was
adversely affected by the loss of an exclusive manufacturing
agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market
had started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of
Blackstone's real estate investments; and (2) the financial
statements in the IPO prospectus were materially inaccurate
principally because they overstated the value of the investments
referred to in clause (1).

In September 2009, the District Court judge dismissed the
complaint with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in
the complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial.  Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors,
the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were
immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments at
issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into account
Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial advisory
firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law.  The Second Circuit disagreed
with the District Court, concluding that the complaint "plausibly"
alleged that the initial public offering documents omitted
material information concerning two of Blackstone funds'
individual investments and inadequately disclosed information
relating to market risks to their real estate investments.
Because this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision
the Second Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual
allegations as true and drew every reasonable inference in
plaintiffs' favor.  The Second Circuit did not consider facts
other than those in the plaintiffs' complaint, Blackstone related.

Blackstone believes that the suits are totally without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.

No further updates were reported in 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.

The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://blackstone.com//-- together
with its subsidiaries, is a global manager of private capital and
provider of financial advisory services.  The alternative asset
management business includes the management of private equity
funds, real estate funds, funds of hedge funds, credit-oriented
funds, collateralized loan obligation ("CLO") vehicles, separately
managed accounts, publicly traded closed-end mutual funds and
registered investment companies (collectively referred to as the
"Blackstone Funds"). Blackstone also provides various financial
advisory services, including financial advisory, restructuring and
reorganization advisory and fund placement services.  Blackstone's
business is organized into five segments: private equity, real
estate, hedge fund solutions, credit businesses, and financial
advisory.


BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Securities Lawsuit in Oklahoma Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action complaint remains pending
against BlueKnight Energy Partners, L.P. (formerly SemGroup Energy
Partners, L.P.) and subsidiaries, collectively referred to as the
Partnership, in Oklahoma pending final court approval of the
parties' class settlement, 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 May 3, 2011, the Partnership entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement to settle the consolidated securities class action
litigation, In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-MD-1989-GKF-FHM, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  As set
forth more fully in the Stipulation, if the proposed settlement is
given final approval by the court, among other things, the
shareholder class will receive a total payment of approximately
$28.0 million from the defendants.  On June 9, 2011, the Court
entered an order preliminarily approving, subject to further
consideration at a settlement hearing, the proposed settlement
pursuant to the Stipulation involving, among other things, a
dismissal of the Class Action Litigation with prejudice.  The
settlement hearing is currently scheduled for October 5, 2011, to
determine whether the terms and conditions of the settlement
provided for in the Stipulation are fair, reasonable, adequate and
in the best interests of the class and to consider whether to
enter a final judgment approving the settlement in its entirety.

The Partnership has accrued a contingent loss of $20.2 million as
of June 30, 2011, related to its portion of the proposed
settlement.  Of that amount, the Partnership expects to receive
insurance proceeds of $13.0 million to $13.9 million and
accordingly recognized an insurance recovery receivable of $13.0
million as of June 30, 2011.  Of the difference, the Partnership
expects to issue common units of the Partnership with a value
equal to approximately $5.2 million.  The net loss of $7.2 million
attributable to this action was recognized in the fourth quarter
of 2010.  In June 2011, the Partnership paid $0.5 million towards
the settlement in escrow.  This $0.5 million is reflected as a
current asset on the Partnership's balance sheet as of June 30,
2011 and will be applied to the accrued settlement liability in
the event the proposed settlement is finalized.

No parties admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed
settlement.  The proposed settlement is subject to a number of
conditions and approvals, including, among other items,
preliminary and final court approval.  Details regarding any
proposed settlement will be communicated to potential class
members prior to final court approval.  At this time, there can be
no assurance that the conditions to effect the settlement will be
met or that the settlement of the Class Action Litigation will
receive the required court and other approvals.  The ultimate
resolution of these actions could have a material adverse effect
on the Partnership's business, financial condition, results of
operations, cash flows, ability to make distributions to its
unitholders, the trading price of the Partnership's common units
and the Partnership's ability to conduct its business.

Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P. -- http://www.bkep.com/--
(formerly SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.) and subsidiaries (the
"Partnership") is a publicly traded master limited partnership
with operations in 23 states.  The Partnership provides integrated
terminalling, storage, processing, gathering and transportation
services for companies engaged in the production, distribution and
marketing of crude oil and asphalt products.


BROADWIND ENERGY: Plaintiffs Have Until Aug. 25 to Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for plaintiffs to file their amended complaint in a
putative class action against Broadwind Energy, Inc., is on
August 25, 2011, 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 February 11, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, against Broadwind and certain of its
current or former officers and directors.  The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 17, 2009, and August 9, 2010.  The
complaint seeks to allege that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly false and/or
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial results,
operations, and prospects, including with respect to the January
2010 secondary public offering of Broadwind common stock.  On
July 7, 2011, the Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel.  The amended complaint is due by August 25, 2011.

Because of the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, the Company says
it is not able to estimate a loss or range of loss at this time.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Seek Dismissal from Trading Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., continues to pursue dismissal from class
action lawsuits alleging gas market manipulation, 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 large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI Energy, Inc., was
a participant in gas trading in the California and Western
markets. These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class
actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of
relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages
(in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees. CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have been
released or dismissed from all but two of such cases. CenterPoint
Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC Corp., is a
defendant in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada
alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in
2000-2002.  In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims against the other defendants in the case, each
of whom had demonstrated FERC jurisdictional sales for resale
during the relevant period, based on federal preemption.
Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in
March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court. CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES
is a proper defendant in these remaining cases and will continue
to pursue dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Energy does not
expect the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a
material impact on its financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation's motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit relating to the Total Bond Market Fund is still pending,
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 August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's
shares) and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., as
defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated
from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees. On February 19,
2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
federal securities law claim, and dismissed certain state law
claims with leave to amend. On April 27, 2009, the court issued a
stay of proceedings while defendants appealed the court's
February 19, 2009 decision refusing to dismiss plaintiffs' federal
securities law claim. On August 12, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed
plaintiffs' federal securities law claim.

On September 28, 2010, plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint which named Schwab Investments and current and
former trustees and officers of the trust as defendants and
dropped the federal securities law claim and certain of the state
law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on November 10, 2010. On March 2, 2011, the court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend certain
claims. On March 29, 2011, plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint; defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint was filed April 25, 2011, and remains pending.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Enters Into Settlement of Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation has entered into a settlement of
the class action lawsuits in Illinois and Delaware, which
challenged its proposed acquisition of optionsXpress, 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 March 21, 2011, the Company announced a definitive agreement to
acquire optionsXpress Holdings, Inc. (optionsXpress), an online
brokerage firm primarily focused on equity option securities and
futures. Under the terms of the agreement, optionsXpress(R)
stockholders will receive 1.02 shares of the Company's common
stock for each share of optionsXpress stock. The value of the
transaction is dependent on the value of the Company's common
stock at closing and therefore will fluctuate with the market
price of the Company's common stock. The transaction is expected
to close in the third quarter of 2011, subject to optionsXpress
stockholder approval, regulatory approvals, and customary closing
conditions.

Between March 21, 2011 and April 6, 2011, ten purported class
action lawsuits were filed by optionsXpress stockholders
challenging Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.'s proposed acquisition of
optionsXpress. Named defendants include the Company, optionsXpress
and members of its board of directors. Seven lawsuits were filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and consolidated in
a single amended complaint on May 9, 2011 (Consolidated Illinois
Action); and three lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware and consolidated in a single amended
complaint on April 25, 2011 (Consolidated Delaware Action). On
April 28, 2011, the Delaware court stayed the Consolidated
Delaware Action in favor of the Consolidated Illinois Action. The
complaints generally allege that optionsXpress directors breached
fiduciary duties owed to optionsXpress' stockholders by allegedly
approving the merger agreement at an unfair price and terms and
through an unfair process, and that the Company aided and abetted
the alleged fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits seek, among other
relief, an injunction against the merger, rescission in the event
the merger is completed, an accounting for alleged damages, and an
award of costs and attorneys' fees.

On May 20, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Illinois Action. On June 16, 2011, the Illinois court dismissed
all claims against the Company with prejudice. On July 29, 2011,
the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which
defendants would provide certain supplemental disclosures in
exchange for full releases of all claims related to the merger,
including all claims in the Consolidated Illinois Action and the
Consolidated Delaware Action. Defendants also agreed not to oppose
any fee application by plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed
$650,000. The settlement is subject to court approval and is
conditioned on consummation of the merger. Defendants deny any
wrongdoing in connection with the merger and believe the claims
lack merit. In the event the settlement is not finalized, the
remaining defendants will continue to defend the claims
vigorously.


CHUBB CORP: Reviewing Dismissal of Plea to Dismiss New Jersey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation is currently reviewing a New Jersey court's
dismissal without prejudice of its motion to dismiss a 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.

Individual actions and purported class actions arising out of the
investigations into the payment of contingent commissions to
brokers and agents have been filed in a number of federal and
state courts. On August 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its
subsidiaries were named in a putative class action entitled In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (N.J. District Court). This
action, brought against several brokers and insurers on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased insurance through the broker
defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act, state law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent commission
agreements. On September 28, 2007, the N.J. District Court
dismissed the second amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs in
its entirety. In so doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs'
Sherman Act and RICO claims with prejudice for failure to state a
claim, and it dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims without
prejudice because it declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over them. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
their second amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit (Third Circuit). On August 13, 2010, the Third
Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the N.J. District
Court decision and remanded the case back to the N.J. District
Court for further proceedings. As a result of the Third Circuit's
decision, the plaintiffs' state law claims and certain of the
plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO claims were reinstated against
the Corporation. The Corporation and the other defendants filed on
October 1, 2010 motions to dismiss the reinstated claims. Since
that time, several of the defendants entered into settlement
agreements with the plaintiffs, which are in the process of being
approved by the N.J. District Court. In view of these settlements
and their impact on the litigation, the N.J. District Court on
June 17, 2011 dismissed without prejudice the motions to dismiss
filed by the Corporation and the other non-settling defendants.
The Corporation is reviewing the N.J. District Court's decision.

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries also have been named as
defendants in other putative class actions relating or similar to
the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that have been
filed in various state courts or in U.S. district courts between
2005 and 2007. These actions have been subsequently removed and
ultimately transferred to the N.J. District Court for
consolidation with the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation. These actions are currently stayed.

In the various actions, the plaintiffs generally allege that the
defendants unlawfully used contingent commission agreements and
conspired to reduce competition in the insurance markets. The
actions seek treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief and
attorneys' fees. The Corporation believes it has substantial
defenses to all of the legal proceedings and intends to defend the
actions vigorously.

The Corporation cannot predict at this time the ultimate outcome
of the ongoing investigations and legal proceedings, including any
potential amounts that the Corporation may be required to pay in
connection with them. Nevertheless, management believes that it is
likely that the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on
the Corporation's results of operations or financial condition.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Unit Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against Commerce Bancshares, Inc.'s subsidiary
alleging that overdraft fees relating to debit card transactions
have been unfairly assessed remains pending, 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 6, 2010, a suit was filed against Commerce Bank, N.A. in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri by a
customer alleging that overdraft fees relating to debit card
transactions have been unfairly assessed by the Bank. The suit
seeks class-action status for Bank customers who may have been
similarly affected, and has been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida for pre-trial
proceedings as part of the multi-district litigation referred to
as In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation.

A second suit alleging the same facts and also seeking class-
action status was filed on June 4, 2010 in Missouri state court,
but has been stayed in deference to the earlier filed suit.


CROSS COUNTRY: Court Approved "Petray" Suit Settlement in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California in Riverside County granted final
approval in March 2011 of the class settlement in the lawsuit
against a subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., 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 February 18, 2005, the Company's MedStaff subsidiary became the
subject of a purported class action lawsuit (Maureen Petray and
Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc.) filed in the Superior Court of
California in Riverside County.  The Court granted final approval
of the class settlement on March 18, 2011.  The Company had
previously accrued a pre-tax charge of $0.3 million (approximately
$0.2 million after taxes) related to this lawsuit.  The final
settlement amount was $0.3 million, which was paid during the
first quarter of 2011.

The lawsuit related to only MedStaff corporate employees working
in California.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things,
violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid
wages and penalties.


DEAN FOODS: Vermont Court Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 2011, the Vermont District Court approved the Dean
Foods Settlement involving the price of Grade A milk produced and
sold in the Northeast.  The class action antitrust lawsuit brought
by a class of northeast dairy farmers against Dean, Dairy Farmers
of America (DFA) and Dairy Marketing Services (DMS) was filed in
August of 2009.  The farmers reached a settlement agreement with
Dean Foods Company in December 2010, including $30 million in
monetary damages.  The final settlement had to be approved by the
federal court, which has taken over 7 months.

In the final settlement, the Court awarded all of the Plaintiffs'
costs of $1.5 million but only awarded $4.5 million in fees, out
of the $8.5 million requested by the attorneys for the plaintiffs.
Thus, the attorneys will get $6 million or 20% of the settlement
amount, as opposed to the 33% requested.  The Court denied the
requests for incentive awards for the class representatives and an
award of accrued interest on the settlement fund.  Consequently,
approximately $24 million will be provided to eligible dairy
farmers in the defined class.

All past and present dairy farmers in Vermont should have received
a mailing regarding this settlement and the deadline is
approaching for dairy farmers to determine if they will take part
in the settlement or not.  "It is important for all Vermont Dairy
Farmers to carefully consider their options regarding this
settlement," stated Deputy Secretary Diane Bothfeld.  Dairy
farmers' legal rights are affected whether or not they act.
Information, claim forms and a clear description of the settlement
is available at http://www.NEDairySettlement.comor you can call
1-888-356-0258 for information.   If you wish to receive a payment
from the Settlement you must complete and return a claim form and
state the amount of Grade A milk produced and pooled in the
Northeast between January 1, 2002 and May 23, 2011 . The form is
due by August 23, 2011.  The settlement forms are very
straightforward and most farmers should be able to complete them
without outside assistance.

The Vermont Office of the Attorney General reviewed the settlement
and monitored the proceedings, and in a letter to the Court did
not object to the settlement.


DEAN FOODS: To Seek Review of Class Action Settlement in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Co.'s shares dropped in trading on Aug. 8, the third
day in a row the dairy company's has seen its stock price fall.

Dean Foods reported a $51 million second-quarter loss on Aug. 4.
Since then, the company's shares have fallen each day.  Concerns
about its performance were likely compounded by larger concerns
about the economy that have hurt the overall market.

The company's loss came largely from a charge to settle a lawsuit
that accused the company of price-fixing.  After adjusting
results, the company beat analyst expectations by a penny at 18
cents per share.

Dean Foods agreed to pay farms and others who joined the class-
action lawsuit up to $140 million over four to five years, but the
company may still see some uncertainty tied to the case.

The U.S. District Court in eastern Tennessee issued an order
partially decertifying the class of farmers who were due payments.
Dean Foods said it plans to ask the court to review its settlement
agreement because of the new order.

Dean, like most food companies, also faces ongoing challenges from
the higher costs for materials to make and transport its products.

Shares of Dean Foods fell 82 cents, more than 9%, to $8.24 in
midmorning trading on Aug. 8.  Shares have traded between $7.13
and $13.90 in the past 52 weeks.


DIRECTV HOLDINGS: To Compel Arbitration in Cancellation Fee Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV Holdings LLC says on its August 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011, that in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Company
intends to move to compel arbitration of lawsuits arising from its
early cancellation fees in accordance with customer agreement.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments.  Several of these
lawsuits are pending -- some in California state court purporting
to represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts
purporting to represent nationwide classes.  The lawsuits seek
both monetary and injunctive relief.  While the theories of
liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under
state consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately
disclosed to customers.  In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Company
intends to move to compel these cases to arbitration in accordance
with its Customer Agreement.

The Company believes that its early cancellation fees are
adequately disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of the
costs it incurs when customers cancel service before fulfilling
their programming commitments.


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Royalty Underpayment Claim Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A claim of underpayment of royalty remains pending in the lawsuit
against Dorchester Minerals, L.P.'s operating partner, 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 January 2002, some individuals and an association called Rural
Residents for Natural Gas Rights sued Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd.,
along with several other operators in Texas County, Oklahoma,
regarding the use of natural gas from the wells in residences.
Dorchester Minerals Operating LP, the operating partnership, now
owns and operates the properties formerly owned by Dorchester
Hugoton.  These properties contribute a major portion of the net
profits overriding royalty interest (referred to as NPI, or NPIs)
amounts paid to the Company.  On April 9, 2007, plaintiffs, for
immaterial costs, dismissed with prejudice all claims against the
operating partnership regarding such residential gas use.  On
October 4, 2004, the plaintiffs filed severed claims against the
operating partnership regarding royalty underpayments, which the
Texas County District Court subsequently dismissed with a grant of
time to replead.  On January 27, 2006, one of the original
plaintiffs again sued the operating partnership for underpayment
of royalty, seeking class action certification.  On October 1,
2007, the Texas County District Court granted the operating
partnership's motion for summary judgment finding no royalty
underpayments.  Subsequently, the District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and the plaintiff filed an
appeal.  On March 31, 2010, the appeal decision reversed and
remanded to the Texas County District Court to resolve material
issues of fact.

On June 30, 2011, the District Court issued a revised partial
summary judgment in favor of the operating partnership.  A claim
of underpayment of royalty remains pending.  The Company says an
adverse final decision could reduce amounts it receives from the
NPIs.


ELECTROLUX: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Shea, writing for The Messenger, reports that Electrolux
failed to pay overtime to production workers at its now shuttered
Webster City plant, an attorney claims in a federal class action
lawsuit filed on Aug. 3.

Bart Goplerud, the West Des Moines attorney who filed the lawsuit,
said more than 2,000 former employees may be owed "millions of
dollars."

According to Mr. Goplerud, Electrolux required its employees to
arrive at the plant 15 minutes before the start of their shifts,
but never paid them for that time.

In the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Sioux City, he
wrote that Electrolux "willfully failed to pay overtime to
plaintiffs."

He filed the lawsuit for Nick Harvey, of Fort Dodge; Cindy Sturtz,
of Fort Dodge; David Ausborn, of Duncombe; and all other hourly
production employees who worked at the plant during the last three
years.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees for the workers.

Electrolux officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Harvey, who worked in the plant for 30 years, said employees
had to be at their stations before a buzzer sounded to announce
the start of the next shift.

"Otherwise, you'd get a write-up," he said.  "Five write-ups and
you're fired."

Mr. Harvey said his regular shift started at 6:30 a.m., but he was
at his work station by 6:15 a.m.

Calls seeking comment from Sturtz and Ausborn were not returned on
Aug. 3.

The plant where washers and dryers once were made closed March 31
because production of those appliances was moved to Mexico.  About
540 people lost their jobs when the plant closed.

Mr. Goplerud said he learned of the overtime pay situation within
the last 30 days.

In the complaint, he wrote that Electrolux managers directed
workers to "arrive at work at least 15 minutes before the start of
their shift to clock in, don protective equipment and prepare for
work."

He added that because of the requirement to arrive early,
employees routinely worked more than 40 hours a week.  He said
that Electrolux managers knew that was happening, but failed to
pay the employees the time and a half they should have received
for working more than 40 hours a week.

The lawsuit claims that Electrolux violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Iowa Wage Payment Statute.

No hearings on the lawsuit have been scheduled yet.

Mr. Goplerud is being assisted by attorneys James Zouras and Ryan
Stephan, of Chicago, Ill.; and Jon Tostrud, of Los Angeles, Calif.


EL PASO CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of 'Tomlinson' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal from the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit
filed against El Paso Corporation in Colorado is pending,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Tomlinson, et al.v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Corporation
Pension Plan was filed in U.S. District Court for Denver,
Colorado.  The lawsuit alleges various violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act as a result of the Company's change from a final
average earnings formula pension plan to a cash balance pension
plan.  In 2010, a trial court dismissed all of the claims in this
matter.  The dismissal of the case has been appealed.


EME HOMER: Motion to Dismiss Pennsylvania Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
EME Homer City Generation L.P.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania is still 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 January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the Western
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against Homer City, the sale-leaseback owner
participants of the Homer City plant, two prior owners of the
Homer City plant, Edison Mission Energy, 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. Homer City cannot predict the outcome of these matters
or estimate the impact on its facilities, its results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.


FANNIE MAE: Still Defends 2008 Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association is still defending itself
against the class action lawsuit In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities
Litigation, 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 a consolidated complaint filed on June 22, 2009, and currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, lead plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Management Board and Boston Retirement Board (for
common shareholders) and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System
(for preferred shareholders) allege that the Company, certain of
the Company's former officers, and certain of the Company's
underwriters violated Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  Lead plaintiffs also allege that the Company,
certain of the Company's former officers, and the Company's
outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  Lead plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons
who, between November 8, 2006, and September 5, 2008, inclusive,
purchased or acquired (a) Fannie Mae common stock and options or
(b) Fannie Mae preferred stock.  Lead plaintiffs seek various
forms of relief, including rescission, damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive
relief.

On October 13, 2009, the Court entered an order allowing the
Federal Housing Finance Agency to intervene in In re Fannie Mae
2008 Securities Litigation.

On November 24, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims as to all defendants.  On
September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act
claims.  As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities
Exchange Act claims remain pending against the Company and certain
of the Company's former officers.  On October 14, 2010, the
Company and certain other defendants filed motions for
reconsideration of those portions of the Court's September 30,
2010 order denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated complaint on
December 31, 2010.  Defendants' motions for reconsideration were
denied on April 11, 2011.

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


FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend 2008 ERISA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association continues to defend itself
against the class action lawsuit In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA
Litigation.

In a consolidated complaint filed on September 11, 2009, and
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, plaintiffs allege that certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, including
former members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans Committee and the
Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of Directors, as
fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan,
breached their duties to ESOP participants and beneficiaries by
investing ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock when it was no
longer prudent to continue to do so.  Plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP
whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae common stock beginning April
17, 2007.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees and other fees and costs and injunctive and other equitable
relief.  On November 2, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss
these claims, which are now fully briefed and remain pending.

No updates were reported in 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.


FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation in D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association continues to defend itself
against a consolidated securities class action pending in the
District of Columbia.

Fannie Mae is a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit
initially filed in 2004 and currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.  In the consolidated complaint
filed on March 4, 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio
allege that the Company and certain former officers, as well as
the Company's former outside auditor, made materially false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs contend that Fannie Mae's
accounting statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements
relating to hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and
discounts, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, and other fees and costs. On January 7, 2008, the court
defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and
call options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put
options during the period from April 17, 2001, through
December 22, 2004.  On October 17, 2008, Federal Housing Finance
Agency, as conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case.

No updates were reported in 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.


FEDERAL HOME: Still Awaits Ruling on "OPERS" Suit Dismissal Motion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is still awaiting a ruling
on its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the
putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et
al., is a putative securities class action lawsuit that was filed
against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18,
2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac
stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making "false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business, risk management and the procedures the Company
put into place to protect the company from problems in the
mortgage industry."  On April 10, 2008, the Court appointed OPERS
as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel.  On
September 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint.  On November 7, 2008, the plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint, which removed certain
allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, and Eugene
McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading allegations against only
Patricia Cook.  The second amended complaint also extends the
damages period, but not the class period.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees.  On November 19,
2008, the Court granted the Federal Housing Finance Agency' motion
to intervene in its capacity as Conservator.  On April 6, 2009,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
which motion remains pending.

At present, the Company says it is not possible to predict the
probable outcome of the lawsuit or any potential impact on its
business, financial condition, or results of operations.


FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Plaintiffs File New Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit captioned
Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook have filed a new
complaint after the Court dismissed all of their claims, according
to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's August 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and
certain former officers on August 15, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged violations
of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007 through
August 5, 2008. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false
and misleading statements about Freddie Mac's business that
artificially inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock,
and seeks unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. On
February 6, 2009, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene in
its capacity as Conservator. On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of a class
of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 30, 2007 through
September 7, 2008. Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on February 24, 2010. On March 30, 2011, the Court
granted without prejudice Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss all
claims, and allowed the plaintiffs the option to file a new
complaint, which they did on July 15, 2011.

At present, the Company says it is not possible to predict the
probable outcome of the lawsuit or any potential impact on its
business, financial condition, or results of operations.


FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Remains Dormant
-------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation officers and others styled Jacoby v. Syron, Cook,
Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and
FTN Financial Markets.  The complaint, as amended on December 17,
2008, contends that the defendants made material false and
misleading statements in connection with Freddie Mac's September
2007 offering of non-cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-
rate preferred stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated
Freddie Mac's capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie
Mac's exposure to mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting
standards and risk management procedures."  The complaint further
alleges that Richard Syron, Patricia Cook, and Anthony Piszel made
additional false statements following the offering.  Freddie Mac
is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit, but the underwriters
previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek
full indemnity and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement
in this case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of
their legal counsel.  The case is currently dormant and the
Company believes plaintiff may have abandoned it.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


FEDERAL HOME: IPO-Related Suit vs. Underwriters Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Piszel sought and obtained partial summary judgment in the
consolidated class action lawsuit against Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation's underwriters with respect to the Company's
November 29, 2007 public offering, according to the Company's
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

By letter dated October 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the Company's November 29, 2007 public offering of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.

On January 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled Kreysar v. Syron, et al.  On April 30, 2009, the
Court consolidated the Mark case with the Kreysar case, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July 2,
2009.  The consolidated complaint alleges that three former
Freddie Mac officers, certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's
auditor violated federal securities laws by making material false
and misleading statements in connection with an offering by
Freddie Mac of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-
Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock Series Z that commenced on
November 29, 2007.  The complaint further alleges that certain
defendants and others made additional false statements following
the offering.  The complaint names as defendants Richard Syron,
Anthony Piszel, Patricia Cook, Goldman, Sachs & Co., JPMorgan
Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, UBS Securities
LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on September 30, 2009.  On January 14, 2010, the
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
action with leave to file an amended complaint on or before
March 15, 2010.  On March 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint against these same defendants.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
April 28, 2010.  On July 29, 2010, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and allowed the
plaintiffs leave to replead.  On August 16, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed their second amended consolidated complaint against these
same defendants.  The defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint on September 16, 2010.  On
October 22, 2010, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, without prejudice, again allowing the plaintiffs leave to
replead.  On November 14, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended consolidated complaint against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
Richard Syron and Anthony Piszel, omitting Patricia Cook and the
underwriter defendants. On January 11, 2011, the Court granted the
remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with respect
to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, but denied the motion with respect
to Syron and Piszel. On April 4, 2011, Piszel filed a motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings. The Court granted that motion
on April 28, 2011. Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the
consolidated lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice
to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and
contribution under the Underwriting Agreement in this case,
including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal
counsel. At present, the Company says it is not possible to
predict the probable outcome of the lawsuit or any potential
impact on its business, financial condition or results of
operations.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit vs. eFunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., 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, that
discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit against eFunds
Corporation.

Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds Corporation is a nationwide putative
class action that was filed against eFunds and its affiliate
Deposit Payment Protection Services, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois during the first
quarter of 2008. The complaint seeks damages for an alleged
willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") in
connection with the operation of the Shared Check Authorization
Network. Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did
not receive appropriate disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of
the FCRA because the disclosures did not include: (i) all
information in the consumer's file at the time of the request;
(ii) the source of the information in the consumer's file; and/or
(iii) the names of any persons who requested information related
to the consumer's check writing history during the prior year.
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification which was granted
with respect to two subclasses during the first quarter of 2010.
The motion was denied with respect to all other subclasses. The
Company filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion was granted
and the two subclasses were decertified. The plaintiff also filed
motions to amend her complaint to add two additional plaintiffs to
the lawsuit. The court granted the motions. During the second
quarter of 2010, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
as to the original plaintiff and a motion for sanctions against
the plaintiff and her counsel based on plaintiff's alleged false
statements that were filed in support of the motion for class
certification. In the third quarter of 2010, the court denied the
motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part
the motion for sanctions. The Company filed a motion requesting
the court to allow it to file an interlocutory appeal on the order
denying the motion for summary judgment. The court granted the
motion, however, in the first quarter of 2011, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals denied the Company's petition for interlocutory
appeal. Discovery regarding the new plaintiffs is ongoing.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Antitrust Suit Still in Pre-Trial Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit filed in a New York
court against Fifth Third Bancorp is still in the pre-trial stage,
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.

During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are
unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also
subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has
also entered into with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named
defendants judgment and loss sharing agreements that attempt to
allocate financial responsibility to the parties thereto in the
event certain settlements or judgments occur. Accordingly, prior
to the sale of Class B shares during 2009, the Bancorp had
recorded a litigation reserve of $243 million to account for its
potential exposure in this and related litigation. Additionally,
the Bancorp had also recorded its proportional share of $199
million of the Visa escrow account funded with proceeds from the
Visa IPO along with several subsequent fundings. Upon the
Bancorp's sale of Visa, Inc. Class B shares during 2009, and the
recognition of the total return swap that transfers conversion
risk of the Class B shares back to the Bancorp, the Bancorp
reversed the remaining net litigation reserve related to the
Bancorp's exposure through Visa. Additionally, the Bancorp has
remaining reserves related to this litigation of $31 million, $30
million and $26 million as of June 30, 2011, December 31, 2010 and
June 30, 2010, respectively. This antitrust litigation is still in
the pre-trial phase.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Securities Suit Still in Discovery Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in an Ohio
court against Fifth Third Bancorp is still in the discovery stages
of litigation, 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.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Bancorp and its
Chief Executive Officer, among other parties. The five cases have
been consolidated, and are currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The lawsuits
allege violations of federal securities laws related to
disclosures made by the Bancorp in press releases and filings with
the SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit
losses and related matters, and seeking unquantified damages on
behalf of putative classes of persons who either purchased the
Bancorp's securities, or acquired the Bancorp's securities
pursuant to the acquisition of First Charter Corporation. These
cases remain in the discovery stages of litigation. The impact of
the final disposition of these lawsuits cannot be assessed at this
time.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on ERISA Class Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is still awaiting a court ruling on an appeal
in the class action lawsuit alleging violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 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 addition, two cases were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and
certain officers alleging violations of ERISA based on allegations
similar to those set forth in the securities class action cases
filed during the same period of time. The two cases alleging
violations of ERISA were dismissed by the trial court, and are
being appealed to the United States Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals.


FIRST HORIZON: 'Sims' Class Action Still Pending in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation continues to defend itself from
a class action lawsuit filed in Tennessee, 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.

A shareholder, Troy Sims, has filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western
Division (Case No. 2:08-cv-02293-STA-cgc) against FHN and various
former and current officers and directors of FHN.  The complaint
alleges causes of action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, related to FHN's Savings Plan,
which is a 401(k) savings plan offered to eligible employees.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants breached
fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants by: (1) failure to
prudently and loyally manage the Plan's investment in First
Horizon stock and certain proprietary mutual funds; (2) failure to
provide accurate information to participants and beneficiaries;
(3) failure to monitor other Plan fiduciaries; and (4) breach of
co-fiduciary obligations.  For these alleged violations,
plaintiffs seek to require defendants to pay Plan participants
unspecified damages resulting from the decline in value of First
Horizon stock between January 2006 and July 14, 2008 and
associated with participants' investment in proprietary mutual
funds offered by the Plan between May 2002 and January 2006.  FHN
believes the defendants have meritorious defenses to this
complaint and intends to advance those defenses vigorously.


FIRST NIAGARA: Hearing on NewAlliance Settlement Set for Aug. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider the final approval of a settlement in the
consolidated shareholder action against NewAlliance Bancshares,
Inc., is set for August 22, 2011, according to First Niagara
Financial Group Inc.'s August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In late August and September 2010, following the announcement of
the Company's merger with NewAlliance, ten purported class actions
were filed in Connecticut Superior Court and in the Delaware Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming NewAlliance, the
Company, and NewAlliance's directors as defendants. Certain of
these actions also name FNFG Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and certain NewAlliance officers as
defendants. These actions alleged, among other things, that
NewAlliance's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
NewAlliance stockholders by failing to maximize stockholder value
in approving the merger agreement with the Company and by
providing incomplete disclosures to stockholders in advance of
their upcoming vote whether to approve the merger. The actions
further alleged that NewAlliance and the Company aided and abetted
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. These actions sought to
enjoin the merger on the agreed upon terms and also sought
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On November 5, 2010, the plaintiffs in both actions advised
NewAlliance that they had agreed to stay the Delaware actions and
proceed in the Connecticut actions alone. After expedited
discovery was conducted, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which the Company and NewAlliance denied that
they committed any of the wrongful acts alleged in the complaints,
but agreed to amend the disclosures to stockholders in advance of
the vote whether to approve the merger. A hearing on whether the
settlement should be approved has been scheduled for August 22,
2011.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: To File Reply Brief in Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., will file a response to plaintiffs' appeal
from the order dismissing the putative class action alleging
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In February 2010, the Company was named in a putative class action
alleging that it violated its fiduciary duty pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act to employees who
participated in the Company's 401(k) plan by continuing to offer
Company stock as an investment option after investment in the
stock allegedly ceased to be prudent.  On July 16, 2010, the
Company moved to dismiss the complaint and asserted, among other
things, that the Plan's investment in employer stock was protected
by a presumption of prudence under ERISA, and that plaintiff's
allegations failed to overcome such presumption.  The parties
submitted relevant materials to the court as of February 2, 2011,
and on March 31, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs have filed an appellate brief
with the court and the Company will be filing a reply brief.


FORD MOTOR: Appeal From Denial of Decertification Motion Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company's appeal from a trial court ruling denying its
motion to decertify the Medium/Heavy Truck Sales Procedure Class
Action 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.

The Medium/Heavy Truck Sales Procedure Class Action, which is
pending in the Ohio state court system, alleges that Ford breached
its Sales and Service Agreement with Ford truck dealers by failing
to publish to all Ford dealers all price concessions that were
approved for any dealer.  The trial court certified a nationwide
class consisting of all Ford dealers who purchased from Ford any
600-series or higher truck from 1987 to 1997, and granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability.  In February
2011, the jury awarded $4.5 million in damages to the named
plaintiff dealer, as previously reported.  In June 2011, the trial
court applied the jury's findings with regard to the named
plaintiff to all dealers in the class, entering a judgment of
approximately $2 billion in damages (comprised of about $800
million in damages, and $1.2 billion in pre-judgment interest).
The trial court also denied the Company's motion to decertify the
class.  The Company has appealed, and it believes the law supports
its position.


GREATER DAYTON, OH: RTA Employees File FMLA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that employees
of the Greater Dayton Regional Transportation Authority have filed
a class action lawsuit against their employer in Dayton's federal
court, alleging that the bus service has ignored or violated the
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Eight people, filing for themselves and "all similarly situated
persons," contend in their suit that the RTA denied employees
their rights under federal rules governing time off for workers
dealing with family or health issues.  The FMLA allows certain
workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave each year to
deal with family and medical responsibilities.

Named as defendants are RTA and an authority employee, Jean
McIntarfer.  Named plaintiffs include Michelle Wilkinson, Della
Aydelott, Shalonda Egler, Brian Gray, Rob Phillips, Doug Stauter,
Alicia Washington and Rocquel Mitchell.

Among other allegations, the suit charges that RTA found
"sufficient medical certifications incomplete or insufficient,"
required employees to get second or third medical opinions,
contacted employees' health care providers "for improper purposes"
and refused to pay employees for "reasonable out-of-pocket travel
expenses" incurred in securing those second and third opinions
from physicians.

The suit is seeking to have RTA change its policies, pay
unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and costs, among other
objectives.  The suit also seeks an order restraining RTA "from
violating the provisions of the FMLA."

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Cincinnati lawyer Jennie Arnold,
of the firm Cook, Portune & Logothetis, asked that questions be
e-mailed to her.

Mark Donaghy, RTA executive director, declined to comment.  An
attorney for RTA, Dan Guttman, of Columbus law firm Baker
Hostetler, said RTA will vigorously defend against the lawsuit.
He said the RTA grants "weekly, if not daily" FMLA leave to
eligible employees.

"We have a long history of granting FMLA leave when their
employees meet the federal requirements," he said.

RTA has been successful in "95 percent" of FMLA arbitrations with
the RTA's union, the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1385.
Mr. Guttman noted that the union is not a party to the suit.

Once drivers reach 15 unexcused absences in a year, only at that
point do they face termination, the attorney said.  "But we don't
count any absences if (an employee) is protected by the FMLA."

The suit was filed July 20 in U.S. District Court, Dayton.


GT SOLAR: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action complaint remains pending
against GT Solar International, Inc., 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, 2011.

Beginning on August 1, 2008, seven putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire against the Company, certain of
its officers and directors, certain underwriters of its July 24,
2008 initial public offering and others, including certain
investors.  On October 3, 2008, the Court entered an order
consolidating these actions under the caption Braun et al. v. GT
Solar International, Inc., et al (the "federal class action").
The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel
in the federal class action on October 29, 2008.  The lead
plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 22,
2008.  The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of
the Securities Act.  The amended consolidated complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants made false and materially
misleading statements and failed to disclose material information
in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and
Prospectus for the Company's July 24, 2008 initial public
offering, and other public statements, regarding the status of the
Company's business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the
Company's customers, JYT Corporation, one of its competitors, and
certain of its products, including DSS furnaces.  Among other
relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
Court should deem just and proper.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
on February 5, 2009.  On September 22, 2009, the Court denied the
defendants' motion.  Following the Court's denial of the motion,
the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order,
which the Court approved on November 16, 2009.  The case
management order provided for discovery to close on May 25, 2011.

On September 18, 2008 a putative securities class action was filed
in New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for
Hillsborough County, Southern District, under the caption Hamel v.
GT Solar International, Inc., et al., against the Company, certain
of the Company's officers and directors and certain underwriters
of its July 24, 2008 initial public offering (the "state class
action").  The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under
various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The
state class action complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false and materially misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings,
including the registration statement for the Company's July 24,
2008 initial public offering, and other public statements,
regarding the status of the Company's business relationship with
LDK Solar.  Among other relief, the state class action complaint
seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief
as the State Court should deem just and proper.

The Company removed the state class action to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire on October 22,
2008.  The state class action was consolidated with the federal
class action on November 25, 2008.  On February 2, 2009, the
federal Court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the state
class action to New Hampshire State Court.  On May 4, 2009, the
parties agreed to a stay of the state class action, pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated federal
case.  At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the state
court endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by
the parties which requires coordination of any discovery to be
taken in the state class action with that taken in the federal
class action.  With the denial of the motion to dismiss the
federal action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case
management order to the State Court on November 6, 2009.  On
January 12, 2010, the State Court granted a joint motion of the
parties to transfer the state class action to the State Court's
Business and Commercial Dispute Docket.

In March 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle these two putative securities class-action lawsuits related
to the Company's initial public offering.  The terms of the
proposed settlement, which includes no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company or by any other defendants, provides for
a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have
been brought against all defendants in both the federal and state
securities actions.  The Company will pay $10,500,000 into a
settlement fund. Of this amount, the Company agreed to contribute
$1,000,000 and the Company's liability insurers will contribute
the remaining $9,500,000.  The Company's contribution represents
its contractual indemnification obligation to its underwriters.
The Company paid $1,000,000 into the settlement fund during the
three months ended July 2, 2011.

On May 4, 2011, the parties to the federal class action filed a
stipulation of settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement with the federal court.  On May 5, 2011, the
parties to the state class action filed a stipulation of
settlement and motion for dismissal with prejudice in the state
action.  The stipulations in both the federal and the state courts
provide that the putative class in the state class action will
participate in the settlement as members of the settlement class
in the federal class action.  The stipulation filed in the state
court provides that the state class action will be dismissed with
prejudice upon entry of an order of final approval by the federal
court.

On May 13, 2011, the Federal Court gave preliminary approval of
the settlement, and ordered that notice be provided to the
proposed settlement class (as defined in the stipulation).  The
Federal Court also scheduled a hearing for September 27, 2011, to
determine whether the settlement will receive final approval.
While the Company believes that the proposed settlement is fair
and adequate to all members of the proposed settlement class,
there can be no assurance that the federal court will grant final
approval of the settlement.

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

The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.  The
Company is currently unable to estimate a range of payments, if
any, it may be required to pay, or may agree to pay, with respect
to the derivative action.  The Company, however, believes that the
resolution of these suits will not result in a material adverse
effect to its consolidated financial statements.  However, due to
the inherent uncertainties that accompany litigation of this
nature, there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful, and an adverse resolution of any of the lawsuits could
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
statements.

GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://gtsolar.com/-- through its
subsidiaries is a global provider of polysilicon production
technology, multicrystalline ingot growth systems and related
photovoltaic manufacturing services for the solar industry, and
sapphire growth systems and material for the LED and other
specialty markets.  On July 29, 2010, the Company acquired
privately-held Crystal Systems, Inc., a crystal growth technology
company that produces sapphire material used for LED applications,
as well as other industrial markets.


HEART CHECK: Las Vegas Residents File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Annette Arreola, writing for KTNV, reports that some residents in
Las Vegas are now taking legal action against a medical imaging
company called Heart Check America.

That company skipped town before many of its customers got the
services they'd paid thousands of dollars for in advance.  This
lawsuit is the first local legal action taken against the business
in Nevada.

One of the company's customers was thrilled about the news.  She
said that Heart Check America not only left her with an outrageous
bill, but she also holds them responsible for taking much more
than just her money.

Lorraine DiSapio signed a $4,000 10-year contract with Heart Check
America, for full body imaging scans.  She says she's dished out
about $1,200 since February of 2010.

"I paid every month on time, was never late . . . Until I heard
the story," said Ms. DiSapio.

Heart Check America suddenly closed its Sahara office this past
May.  According to court documents, the company was $35,000 behind
on rent and was later evicted.  Ms. DiSapio, like countless
customers, is still stuck with a monthly bill from Chase Health
Advance, a third party company used by Heart Check America to
finance the cost of the body scan packages.

"How do you expect me to pay for a contract that was breached with
me," she added.

And that's just one of the complaints brought forward in a class
action lawsuit filed by a Las Vegas man against the company.
Lorraine applauds the legal move, but admits that at this point,
it gives her little comfort.

Just last week she got a call from a police detective letting her
know that all of her personal information had been stolen from an
application she'd filled out with Heart Check.  And since she
stopped paying the balance, Chase Health Advance has tacked on
late fees, dinging her credit.

"It's not right that crooks do this and that crooks now have my
phone number and social security number . . . All from Heart Check
America," said Ms. DiSapio.

Ms. DiSapio has hired an attorney, hoping that she won't be
obligated to pay that remaining balance.  Health officials found
out the medical imaging company was in violation of state laws for
scanning patients without a doctor's order.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Hearing on Class Suit Settlement Set for Sept. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of a settlement of a class
action lawsuit against Huntsman Corporation has been set for
September 27, 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.

The Company has been named as a defendant in civil class action
antitrust suits alleging that between 1999 and 2004 it conspired
with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI,
polyether polyols, and related systems ("polyether polyol
products") sold in the U.S. in violation of the federal Sherman
Act. These cases are consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols" cases
in multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas.

In addition, the Company and the other Polyether Polyol defendants
have been named as defendants in three civil antitrust suits
brought by certain direct purchasers of polyether polyol products
that opted out of the class certified in the Kansas multidistrict
litigation. The relevant time frame for these cases is 1994 to
2004 and they are referred to as the "direct action cases."

The class action and the direct action cases have been
consolidated in the Kansas court for the purposes of discovery and
other pretrial matters. Discovery in the direct action cases is
ongoing and the Company does not anticipate a trial of the direct
action cases until 2013.

On May 26, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the class plaintiffs. Although the Company vigorously deny
any wrongdoing alleged in the litigation, it determined to enter
into the settlement to avoid the substantial burdens and
uncertainties inherent in complex business litigation.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company paid $11 million into
an escrow fund for the benefit of the class on June 27, 2011 after
the court preliminarily approved the settlement. The Company will
pay an additional $11 million within one year thereafter and a
third $11 million payment within two years of the initial payment.
In exchange for these payments, the Company will receive from the
class a release and discharge of all claims against it, as
described in the settlement agreement. The settlement is subject
to final approval by the court after notice is given to the class
members. The hearing on final approval is scheduled for
September 27, 2011.

The Company fully accrued for this matter in prior quarters. The
settlement does not resolve the direct action cases nor the other
pending antitrust litigation.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against the
Company, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief,
treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys fees. The Company is
not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees.
Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Certification Hearing Set for April 2 in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class action cases were filed May 5 and 17, 2006 in
the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Canada and Superior Court,
Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, by direct purchasers of
MDI, TDI and polyether polyols and by indirect purchasers of these
products. The class certification hearing is scheduled for
April 2, 2012, according to Huntsman 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 Canadian plaintiffs make similar claims against the defendants
as the class plaintiffs in the Kansas multidistrict litigation.
That litigation involves civil class action antitrust suits
alleging that between 1999 and 2004 Huntsman Corporation conspired
with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI,
polyether polyols, and related systems sold in the U.S. in
violation of the federal Sherman Act. These cases are consolidated
as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against the
Company, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief,
treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys fees. The Company is
not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees.
Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Calif. Class Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
A purported class action case filed February 15, 2002 by
purchasers of products containing rubber and urethanes products
and pending in Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco is stayed pending resolution of the Kansas multidistrict
litigation.  That litigation involves civil class action antitrust
suits alleging that between 1999 and 2004 Huntsman Corporation
conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of
MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and related systems sold in the U.S.
in violation of the federal Sherman Act. These cases are
consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict
litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

The plaintiffs in the California suit make similar claims against
the defendants as the class plaintiffs in the Kansas multidistrict
litigation, according to Huntsman 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 all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against the
Company, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief,
treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys fees. The Company is
not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees.
Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Discovery in Maryland Class Suit is Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the consolidated class action civil antitrust lawsuit
against Huntsman Corporation pending in Maryland is ongoing,
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 has been named as a defendant in two purported class
action civil antitrust suits alleging that it and its co-
defendants and other co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of
titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002
and the present. The cases were filed on February 9 and 12, 2010
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and a
consolidated complaint was filed on April 12, 2010. The other
defendants named in this matter are E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Kronos Worldwide Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals,
Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a
Cristal). A class certification hearing is scheduled for
August 16, 2012 and trial is set to begin September 9, 2013.
Discovery is ongoing.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against the
Company, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief,
treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys fees. The Company is
not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its employees.
Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it.


INFORMATICA CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeals from the final court order approving the settlement of
class action lawsuits against Informatica Corporation remain
pending, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On November 8, 2001, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The case is entitled In re Informatica Corporation
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock from April 29, 1999
through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants Informatica
Corporation, two of its former officers (together with the
Company, the "Informatica defendants"), and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of its April 29, 1999
initial public offering (IPO) and September 28, 2000 follow-on
public offering. The complaint alleges liability as to all
defendants under Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statements for
the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had
agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the
offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the
underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain
customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
predetermined prices.  The complaint also alleges that false
analyst reports were issued. No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging more
than 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The Court denied the
motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the
Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.
The Company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer
defendants.  In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and
release all claims against the Informatica defendants, in exchange
for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and
for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the
Company may have against the underwriters.  The Informatica
defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the
settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the
settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage.  Any
final settlement will require approval of the Court after class
members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or
opt out of the settlement.

All parties in all lawsuits have reached a settlement, which will
not require the Company to contribute cash unless the pro rata
amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount
of the insurance coverage.  The Court gave preliminary approval
to the settlement on June 10, 2009 and gave final approval on
October 6, 2009.  Several objectors have filed notices of appeals
of the final judgment dismissing the cases upon the settlement.
The Company has not paid, and does not expect to pay in the
future, any amount towards the settlement.  As of June 30, 2011,
the Company has not accrued or disclosed any amounts because
further losses are not considered probable or reasonably possible.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded some of the
appeals it received regarding the settlement of a class action
back to the district court, according to Juniper Networks, Inc.'s
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In December 2001, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Royal Bank of
Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels), SG Cowen Securities Corporation,
UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC), Chase (Hambrecht &
Quist LLC), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Incorporated, Juniper Networks and certain of Juniper Networks'
officers.  This action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in its initial public offering in June 1999
and the Company's secondary offering in September 1999.
Specifically, among other things, this complaint alleged that the
prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in
the Company's initial public offering and the Company's subsequent
secondary offering contained certain false and misleading
statements or omissions regarding the practices of the
Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common
stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from
customers related to such allocations.  Various plaintiffs have
filed actions asserting similar allegations concerning the initial
public offerings of approximately 300 other issuers.  These
various cases pending in the Southern District of New York have
been coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  In April 2002, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the action
against the Company, alleging violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The defendants in
the coordinated proceeding filed motions to dismiss.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims against
the Company.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will
bear no financial liability. The Company and other defendants will
receive complete dismissals from the case. In October 2009, the
Court entered an Opinion and Order granting final approval of the
settlement. Certain objectors appealed. A number of the appeals
have been dismissed. In May 2011, the appellate court issued an
order remanding the remaining appeals to the district court for
additional determinations.


KKR & CO: Defends Shareholder Class Suits in Delaware & Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. L.P. is defending itself against shareholder class
action complaints initiated in Delaware and Georgia, 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 May 23, 2011, KKR and certain of its personnel were named as
defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the acquisition of PRIMEDIA Inc., one of the Company's
portfolio companies, by a third party pursuant to a merger
transaction.  This transaction was completed on July 13, 2011.
These actions allege, among other things, that PRIMEDIA board
members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary
duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price
and failing to disclose all material information about the merger.
Plaintiffs also allege that the merger price is unfair in light of
the value of the pending shareholder derivative claims also filed
in the Court of Chancery in 2005.  The actions seek unspecified
monetary damages and an order enjoining the closing of the merger
or, if the merger closes, rescission of it.  On June 7, 2011, the
Court of Chancery denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
merger.  On July 18, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the
two actions and appointed lead counsel.

Additionally, on May 20, 2011, and May 24, 2011, two shareholder
class actions challenging the PRIMEDIA merger were filed in
Georgia state courts, in Fulton County and Gwinnett County,
respectively.  Both actions assert similar allegations and seek
similar relief as the Delaware shareholder class actions.
On June 2, 2011, plaintiff in the Fulton County action moved for
leave to file an amended complaint, which further names KKR and
others, as defendants.  The Fulton County action was stayed in
favor of the Delaware actions by an order dated July 11, 2011.  On
June 1, 2011, plaintiff in the Gwinnett County action filed a
motion for expedited proceedings and, on June 3, 2011, moved to
enjoin the merger.  Defendants have moved to stay or dismiss the
Gwinnett County action in favor of the Delaware actions.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $61.9 billion in
AUM as of June 30, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


KKR & CO: Mass. Plaintiffs Want to File 5th Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder plaintiffs are seeking permission from a Massachusetts
court to file a fifth amended version of their antitrust class
action suit against KKR & Co. L.P., 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 December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003.  In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The suit alleges
that from mid-2003, defendants have violated antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  The amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions.  The
first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.  On
August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed
to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to
eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions.  On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual
allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the
original nine transactions.  The fourth amended complaint also
includes eight purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to
eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new
separate claims against two of the original nine challenged
transactions.  On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion
filed by KKR and certain other defendants to dismiss all claims
alleged by a putative damages sub-class in connection with the
acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief
related to the PanAmSat transaction.  The second phase of
discovery permitted by the court is ongoing.  On July 11, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth
amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten additional
transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the
previous complaints.  On July 25, 2011, defendants filed an
opposition to plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed
fifth amended complaint.  Plaintiffs' motion is subject to
additional briefing.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $61.9 billion in
AUM as of June 30, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


KKR & CO: Still Defends Del Monte-Related Suits in Del. & Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. is currently engaged in the ongoing discovery
process in a consolidated class action lawsuit in Delaware related
to a Del Monte Foods transaction, 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.

KKR, along with two other private equity firms (collectively the
"Sponsors"), was named as a defendant in purported shareholder
class actions filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware arising out of the acquisition of Del Monte Foods Company
by Blue Acquisition Group, Inc. and Blue Merger Sub Inc., entities
controlled by private equity funds affiliated with the Sponsors
(the "Acquisition Entities").  The transaction was announced on
November 25, 2010 and was completed on March 8, 2011.  All of the
shareholder actions that were filed in the Court of Chancery
following the announcement of the Del Monte Transaction were
consolidated on December 31, 2010.  In a consolidated complaint
filed on January 10, 2011, the plaintiff in the Delaware Del Monte
Action alleged, among other things, that the Del Monte board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Del
Monte at an unfair price and through an unfair process and by
filing a materially misleading and incomplete proxy statement and
that the Sponsors and the Acquisition Entities aided and abetted
these fiduciary breaches.

On February 14, 2011, the Court of Chancery issued a ruling which,
among other things, found on the preliminary record before the
court that the plaintiff had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
of success on the merits of its aiding and abetting claim against
the Sponsors, including KKR. The ruling enjoined Del Monte from
proceeding with its stockholder vote, previously scheduled for
February 15, 2011, for twenty days and preliminarily enjoined
certain deal protection provisions of the merger agreement pending
the stockholder vote.  On February 18, 2011, an amended
consolidated complaint was filed in the Delaware Del Monte Action
asserting claims for: (i) breach of fiduciary duty against the Del
Monte directors, (ii) aiding and abetting the directors' breaches
of fiduciary duty against the Sponsors, the Acquisition Entities,
and Barclays Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"), which served as a
financial advisor to Del Monte in connection with the Del Monte
Transaction, (iii) breach of contract against the Sponsors arising
from confidentiality agreements between the Sponsors and Del
Monte, and (iv) tortious interference with contract against
Barclays arising from the aforementioned confidentiality
agreements between the Sponsors and Del Monte.  The amended
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief, rescission of the merger agreement, damages and attorneys'
fees.  On March 29, 2011, all of the defendants in the Delaware
Del Monte Action, including KKR, answered the amended consolidated
complaint.  On July 27, 2011, Del Monte Corporation, as successor-
in-interest to Del Monte, was joined as a party and defendant in
the Delaware Del Monte Action.  The parties to the Delaware Del
Monte Action are currently engaged in discovery.  Similar
shareholder actions were filed against Del Monte, the Del Monte
directors, the Sponsors and/or the Acquisition Entities in
California Superior Court and the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  The federal cases pending in
the Northern District of California were consolidated and
subsequently voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
in all but one of the California state court actions have moved
for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.  The remaining
California state court action has been stayed pursuant to court
order.

On March 4, 2011, KKR received a request from the SEC for
information regarding issues relating to the Del Monte
Transaction.  On May 20, 2011, the SEC issued a subpoena to KKR
seeking substantially the same documents and information as the
March 4, 2011 request for information.  KKR is cooperating with
the SEC's investigation.

On March 7, 2011, a purported antitrust class action captioned
Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 120 Pension Fund v. Barclays Capital
Inc. et al. (Case No. 3:10-cv-01064-EDL) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.  On
May 4, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which names as
defendants the Sponsors, Barclays, a managing director at
Barclays, and Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (which provided a portion
of the financing in connection with the Del Monte Transaction) and
alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws by,
among other things, allegedly conspiring to suppress the
transaction price.  The amended complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief, damages and attorneys' fees.  On
June 10, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
and that motion is subject to additional briefing by the parties.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. --
http://kkr.com/-- is global investment firm with $61.9 billion in
AUM as of June 30, 2011.  The Company offers a broad range of
investment management services to its investors and provides
capital markets services to its firm, its portfolio companies and
its clients.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Gainesville Plant Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed by owners of real property adjacent to its
former utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville, Florida,
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.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville, Florida from 1988 until its closure late in 2009.
The property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was
located was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in the first
quarter of 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Aluchua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in
neighborhoods adjacent to the former utility pole treatment plant
in Gainesville.  The complaint named the Company, Koppers Inc.,
Beazer East and several other parties as defendants.  The
complaint alleges that chemicals and contaminants from the plant
have contaminated plaintiffs' properties, have caused property
damage and have placed residents and owners of the properties at
an elevated risk of exposure to the alleged chemicals.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages for
diminution in property values and loss of use and enjoyment.  The
case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010, and plaintiffs have
requested that the case be remanded back to state court.  A final
ruling in this matter has not been handed down by the court.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated.  The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined, the Company said.  Although the Company is
vigorously defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this
matter may have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition, cash flows and results of
operations.


LIONBRIDGE TECH: One Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remaining
--------------------------------------------------------------
One appeal from the settlement of a securities class action
lawsuit against Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., remains and has
been remanded back to a New York district court, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On or about July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action
lawsuit captioned "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al."
(01-CV-6770) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering. The complaint in this action
asserted, among other things, that omissions regarding the
underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in Lionbridge's
initial public offering to the underwriters' customers. In March
2002, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York entered an order dismissing without prejudice the
claims against Lionbridge and its officers and directors (the case
remained pending against the underwriter defendants).

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but also
Lionbridge and certain of its officers and directors. The amended
complaint asserts claims under both the registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws relating to, among other
allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating
shares in the Company's initial public offering and the
disclosures contained in the Company's registration statement. On
July 15, 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective
motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to
all or most of the issuer defendants. In October 2002, the claims
against officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.
In February 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motion to
dismiss, ruling that the claims under the antifraud provisions of
the securities laws could proceed against the Company and a
majority of the other issuer defendants.

In June 2003, Lionbridge elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If
the proposed settlement had been approved by the Court, it would
have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against Lionbridge and against any other of the
issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants. This proposed settlement was conditioned on, among
other things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims
against Lionbridge and against the other issuers who had agreed to
the settlement would be certified for class action treatment for
purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors
included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by
the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be
excluded from the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision in In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation that six purported class action lawsuits
containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted
against the Company may not be certified as class actions due, in
part, to the Appeals Court's determination that individual issues
of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to
the proposed classes. On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a
petition seeking rehearing en banc of the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals' decision. On April 6, 2007 the Court of Appeals denied
the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of the Court's December 5,
2006 ruling but noted that the plaintiffs remained free to ask the
District Court to certify classes different from the ones
originally proposed which might meet the standards for class
certification that the Court of Appeals articulated in its
December 5, 2006 decision. In light of the Court of Appeals'
December 5, 2006 decision regarding certification of the
plaintiffs' claims, the District Court entered an order on
June 25, 2007 terminating the proposed settlement between the
plaintiffs and the issuers, including Lionbridge.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the
six focus cases. The issuer defendants and the underwriter
defendants separately moved to dismiss the claims against them in
the amended complaints in the six focus cases. On March 26, 2008,
the District Court issued an order in which it denied in
substantial part the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety. A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement. Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement. Ten appeals were filed
objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness
of the settlement, five of which were dismissed with prejudice on
October 6, 2010. On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed
four of the remaining appeals and remanded the final appeal to the
District Court to determine whether the appellant has standing to
object to the settlement. The District Court has yet to rule on
that issue. The litigation process is inherently uncertain and
unpredictable, however, and there can be no guarantee as to the
ultimate outcome of this pending lawsuit. While Lionbridge cannot
guarantee the outcome of these proceedings, the Company believes
that the final result of this lawsuit will have no material effect
on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or
cash flows.


LOGITECH INT'L: Class Suit Over 2011 Fiscal Results Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Logitech International S.A. is defending itself in a class action
lawsuit relating to its disclosure that its results for fiscal
year 2011 would fall below expectations, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On May 23, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against
Logitech and certain of its officers.  This action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of individuals who purchased Logitech shares
between October 28, 2010, and April 1, 2011.  The complaint
relates to Logitech's disclosure on March 31, 2011, that its
results for fiscal year 2011 would fall below expectations and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the
defendants.

The Company believes the lawsuit and claims are without merit, and
it intends to vigorously defend against them.  However, there can
be no assurances that its defenses will be successful, or that any
judgment or settlement in any of these lawsuits would not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial
condition, cash flows and results of operations.  The Company's
accruals for lawsuits and claims as of March 31, 2011, were not
material.


LUBRIZOL CORP: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lubrizol Corporation continues to defend itself against
multiple class action lawsuits in connection with its proposed
merger with Berkshire Hathaway Inc., 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 March 13, 2011, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (Berkshire Hathaway)
and the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(Merger Agreement) whereby Berkshire Hathaway will acquire all of
the outstanding shares of The Lubrizol Corporation for $135 per
share in cash. After the close of the transaction, the company
will operate as a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. On April 8,
2011, the transaction received early termination under the Hart-
Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act in the U.S. At a special
meeting held on June 9, 2011, Lubrizol's shareholders approved the
transaction. The completion of the transaction is subject to the
satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including the
expiration of waiting periods and the receipt of approvals under
applicable non-U.S. merger control regulations. All non-U.S.
regulatory filings have been made and the reviews are proceeding
in the ordinary course. The transaction is projected to close
within the next one to three months.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, several
shareholder derivative and purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Lake County, Ohio.  The
lawsuits generally allege that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties to its shareholders by agreeing to
enter into the transaction for an allegedly unfair price and as a
result of an allegedly unfair process, and that the shareholders
have not been provided sufficient information about the proposed
merger.  The lawsuits also allege that Lubrizol and Berkshire
Hathaway aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The lawsuits as filed seek, among other things, an
injunction against the consummation of the proposed merger and
rescission of the Merger Agreement.  The Company believes that the
allegations lack merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Workers to Get Payout in Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Crager, writing for The Lufkin Daily News, reports that a
federal appeals court ruled former Lufkin Industries employees
should receive their multi-million-dollar payout from a Title VII
class-action suit for employment discrimination.

The Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals filed its ruling
on Aug. 8, awarding the judgment and injunctive relief to the
plaintiffs.

However, there have been challenges made by both parties to the
district court's attorneys' fee award.

This could be the final dispute after years of intensive
litigation.

The class-action suit was originally filed by two men in 1997
alleging racial discrimination from the company's hiring practices
and workplace behaviors.

The lawsuit alleged the workers were not only placed in low-end
jobs in the company's foundry division, but also denied
opportunities for additional training and routinely skipped over
for promotions.  White workers were given more desirable jobs in
the company's power transmission division, and were also groomed
for advancement into managerial positions, the lawsuit alleged.

After years of mediation, the case went to trial at the end of
2003 in Beaumont.  The suit included more than 1,000 people, all
current and former black employees, who had worked for the company
since 1994, according to a previous Lufkin Daily News article.

In 2005, U.S. District Judge Howell Cobb ordered Lufkin Industries
to "cease and desist" all racially-based assignment and promotion
practices, and to make formal job training equally available to
all.

In the Aug. 8 ruling, 13 employees were named, including the
original complainants, Sylvester McClain and Buford Thomas.

Nacogdoches-based attorney Tim Garrigan led the suit with the help
of Oakland, Calif., civil rights legal firm Goldstein, Demchak,
Baller, Borgen and Dardarian, of which the attorney's fees have
been contested.

U.S. District Judge Ron Clark of Beaumont ruled in June 2009 that
the employees were due to divvy up back pay and interest of
approximately $5.5 million, according to a Lufkin Daily News
article.

Lufkin Industries executives were unavailable for comment.


MERITOR INC: Continues to Defend Automotive Filters Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., continues to defend against a class action lawsuit
filed against a former subsidiary, which suit is now consolidated
and pending in Illinois, 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 3, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including a prior
subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices,
rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive
filters. This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct
purchasers of filters from the defendants. Several parallel
purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect
purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a
variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The
cases have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation
proceeding in Federal court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida
filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois based on these same allegations. On May 25,
2010, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of
Washington informed the company that it also was investigating the
allegations raised in these suits. On August 9, 2010, the County
of Suffolk, New York, filed a complaint in the Eastern District of
New York based on the same allegations. The case has been
transferred to the multi-district litigation proceeding in
Illinois. On April 14, 2011, the judge in that multi-district
litigation granted a stay on discovery and depositions until
July 25, 2011. The stay was subsequently extended until August 23,
2011. The company intends to vigorously defend the claims raised
in all of these actions. The company is unable to estimate a range
of exposure, if any, at this time.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Clark" Class Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order granting MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MLIC")'s motion for summary
judgment in the putative class action lawsuit captioned Clark,
et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed
March 28, 2008) remains pending.

The suit alleges breach of contract and breach of a common law
fiduciary and/or quasi-fiduciary duty arising from use of retained
asset accounts, known as Total Control Accounts ("TCA"), to pay
life insurance policy death benefits.  As damages, plaintiffs seek
disgorgement of the difference between the interest paid to the
account holders and the investment earnings on the assets backing
the accounts.  In March 2009, the court granted in part and denied
in part MLIC's motion to dismiss, dismissing the fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment claims but allowing a breach of contract
claim and a special or confidential relationship claim to go
forward.  On September 9, 2010, the court granted MLIC's motion
for summary judgment.  On September 20, 2010, plaintiff filed a
Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in 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.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss arising from the TCA matters.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Faber" Suit vs. Unit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
("MLIC"), remains pending.

The putative class action lawsuit captioned Faber, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed December 4,
2008) alleges that MLIC's use of use of retained asset accounts,
known as Total Control Accounts ("TCA") as the settlement option
under group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between
the interest paid to the account holders and the investment
earnings on the assets backing the accounts.  On October 23, 2009,
the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss with prejudice.  On
November 24, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

No further updates were reported in 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.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss arising from the TCA matters.


METLIFE INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Keife" Suit in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of MetLife, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a class action lawsuit pending in Nevada, 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.

MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
("MLIC"), is a defendant in lawsuits related to its use of
retained asset accounts, known as Total Control Accounts ("TCA"),
as a settlement option for death benefits.

The putative class action lawsuit captioned Keife, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court
on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on
September 7, 2010) raises a breach of contract claim arising from
MLIC's use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program.  As damages,
plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between the
interest paid to the account holders and the investment earnings
on the assets backing the accounts.  In September 2010, plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification of the breach of contract
claim, which the court has stayed.  On April 28, 2011, the court
denied MLIC's motion to dismiss.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss arising from the TCA matters.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend itself against claims over its
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.

Over the past several years, the Company has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current
cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble
damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company continues to vigorously
defend against the claims in these matters.  The Company believes
adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial
statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for
sales practices matters.

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


METLIFE INC: Defends Suits vs. Units Over Homer City Facility
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
from lawsuits relating to the Homer City Generating Station,
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 January 4, 2011, the United States of America commenced a civil
action in United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against EME Homer City Generation L.P. ("EME Homer
City"), Homer City OL6 LLC, and other defendants regarding the
operations of the Homer City Generating Station, an electricity
generating facility.  The lawsuit is captioned United States of
America v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., et al. (W.D. Pa.,
filed January 4, 2011).  Homer City OL6 LLC, an entity owned by
the Company's subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
("MLIC"), is a passive investor with a non-controlling interest in
the electricity generating facility, which is solely operated by
the lessee, EME Homer City.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief
and assessment of civil penalties for alleged violations of the
federal Clean Air Act and Pennsylvania's State Implementation
Plan.  The alleged violations were the subject of Notices of
Violations ("NOVs") that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") issued to EME Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC, and others
in June 2008 and May 2010.  On January 7, 2011, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted
the motion by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection and the State of New York to intervene in the lawsuit
as additional plaintiffs.  On February 16, 2011, the State of New
Jersey filed an Intervenor's Complaint in the lawsuit.  On
January 7, 2011, two plaintiffs filed a putative class action
titled Scott Jackson and Maria Jackson v. EME Homer City
Generation L.P., et al. in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a putative class
of persons who have allegedly incurred damage to their persons
and/or property because of the violations alleged in the action
brought by the U.S.  Homer City OL6 LLC is a defendant in this
action.  EME Homer City has acknowledged its obligation to
indemnify Homer City OL6 LLC for any claims relating to the NOVs.
Due to the acknowledged indemnification obligation, the Company
says this matter is not included in the aggregate estimate of
range of reasonably possible loss.


METLIFE INC: "Kang" Suit Remains Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Kang v. Sun Life Assurance Co. remains
pending in Canada, according to MetLife, Inc.'s August 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of the Company's subsidiary,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit, captioned Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, October 2006), in
Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for
"market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been transferred to
Sun Life.  Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to
indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity
provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's Canadian
operations entered into in June of 1998.  In January 2010, the
court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for
indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet
incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for summary
judgment.  Both parties appealed.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.  An amended class action
complaint was served on Sun Life, again without naming MLIC as a
party.  Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun
Life for some or all of the claims in this lawsuit.  The Company
is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of
loss arising from this litigation.

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


METLIFE INC: Unit Sued by GM Retirees Over Reduced Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a class action lawsuit in
Michigan commenced by retired General Motors employees, 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.

The lawsuit captioned Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne County, filed
June 22, 2011) was filed by 45 retired General Motors employees
against the Company's subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company ("MLIC") and includes claims for conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, and unfair trade
practices, based upon GM's 2009 reduction of the employees' life
insurance coverage under GM's Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974-governed plan.  The complaint includes a count seeking
class action status.  MLIC is the insurer of GM's group life
insurance plan and administers claims under the plan.  According
to the complaint, MLIC had previously provided plaintiffs with a
"written guarantee" that their life insurance benefits under the
GM plan would not be reduced for the rest of their lives.

The Company has removed the case to federal court based upon
complete ERISA preemption of the state law claims and intends to
vigorously defend this action.


MIDWEST GENERATION: Continues to Defend Negligence Suits in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2011, two complaints were filed against Midwest Generation
LLC in the Northern District of Illinois by residents living near
the Crawford and Fisk facilities on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance,
negligence, trespass, and strict liability. The plaintiffs seek to
have their suits certified as a class action and request
injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

No further 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.


NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: Sued Over Inflated Employment Statistics
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick G. Lee, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
law schools across the country are gearing up to greet the
freshest batch of wannabe lawyers later this month.  But some will
be dealing with more than just ice cream socials and welcome
parties -- namely, lawsuits alleging the schools purposefully
inflated employment statistics to attract more students.

Two lawsuits seeking class action status were filed on Aug. 10
against Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Michigan and New York Law
School.  The several plaintiffs, who are all graduates of the
defendant schools, seek $250 million from Cooley and $200 million
from NYLS in tuition refunds, as well as other damages and
reformed employment statistic reporting practices.

Both lawsuits state that the plaintiffs seek "to remedy a
systemic, ongoing fraud that is ubiquitous in the legal education
industry and threatens to leave a generation of law students in
dire financial straits."

Plaintiffs' attorney David Anziska said his firm, Kurzon Strauss
LLP, chose these two particular law schools in large part because
of their large class sizes, with Cooley -- at about 1,000 students
in each year -- the biggest in the country by far.

The lawsuits argue that the law schools have distorted their post-
graduate employment information by advertising the percentage of
those who secure any kind of job within nine months of graduation,
even ones that don't have anything to do with the legal industry.
They also allege that the reported amount for graduates' average
salaries is inflated since it is derived from a narrow, self-
selected pool of people who actually provide that information to
the school.

A graduate of San Diego's Thomas Jefferson School of Law filed a
similar class action suit in May, as reported here by the Law
Blog.

Jim Thelen, Cooley's general counsel, told the Law Blog that if
any of the plaintiffs or their attorneys has issue with how law
schools report employment numbers, then they ought to take it up
with the American Bar Association, or even the Department of
Education -- but not with individual law schools.

"These are nothing other than attempts to bring public attention
to this issue," Mr. Thelen said, "and it certainly doesn't seem
like the right way to go about it."

New York Law School Dean Richard Matasar said in a statement that
the alleged claims "are without merit and we will vigorously
defend against them in court."

Last month, Cooley filed a lawsuit against Kurzon Strauss LLP --
the firm representing the plaintiffs in both of the cases filed on
Aug. 10 -- for propagating defamatory ads on Craigslist and
Facebook about the school.  The postings were part of the law
firm's investigation into how law schools report employment
statistics.

Kurzon Strauss attorneys were given until Aug. 11 under Michigan
state guidelines to respond to Cooley's lawsuit, Mr. Thelen said.


PERFECT FITNESS: Fined $425T for Not Reporting Fall Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that Perfect
Fitness, of Sausalito, California, has agreed to pay a $425,000
civil penalty.  The settlement agreement has been provisionally
accepted by the Commission (5-0).

The penalty agreement resolves staff allegations that Perfect
Fitness knowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as
required by federal law, about a defect with Perfect Pullup
exercise equipment.  The defect causes the handles of the product
to break during use, resulting in a fall hazard to consumers.

CPSC staff alleges that Perfect Fitness concluded in June 2008
that its exercise equipment was defective following re-testing of
the handle design.  The testing was done after the firm received a
complaint and, according to the firm's internal review, an unusual
number of product returns.  Perfect Fitness redesigned the product
to correct the defect in July 2008.

CPSC staff alleges that Perfect Fitness was aware of at least 23
injuries associated with its product in March 2010, and posted a
notice on its Web site to let consumers know they could get free
replacement handles.  Staff alleges the firm told consumers that
the original handles were "inferior" and could result in an
"accident."

The firm did not report the defect to CPSC until December 2010.
By that time, CPSC staff alleges the firm was aware of at least 45
complaints of injury associated with the handles breaking and had
received more than 2,000 requests for replacements.

In February 2011, the firm and CPSC announced a recall of about
7,000 Perfect Pullups.  The exercise equipment sold for between
$80 and $100 at sporting goods stores nationwide, on the firm's
Web site and on Amazon.com, and through direct television
marketing from January 2008 through February 2011.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11301.html

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to
report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining
information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product
contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,
creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or
violates any consumer product safety rule, or any other rule,
regulation, standard, or ban enforced by the CPSC.

In agreeing to settle the matter, Perfect Fitness denies CPSC
staff's allegations that it knowingly violated the law.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Class Suits in Brazil Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Two class action complaints in Brazil remain pending against
Philip Morris International, Inc., 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 the class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed
July 25, 1995, the Company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive
relief.

In February 2004, the Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants
liable without hearing evidence.  The court did not assess moral
or actual damages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of
the case.  The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately US$600) per smoker per full
year of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of
the date of the ruling.  The court did not award actual damages,
which were to be assessed in the second phase of the case.  The
size of the class was not estimated.  Defendants appealed to the
Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November
2008, finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled
without hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court
for further proceedings.  In May 2011, the trial court dismissed
the claim.  Plaintiff has appealed.  In addition, the defendants
filed a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on
the basis that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the
lawsuit.  The appeal is still pending.

In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of
Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda, Civil
Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the
Company's subsidiary is a defendant.  The plaintiff, the Public
Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i) unspecified
damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and
their relatives; (ii) unspecified damages on behalf of people
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") nationwide, and
their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal
District. In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial
court limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo
only.  In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo
issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because
the case involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending.  The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.  The
Company's subsidiary appealed the decision to the State of Sao
Paulo Court of Appeals, which subsequently declared the case
stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.  In April 2010, the Sao
Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh Civil Court's decision
that consolidated the cases, finding that they are based on
different legal claims and are progressing at different stages of
proceedings.  The case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court of
Sao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary filed its closing
arguments in December 2010.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Appeal in "Yochkolovski" Suit Rejected in Bulgaria
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bulgarian Supreme Court upheld a trial court decision
dismissing the class action filed by a certain Yochkolovski
against Philip Morris International, Inc.'s subsidiary, 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 the class action in Bulgaria, Yochkolovski v. Sofia BT AD, et
al., Sofia City Court, Bulgaria, filed March 12, 2008, the
Company's subsidiaries and other members of the industry were
named defendants.  The plaintiff brought a collective claim on
behalf of classes of smokers who were allegedly misled by tar and
nicotine yields printed on packages and on behalf of a class of
minors who were allegedly misled by marketing.  Plaintiff sought
damages for economic loss, pain and suffering, medical treatment,
and withdrawal from the market of all cigarettes that allegedly do
not comply with tar and nicotine labeling requirements.  The trial
court dismissed the youth marketing claims.  The decision was
affirmed on appeal.  The trial court also ordered plaintiff to
provide additional evidence in support of the remaining claims as
well as evidence of his capacity to represent the class and bear
the costs of the proceedings.  In November 2010, the trial court
dismissed the case.  Plaintiff appealed.  In January 2011,
plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.  Plaintiff appealed to the
Bulgarian Supreme Court.  In May 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed
plaintiff's appeal.  The case is now terminated.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit to Commence Oct. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in the class action complaint filed by Cecilia
Letourneau against Philip Morris International, Inc., is set to
commence on October 17, 2011, 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 the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of
the class who is deemed addicted to smoking.  The class was
certified in 2005.  Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.  Trial is
scheduled to begin on October 17, 2011.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Suit to Begin on Oct. 17
---------------------------------------------------------
The trial in the class action complaint filed by Conseil Quebecois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais against Philip Morris
International, Inc.'s subsidiary is set to commence on October 17,
2011, 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 the class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the Company's
subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants.  The
plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker,
are seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each
member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-
related diseases.  The class was certified in 2005.  Pre-trial
discovery is ongoing.  Trial is scheduled to begin on October 17,
2011.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Kunta" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, Philip Morris International, Inc.,
its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.  The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),
severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the
use of tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he
did not anticipate taking any action in the case while he pursues
a multi-jurisdictional class action filed in Saskatchewan, Adams
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

No further updates were reported in 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.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Adams" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, Philip Morris International, Inc.,
its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.  The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or
cancer, as well as restitution of profits.  Preliminary motions
are pending.

No further updates were reported in 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.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Semple" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, Philip Morris
International, Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA
and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own
addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.  No activity in
the case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues a multi-
jurisdictional class action filed in Saskatchewan, Adams
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

No further updates were reported in 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.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Dorion" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, Philip Morris International, Inc.,
its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.  The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus
infections resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,
dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.  To date, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint.  No
activity in the case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues a multi-jurisdictional class action filed in Saskatchewan,
Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

No further updates were reported in 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.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "McDermid" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris International, Inc.,
its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.  The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from
heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates,
dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the
claim was filed.  Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges
on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the
pendency of the Saskatchewan class action, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

No further updates were reported in 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.


PHILLIP MORRIS: Remains a Defendant in "Bourassa" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris International, Inc.,
its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.  The
plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on
June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed.  Defendants
have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this
action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan
class action, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et
al.

No further updates were reported in 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.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Defends Five TCPA-Violations Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., is defending itself from
five class action lawsuits 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 quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company has been named as defendant in five putative class
action cases, each of which alleges that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular phones without their prior express consent:

   * Allen v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., Case No.
     10-cv-2658, instituted in the United States District Court
     for the Southern District of California on December 23,
     2010;

   * Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
     37-2011-00083047, instituted in the Superior Court of
     California, San Diego County, on January 3, 2011;

   * Frydman v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
     11-cv-524, instituted in the United States District Court
     for the Northern District of Illinois on January 31, 2011;

   * Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
     11-cv-0624, instituted in the United States District Court
     for the Northern District of Georgia on March 1, 2011; and

   * Harvey v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
     11-cv-00582, instituted in the United States District Court
     for the Middle District of Florida on April 8, 2011.

Each of the complaints seeks monetary damages under the TCPA,
injunctive relief and other relief, including attorney fees.  Two
of these actions, Allen and Frydman purport to have been brought
on behalf of a national class of plaintiffs.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations in each of these cases.  It is not possible at this
time to estimate the possible loss, if any.


PRESCRIPTION DRUG STORES: W.Va. AG Lawyers Balk at Stay on Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that West
Virginia Attorney General, Darrell McGraw, is tired of waiting to
get his lawsuit against prescription drug retailers on track.

Attorneys hired by Mr. McGraw expressed their disapproval of a
stay issued in the case, which alleges six drug stores did not
pass savings on generic drugs to consumers.  The drug stores have
been arguing that Mr. McGraw's case is essentially a class action
and should be heard in federal court.

However, a 2-1 vote by a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit went Mr. McGraw's way.  No other
member of the Fourth Circuit expressed an interest to have the
case heard before the entire court, and the drug stores have
decided to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, prompting a stay
issued earlier this month.

"It is inconceivable that for justices would vote to grant a
petition for certiorari, or that a majority of the Supreme Court
would vote to reverse this court's judgment," Mr. McGraw's
attorneys wrote on August 4.

"The State filed this action two years ago, and the pharmacies'
unwarranted removal has caused enough delay.  The brief 60-day
timeframe that Congress allocated for the appeal of a remand of a
putative class action has been stretched beyond recognition.
There is no more reason for delay."

In their motion to stay the Fourth Circuit's decision pending an
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the drug stores on August 8 said
that the decision has created a conflict with decisions by the
Fifth and Ninth circuits.  The drug stores are CVS, Wal-Mart,
Target, Walgreen, Kroger and Kmart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PRINCETON REVIEW: Faces Securities Class Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Princeton Review, Inc., is facing a securities class action
lawsuit in Massachusetts, 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 July 29, 2011, Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System
filed a securities class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters in the Company's April 2010 public offering,
Civil Action 1:11-cv-11359.  The complaint alleges material
misstatements and omissions in the Company's April 2010 public
offering materials and other public filings and statements made
during the period from March 12, 2009, through March 11, 2011.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and plans
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the settlement order in the lawsuit against
Prudential Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending, 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.

Prudential Securities Group LLC was a defendant in a number of
industry-wide purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to
its former securities underwriting business, captioned In re:
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, alleging, among
other things, that the underwriters engaged in a scheme involving
tying agreements, undisclosed compensation arrangements and
research analyst conflicts to manipulate and inflate the prices of
shares sold in initial public offerings in violation of the
federal securities laws.  In September 2009, the court entered a
final order approving settlement of the litigation.  In October
2009, an appeal of the settlement was filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plea to Vacate "Schultz" Suit Order Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to vacate the order dismissing their complaint
and to reinstate their claims, 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 April 2009, a purported nationwide class action, Schultz v. The
Prudential Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  In
January 2010, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
In February 2010, plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint to
add another plaintiff and to name welfare plans under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in which they were
participants individually and as representatives of a purported
defendant class of ERISA welfare plans for which Prudential offset
benefits.  The proposed amended complaint alleged that Prudential
Insurance and the welfare plans violated ERISA by offsetting
family Social Security benefits against Prudential contract
benefits and seeks a declaratory judgment that the offsets are
unlawful as they are not "loss of time" benefits and recovery of
the amounts by which the challenged offsets reduced the disability
payments.  In August 2010, the court denied leave to amend as to
Prudential and plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended
complaint asserting claims on behalf of a purported nationwide
class against a purported defendant class of ERISA welfare plans
for which Prudential offset family Social Security benefits.  The
action, now captioned Schultz v. Aviall, Inc. Long Term Disability
Plan, asserts the same ERISA violations.  In December 2010, an
action alleging substantially similar ERISA violations as in the
Schultz action, Koehn v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Long
Term Disability Plan, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The Koehn
complaint, naming only the plan as defendant, asserts that the
defendant plan's long term disability benefits are insured by
Prudential and that the terms of the plan were violated by
offsetting family Social Security benefits against Prudential
contract benefits.  The Company has indemnified the defendant
plans in both Schultz and Koehn.  In March 2011, Koehn settled in
principle.  In April 2011, a final order approving the settlement
was entered in Koehn.  In April 2011, Schultz was dismissed and
plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the order dismissing their
complaint and to reinstate their claims.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Awaits Settlement Approval in N.J. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
agreement to settle a consolidated lawsuit in New Jersey,
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 March 2009, a purported class action, Bauer v. Prudential
Financial, et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  The case names as defendants, the
Company, certain Company Directors, the Chief Financial Officer,
Controller and former Chief Executive Officer and former Principal
Accounting Officer, underwriters and the Company's independent
auditors.  The complaint, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's 9% Junior Subordinated Notes (retail hybrid subordinated
debt), alleges that the Company's March 2006 Form S-3 Registration
Statement and Prospectus and the June 2008 Prospectus Supplement,
both of which incorporated other public filings, contained
material misstatements or omissions.  In light of the Company's
disclosures in connection with its 2008 financial results,
plaintiffs contend that the earlier offering documents failed to
disclose impairments in the Company's asset-backed securities
collateralized with sub-prime mortgages and goodwill associated
with certain subsidiaries and other assets, and that the Company
had inadequate controls relating to such reporting.  The complaint
asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging Section
11 claims against all defendants, Section 12(a)(2) claims against
the Company and underwriters and Section 15 claims against the
individual defendants, and seeks unspecified compensatory and
rescission damages, interest, costs, fees, expenses and such
injunctive relief as may be deemed appropriate by the court.

In April 2009, two additional purported class action complaints
were filed in the same court, Haddock v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. et al. and Pinchuk v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al.  The
complaints essentially allege the same claims and seek the same
relief as Bauer.  In June 2009, Pinchuk was voluntarily dismissed
and the Haddock and Bauer matters were consolidated.  In July
2009, an amended consolidated complaint was filed that added
claims regarding contingent liability relating to the auction rate
securities markets and reserves relating to annuity contract
holders.  The complaint restates the claims regarding impairments
related to mortgage-backed securities, but does not include prior
claims regarding goodwill impairments.  The complaint names all of
the same defendants as the prior complaints, with the exception of
the Company's independent auditors.  In September 2009, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In June 2010, the court
dismissed without prejudice the claim relating to contingent
liability in connection with auction rate securities and denied
the motion with respect to the other claims.  In July 2010,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint restating their contingent
liability claim and, in September 2010, defendants moved to
dismiss the restated claim.  In April 2011, the matter settled in
principle.  The settlement is subject to court approval.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification remains pending in the
consolidated lawsuit that accuses Prudential Financial, Inc., of
failing to pay overtime to insurance agents, 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 October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and
Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from
these agents' wages in violation of state law.  The complaint
seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of
improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.  In March
2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the
federal overtime claim.  Separately, in March 2008, a purported
nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, Wang v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that
the Company failed to pay its agents overtime and provide other
benefits in violation of California and federal law and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.  In
September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the
Bouder matter.  Subsequent amendments to the complaint have
resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations
of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment laws.  In
February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime
class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008 and
moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of the
named plaintiffs.  In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification of the state law claims.  In August 2010, the
district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the federal overtime claims.  The motion for class
certification of the state law claims is pending.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Denies Judgment in "Huffman" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied in July 2011 Prudential Financial, Inc.'s
motion for judgment in the lawsuit brought by beneficiaries of
insurance contracts owned by benefit plans governed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 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 September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging that using retained asset accounts in employee welfare
benefit plans to settle death benefit claims violates ERISA and
seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.  The
Company moved to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2011, the
Company withdrew its motion to dismiss the complaint.  In May
2011, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In July 2011, the court denied the motion.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Garcia" Dismissal Appeal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the lawsuit captioned Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America remains pending,
according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s August 5, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
complaint is brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of life
insurance policies sold by the Company for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts that earn interest and are
subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time by the
beneficiaries.  The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose
material information about the accounts, the Company wrongfully
delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and
seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
and post-judgment interest.  In February 2011, plaintiff appealed
the dismissal.  As previously reported, in December 2009, an
earlier purported nationwide class action raising substantially
similar allegations brought by the same plaintiff in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Garcia v.
Prudential Insurance Company of America, was dismissed.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends Retained Asset Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated
lawsuit in Massachusetts challenging its use of retained asset
accounts to settle death benefit claims, 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 December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois.
The complaint makes allegations under Illinois law, substantially
similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf of a class of Illinois
residents whose death benefits were settled by retained assets
accounts.  In January 2011, the case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  In
March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop the Company as a
defendant and add Pruco Life Insurance Company as a defendant.
The matter is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and
Pruco Life Insurance Company.  In April 2011, a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint was filed.

In July 2010, a purported nationwide class action that makes
allegations similar to those in the Garcia and Phillips actions
relating to retained asset accounts of beneficiaries of a group
life insurance contract owned by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs ("VA Contract") that covers the lives of members
and veterans of the U.S. armed forces, Lucey et al. v. Prudential
Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The complaint
challenges the use of retained asset accounts to settle death
benefit claims, asserting violations of federal and state law,
breach of contract and fraud and seeking compensatory and treble
damages and equitable relief.  In October 2010, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In November 2010, a second
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of the same
beneficiaries of the VA Contract, Phillips v. Prudential Insurance
Company of America and Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
and makes substantially the same claims.  In November and December
2010, two additional actions brought on behalf of the same
putative class, alleging substantially the same claims and the
same relief, Garrett v. The Prudential Insurance Company of
America and Prudential Financial, Inc. and Witt v. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  In February 2011,
Phillips, Garrett and Witt were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Massachusetts by the
Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation and consolidated with
the Lucey matter as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America
SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation.  In March 2011, the motion to
dismiss was denied.


REX ENERGY: Pennsylvania Court Approves 'Synder' Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation obtained in July 2011 final court approval
of a settlement agreement resolving a class action complaint
brought by Pennsylvania landowners, 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 May 13, 2011, the Company, together with its wholly owned
subsidiary, Rex Energy I, LLC, entered into a settlement agreement
with respect to the legal proceedings with landowners in
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs in the case, Clyde
J. and Janelle Snyder, William L. Snyder, III and Ray F. and
Sandra K. White, commenced the proceedings in July 2009 on behalf
of themselves and other landowners in Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the
Company entered into valid and binding oil and gas leases with
them in 2008 for which pre-paid rental and bonus payments had not
been made.  The Company denied the validity of the leases and all
liability for payments.  The parties jointly requested and
received preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement at a
hearing on May 16, 2011.  The material provisions of the
Settlement Agreement are:

  * Solely for purposes of the Settlement Agreement, the parties
    stipulated and agreed to conditionally certify to a class of
    plaintiffs, which includes certain persons who in 2008 signed
    an oil and gas lease with Rex Energy I, LLC related to
    property situated in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.  Class
    members were given the opportunity to opt out of the
    settlement arrangement in accordance with the terms of the
    Settlement Agreement.

  * Within 30 days of the preliminary approval, the Company was
    required to offer each class member (who has not already
    leased his or her oil and gas interests to a third party) an
    oil and gas lease with a prepaid rental of $2,500 per acre for
    a five-year term with a 15% royalty.  If the original proposed
    2008 lease contemplated a lower rental or royalty, the Company
    was permitted to offer the corresponding amount from the
    original lease, at its option.

  * Each offered lease was required to contain terms and
    conditions no less favorable than the form of lease attached
    as an exhibit to the Settlement Agreement, which form was
    negotiated by the parties at arms' length. The class members
    could accept the lease by executing it and returning it to the
    Company by the later of 60 days after the Company provided the
    offer to lease, or five business days after the effective date
    of the Settlement Agreement.

  * The Company may reject a lease if it has Defective Title, as
    that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement.

  * The Company will bear all usual and customary costs of the
    leasing process.  In connection with the Settlement Agreement,
    the Company paid $30,000 to plaintiffs' attorneys for the
    anticipated expenses of administration of the Settlement
    Agreement.  Additionally, the Company deposited $2,500,000
    into a fund for distribution to class members and for
    attorney's fees, costs and expenses of counsel for the class.

The Settlement Agreement received final approval by the court on
July 15, 2011.  The final order regarding the Settlement Agreement
dismissed all claims against the Company with prejudice and
without any admission of liability, and provided a release by all
class members of all claims against the Company in connection with
the litigation.

If accepted, the leases provide for a maximum value of
approximately $12.5 million in lease bonus payments.  The Company
expects that the total leasing costs will be reduced by the number
of leases that are ultimately excluded due to title defects or
leases with third parties.

Rex Energy Corporation -- http://www.rexenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and gas company operating in the Illinois Basin
and the Appalachian Basin.


SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: "KTEK-AM" Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Salem Communications Corporation is awaiting court approval of a
settlement it entered into with plaintiffs of a suit alleging
contractual interference in the purchase of radio station KTEK-AM,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On July 10, 2010, Asia Vision, Inc. and Rehan Siddiqi amended a
[class action] complaint they had previously filed against third
parties in the 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Houston, Texas, naming Salem Communications Corporation, South
Texas Broadcasting, Inc. and one of Salem's officers as
defendants. In their complaint, Asia Vision claims that the Salem
defendants interfered with Asia Vision's contractual right to
purchase radio station KTEK-AM from Business Radio Licensee, LLC.
In their complaint, Asia Vision and Rehan Siddiqi make a claim for
injunctive relief and monetary damages. On July 21, 2010, Salem
Communications and South Texas Broadcasting were served with the
complaint but the Salem officer has not been served. Salem has
retained counsel, has tendered defense of the matter to several
insurance companies, and will vigorously defend this action. On
March 7, 2011, Salem entered into a tentative settlement of the
matter, which still requires court approval. If approved, the
settlement will result in no liability to the Salem defendants.


SANTARUS INC: Motion to Transfer N.Y. Suit to Calif. Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Santarus, Inc.'s motion to transfer a class action lawsuit filed
in New York to California is still 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 December 2010, a complaint styled as a putative class action
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by a person employed at the time by
the Company as a sales representative and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated current and former employees. The complaint
seeks damages for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law 650
Section et seq. and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The
alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid wages and
overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other damages. The Company denies all claims asserted in
the complaint. In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. The Company's motion to transfer
is currently pending. Over the last few years, similar class
action lawsuits have been filed against other pharmaceutical
companies alleging that the companies' sales representatives have
been misclassified as exempt employees under the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and applicable state laws. There have been
varying outcomes in these cases to date, and it is too early to
predict an outcome in the Company's matter at this time.

Although the Company intends to vigorously defend against the
litigation filed against it, litigation often is expensive and
diverts management's attention and resources, which could
adversely affect the Company regardless of the outcome.


SEQUENOM INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of a class action lawsuit over
Sequenom, Inc.'s initial public offering remain 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 November 2001, the Company and certain of its current or former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action
shareholder complaint filed by Collegeware USA in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (now
captioned In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation) Case No.
01-CV-10831. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company's underwriters, certain of its officers and directors and
the Company violated the federal securities laws because its
registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements
of material fact or omitted material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by and the stock allocation practices
of the underwriters. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. Similar complaints were filed in the
same District Court against hundreds of other public companies
that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock in
the late 1990s and 2000 (the IPO Cases).

In October 2002, the Company's officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and
tolling agreement with the plaintiffs. In February 2003, the
District Court dismissed the claim against the Company brought
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, without giving the
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint with respect to that
claim. The District Court declined to dismiss the claim against
the Company brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the Securities Act).

In September 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of its board of directors, the Company
approved in principle a settlement offer by the plaintiffs. In
September 2004, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs. In February 2005, the District Court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement.
In August 2005, the District Court reaffirmed class certification
and preliminary approval of the modified settlement. In December
2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the
District Court's decision certifying as class actions the six
lawsuits designated as "focus cases." Thereafter the District
Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the lawsuits
pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit
for rehearing en banc. In April 2007, the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' rehearing petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs
may seek to certify a more limited class in the District Court.
Accordingly, the settlement as originally negotiated was
terminated pursuant to stipulation.

In February 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the
District Court that a new settlement of all IPO Cases had been
agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties
and preliminary and final approval by the District Court. In April
2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement to
the District Court and moved for preliminary approval thereof. In
June 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the
tentative settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
published and mailed to class members. In September 2009, the
District Court held a final fairness hearing. In October 2009, the
District Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and
granted final approval to the settlement. Thereafter, three
shareholders filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Class
Certification Order, asserting that the District Court's
certification of the settlement classes violates the Second
Circuit's earlier class certification decisions in the IPO Cases
and a number of shareholders also filed direct appeals, objecting
to final approval of the settlement. If the settlement is affirmed
on appeal, the settlement will result in the dismissal of all
claims against the Company and its officers and directors with
prejudice, and the Company's pro rata share of the settlement fund
will be fully funded by insurance.


SK COMMUNICATIONS: Data Breach Legal Woes Deepen
------------------------------------------------
Kim Ji-hyun, writing for Korea Herald, reports that SK
Communications' legal woes are expected to deepen as more people
are seeking compensation from the company for allowing the leaking
of personal information it gathered from members of Cyworld.com
and Nate.com.

The move, if it becomes a nationwide campaign resembling the
collective currently pursuing a class action lawsuit against Apple
for tracking location information, may yield a string of costly
lawsuits for the company in a country with virtually no precedent
in class action suits.

This month, two lawsuits were filed against SK Communications,
with the latest by a lawyer who requested KRW3 million ($2,811) in
compensation.

A 40-year-old lawyer who is a member of Nate.com said he filed the
lawsuit because SK Communications had failed to properly manage
his personal information, causing him to suffer mental anguish.

He also cited concerns about further problems that may arise in
the future, such as becoming a victim of voice phishing and spam
mail as he does not know where his personal information may have
been leaked.

He stressed that it was important for consumers to seek
compensation to teach companies that they must properly manage
information they have obtained.

SK Communications previously demanded national identity numbers
among the list of personal information it requested before
endowing membership.

The company faced fierce public backlash when it admitted that the
personal information of up to 35 million users of its Cyworld.com
and Nate.com Web site users had been leaked.  This means about 70%
of the Korean population was exposed.

The first lawsuit against SK Communications was filed on Aug. 1
when a 25-year-old member of Cyworld and Nate requested KRW1
million in compensation for breaching his privacy.

Taking a cue, online forums are now sprouting up across the
nation, with many users seeking assistance for how they may
cooperate to file a class action suit against SK Communications.

One drawback for now is that the courts are having a hard time
finding judges who are not also victims of the SK Communications
information leak case in order to ensure impartiality in the
ruling.

Meanwhile, the police who are investigating the leak believe that
suspects used software maker ESTsoft's servers to distribute
viruses to freeze the PCs connected to the data networks of SK
Communications to steal the personal information.

The PCs seem to have been exposed to the virus as company
employees or others close to the matter were updating Al Tools --
a set of software ranging from compressing and picture viewing to
security and password management.  ESTsoft has apologized for the
inconvenience its software may have caused and said it was
cooperating with the authorities who recently raided the company's
offices.


SMART BALANCE: Continues to Defend Nucoa-Related Class Suit in Ca.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Balance, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit relating to its Nucoa(R) stick margarine 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.

On February 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Smart Balance,
Inc. in the Federal District Court for the Central District in
California in Santa Ana, California.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, violations of California's unfair competition law,
false advertising, and consumer remedies act and seeks to identify
all similarly situated plaintiffs and certify them in a class
action.  This suit relates to the Company's Nucoa(R) stick
margarine products, which represented less than 1% of sales in
2010 and the first half of 2011.  The Company is in the process of
vigorously defending itself against this suit.  The Company does
not expect that the resolution of this matter will have a material
adverse effect on its business.


SOLARWINDS INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily End Class Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action complaint against SolarWinds, Inc., was
voluntarily dismissed in May 2011, 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 October 15, 2010, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of Daniel
Richardson and a purported class of all persons who purchased or
acquired shares of common stock of SolarWinds, Inc. against
SolarWinds, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.  The lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs alleged that SolarWinds,
Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors violated the
securities laws by "issu[ing] materially false and misleading
statements regarding [SolarWinds, Inc.'s] operations and its
business and financial results and outlook" and therefore "misled
investors by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material
problems with . . . sales to the United States federal government
. . .[and] problems with [its] sales management team."

On May 12, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice after
the Plaintiffs made a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case.
Thus, the lawsuit is no longer pending.

SolarWinds, Inc. -- http://www.solarwinds.com/-- designs,
develops, markets, sells and supports powerful yet easy-to-use
enterprise IT infrastructure management software to IT
professionals in organizations of all sizes.  Its offerings range
from individual software tools to more comprehensive software
products that solve problems faced every day by IT professionals
and help to enable efficient and effective management of their
infrastructure, including networks, applications, storage and
physical and virtual servers.


SUNRISE PROPANE: Downsview Residents Await Class Action Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saira Peesker, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that three years
after a massive propane explosion ripped apart several houses in
Toronto's Downsview neighborhood, affected residents are waiting
to find out if their class action suit has been approved.

The Sunrise Propane explosion on Aug. 10, 2008 was caused by an
illegal tank-to-tank transfer and worsened by a congestion of
trucks, structures, fencing and vegetation on the fuel depot's
property.  Several homes close to the Murray Road facility were
badly damaged.

Three years later, thousands of Downsview residents are waiting to
hear if they will qualify to be part of the class action lawsuit
against Sunrise Propane's owners and management.

Lawyer Sharon Stosberg says a certification motion for the suit is
expected to proceed at the end of October.  It will decide whether
the case fits the definition for a class action suit and who can
participate.

The suit currently has seven named representative plaintiffs, but
Ms. Strosberg says about 1,000 people have registered to receive
further information.

The plaintiffs want the class to represent "all persons who were
present or who owned, leased, rented and/or occupied any
properties located within the area of the City of Toronto bounded
by Keele Street, Highway 401, Sheppard Avenue and Dufferin Street
on August 10th, 2008, when the hereinafter described explosions
occurred."

If the judge agrees with this definition, everyone covered by that
description will be part of the suit unless they opt out,
Ms. Strosberg told CTVNews.ca.

On the day of the blast, a mushroom cloud erupted over the site,
near Keele Street and Wilson Avenue.  It killed Parminder Singh
Saini, a 25-year-old Sunrise employee, and damaged hundreds of
neighboring properties.  Firefighter Bob Leek died of a heart
attack in the backyard of a nearby home.

A report released by the Ontario Fire Marshal's Office in August
2010 concluded that a tank-to-tank transfer caused the explosion.
Several thousand cylinders of propane, bulk liquid propane storage
tanks and cylinders of industrial gas were stored on the property.

At the time, City Councillor Maria Augimeri told CTVNews.ca that
the report's recommendations confirmed what neighbors had long
believed: that the depot was too close to a residential area.

On Aug. 10, she called on the province to resume control of the
Technical Standards and Safety Authority, the arm's-length agency
that governs facilities like Sunrise.

                     TSSA Lauds Improvements

The TSSA used to be a provincial agency, but was given arm's-
length status by the Mike Harris government in the 1990s.  Its
vice-president of operations, Michael Beard, told CTV on Aug. 10
that his organization has made a lot of progress since the
explosion.

He said inspectors now visit Ontario's 1,300 sites each year
instead of every three years, and site operators are now required
to present risk management plans to the TSSA.

"The situation that occurred at Sunrise was an unlawful activity
that took place at three in the morning," he noted. "So long as
companies are ensuring they are compliant to the rules and
regulations regarding propane safety, propane is safe."

Premier Dalton McGuinty echoed that sentiment on Aug. 10.

"It's really hard to rule out human error, but as much as is
humanly possible in terms of the kinds of protocols we put in
place and the safety procedures, we've done what we need to do,"
he said.  "We think that we have a system in place now that serves
the public interest.  We have confidence in the authorities that
are there."

                        Rebuild Continues

Meanwhile, one elderly couple from the area says they're still
fighting with their insurance company to get adequate repairs to
their garage.

Michael and Dianne Green, who live two blocks from the explosion
site, say their insurance company's contractor made several
significant errors when it reconstructed their garage.  The Greens
also say city officials admitted to missing defects when they
first inspected the garage -- a claim the city says isn't true.

City Manager of Inspections John Dunn suggests the Greens' case is
being blown out of proportion.  He said an inspector did notice a
foundation slab that sits above-grade upon a further visit, but
told CTVNews.ca that "a rake and a shovel could have fixed that
issue in an hour."

The couple would like their insurance company to pay for their
garage to be reconstructed.  They say they can't afford to hire a
lawyer, and received a notice last week that their insurer, Belair
Direct, is taking them to court in September to absolve the
company of paying for further repairs.

"Belair has claimed, all along, that they are acting in good faith
and are committed to be responsible and helping my parents," their
son Jeff Green wrote in a release.  "If so, then why hire a
lawyer, and force my parents to court?"

A representative from Belair said the company would "love to
provide more information" on the situation, but hadn't been
authorized by the Greens to speak publicly about their case.

Mr. Green told CTV he remembers the explosion -- which occurred in
the early morning on a Sunday -- like it was yesterday.

"It was quite something, never experienced anything like that
before," he said.


TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: IPO Suit Appeals Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of a class action lawsuit related to
Telecommunication Systems, Inc.'s initial public offering remain
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 November 2001, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, certain of its current officers and a
director, and several investment banks that were the underwriters
of its initial public offering (the "Underwriters"): Highstein v.
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., et al., United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 01-
CV-9500. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. The
lawsuit purports to be a class action suit filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the period
August 8, 2000 through December 6, 2000. The plaintiffs allege
that the Underwriters agreed to allocate the Company's Class A
Common Stock offered for sale in its initial public offering to
certain purchasers in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those purchasers to make additional
purchases of the Company's Class A Common Stock in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices. The plaintiffs allege that all of the
defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and that the underwriters violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The claims against the
Company of violation of Rule 10b-5 have been dismissed with the
plaintiffs having the right to re-plead. On October 5, 2009, the
Court approved a settlement of this and approximately 300 similar
cases. On January 14, 2010, an Order and Final Judgment was
entered. Various notices of appeal of the Court's October 5, 2009
order were subsequently filed. On October 7, 2010, all but two
parties who had filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with
the Court withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two
remaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals. The
Company intends to continue to defend the lawsuit until the matter
is resolved. The Company has purchased a Directors and Officers
insurance policy which it believes should cover any potential
liability that may result from these laddering class action
claims, but can provide no assurance that any or all of the costs
of the litigation will ultimately be covered by the insurance. No
reserve has been recorded for this matter.


THOMAS M. COOLEY: Sued Over Misleading Employment Statistics
------------------------------------------------------------
David Jesse, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a
New York law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against
Lansing-based Thomas M. Cooley Law School, alleging the school
snookers prospective students with false claims about postgraduate
employment statistics.

The suit comes with a twist.

Late last month, Cooley itself sued the law firm, Kurzon Strauss,
alleging the law firm was defaming Cooley in advertisements placed
across the Internet, seeking plaintiffs for their suit.

"To the extent the lawsuit challenges our postgraduation
employment and salary statistics, we stand by our reporting to the
National Association for Law Placement, and any claims that
prospective students or our graduates have been misled or legally
harmed by our reporting are simply baseless," said James Thelen,
Cooley's associate dean for legal affairs and general counsel.
"We understand that three of the four named plaintiffs have
established and are working in their own law firms.  This proves
that Cooley's graduates are practice-ready lawyers who are well
prepared to pass the bar exam and enter a profession with one of
the lowest national unemployment rates among any profession in the
country.

"We will vigorously defend this lawsuit and continue to pursue the
defamation and other legal claims we filed against the Kurzon
Strauss firm last month."

With about 1,000 graduates a year, and about 4,000 students
enrolled, Cooley is the largest law school in the nation.  It has
campuses in Lansing, Ann Arbor, Auburn Hills and Grand Rapids.

"This action seeks to remedy a systemic, ongoing fraud that is
ubiquitous in the legal education industry and threatens to leave
a generation of law students in dire financial straits," Kurzon
Strauss attorneys said in the suit.  "Essentially, plaintiffs want
to bring an element of 'sunlight' or transparency to the way law
schools report postgraduate employment data and salary
information, by requiring that they make critical, material
disclosures that will give both prospective and current students a
more accurate picture of their postgraduate financial situation,
as opposed to the status quo where law schools are incentivized to
engage in all sorts of legerdemain when tabulating employment
statistics.

"The school during the class period claims that a substantial
majority of its graduates -- roughly between 75% and 80% -- secure
employment within nine months of graduation.  However, the reality
of the situation is that these seemingly robust numbers include
any type of employment, including jobs that have absolutely
nothing to do with the legal industry, do not require a JD degree
or are temporary or part-time in nature."

The Cooley lawsuit is one of two filed on Aug. 10 by Kurzon
Strauss against law schools.  The second was filed against New
York Law School.


TRAVELZOO: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Travelzoo and its founders
and top officers inflated its share price through false and
misleading statements, shareholders say in a federal class action
filed in Manhattan.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers' Lawyers Seek $90.8MM in Legal Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Mike
Scarcella, the lawyers who represented a class of African American
farmers in a suit against the government that claimed loan
discrimination are requesting $90.8 million in legal fees, the
maximum allowed under the terms of a settlement.

The three lead class attorneys in the case said in a fee petition
filed on Aug. 8 in Washington federal district court that class
counsel is entitled to 7.4% of the $1.25 billion settlement.  The
settlement base is about $1.22 billion after $22.5 million is
taken for implementation costs.

The attorneys, Gregorio Francis of Morgan & Morgan, Andrew Marks
of Crowell & Moring and Henry Sanders of Selma, Ala.'s Chestnut,
Sanders, Sanders, Pettaway & Campbell, said lead class counsel
will allocate the award among the dozens of lawyers who
participated in the litigation.

The settlement awards potentially tens of thousands of black
farmers who did not file claims in time in an earlier version of
the loan discrimination litigation.  Class counsel said more than
60,000 farmers were so-called "late filers."

More than 28,000 farmers, represented by 25 law firms, filed 17
complaints in Washington federal district court between May 2008
and February 2010.  The civil actions were consolidated.  Earlier
this year, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman granted preliminary
approval of the settlement, which was reached in February 2010.

The settlement sets out a fee range of 4.1% to 7.4% of the $1.25
billion deal.  Lawyers representing claimants on a certain track
are allowed, apart from the settlement, to negotiate a contingent
fee arrangement of up to 8%.  The lead attorneys said they expect
the vast majority of farmers will use class counsel to process
claims.

Marks, Francis and Sanders, the lead attorneys, said in the fee
petition that class counsel "have incurred substantial out-of-
pocket costs" and will not receive payment until at least late
next year or later.

"The work effort of class counsel in this case has already been
enormous," the plaintiffs' lawyers said.

The attorneys in the case reported more than 40,000 hours and
60,000 paralegal hours.  Class counsel estimated they would spend
tens of thousands or more hours in the next year to 18 months
working on the implementation of the settlement.  Lawyers in the
case are planning meetings in more than a dozen states where
significant numbers of class members are located.

"Without the experience and expertise of all of the Class Counsel
firms working together on the various facets of this case, Class
Members would not be in a position to finally receive the
adjudication of their Pigford claims that they have sought for so
long," lead class counsel said.

Class counsel said the 7.4% request is less than the 8% that U.S.
District Judge Emmet Sullivan awarded in April to a group of
lawyers who represented a class of Native American farmers and
ranchers in Keepseagle v. Vilsack.  In that case, the plaintiffs'
lawyers received $60.8 million in fees -- the maximum under a
settlement.

Senior Judge Thomas Hogan recently awarded $99 million to the
class lawyers in a landmark Indian trust case that dragged on in
federal district court in Washington for more than a decade.

The lawyers in Elouise Cobell v. Salazar, including Washington
solo Dennis Gingold and a Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton team, had
said more than $223 was appropriate.  The settlement set out a fee
range between $50 million and $99.9 million.  The deal, however,
left the trial judge with the final word.

There is still a pending dispute in the Cobell suit over payment
to lawyers who were not included in the class counsel fee
petition.  More than $13.6 million could be withheld from class
counsel to pay for the work other lawyers performed in the case,
Hogan said in an order in July.  Mr. Gingold and co-class counsel
could end up with nearly $85.4 million.

In the black farmers case, the participation agreement among the
lawyers in the case includes a dispute resolution clause that will
require disagreements about fee allocation to be submitted to
binding arbitration.

The agreement said nine law firms are entitled to split 75% of any
legal fee award.  The firms in Washington are: Crowell, Stinson
Morrison Hecker, and Conlon, Frantz & Phelan.  Nine other firms,
including Patton Boggs, are entitled to divide 25% of the award.

In the coming weeks, the Justice Department is expected to respond
to the fee petition.  A Justice spokesman was not immediately
reached for comment on the $90.8 million request from the
plaintiffs' lawyers.


VOLKSWAGEN: Center for Class Action Fairness Files Opening Brief
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 5, 2011, the Center for Class Action Fairness LLC filed
its opening brief in the Third Circuit case of Dewey v. Volkswagen
(10-3618).  The case presents some interesting jurisdictional
issues as a side effect of Devlin, plus run-of-the-mill economic
quackery and an inexplicable decision to arbitrarily include in
the class a million vehicles without providing the same pecuniary
reimbursement benefit available to the rest of the class.  The
settlement as a whole is inexplicable: the class counsel's
economist calculated that defendant Volkswagen was going to spend
$55 million on a service action that would prevent $24 million in
future damage.  This, the economist concluded, was worth $103
million to the class: the $55 million spent on repairs, plus the
$24 million in future damage avoided, plus the $24 million in
increased resale value from not being damaged!

Most entertaining, however, was the economist's insistence that
the injunctive relief -- a letter to the class informing them of a
revised maintenance schedule -- was worth millions of dollars to
the class because now the class would get the benefits of
purchasing maintenance.  As the Center for Class Action Fairness
LLC argued:

"Imagine three hypothetical class-action settlements with Apple.
In Hypothetical Apple Settlement #1, every class member receives a
free $700 iPad. It is easy to conclude that the value of this
settlement would be $700/per class member; even if a class member
did not want the iPad, they could sell it on the market.

"In Hypothetical Apple Settlement #2, every class member receives
a brochure describing the iPad that contains a coupon for $50 off
an iPad. Here, the Class Action Fairness Act dictates the
valuation of the settlement: it is worth $50 times the number of
coupons redeemed. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1712.

"Now imagine Hypothetical Apple Settlement #3, where every class
member simply receives the iPad brochure (or say "educational iPad
information") without the coupon.  How should that settlement be
valued? According to Eads's methodology, the educational
information tells a class member that an iPad exists (whether or
not they already knew that: the Eads Report assumes 100% ignorance
replaced by 100% knowledge), and could lead a class member to
purchase an iPad worth $700 to the class member.  Therefore,
according to the Eads Report, Hypothetical Settlement #3 is worth
$700 per class member, as much as Hypothetical Settlement #1, and
more than a settlement that included a coupon."


WARNER MUSIC: Digital Music Pricing Class Suit in Discovery Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit against Warner Music Group
Corp. and other record companies relating to the pricing of
digital music downloads is in the discovery stage, 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 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to whether the practices of industry participants concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads violate Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, New York State General Business Law Section 340 et
seq., New York Executive Law Section 63(12), and related statutes.
On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice served the Company with a request for
information in the form of a Civil Investigative Demand as to
whether its activities relating to the pricing of digitally
downloaded music violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Both
investigations have now been closed.  Subsequent to the
announcements of the governmental investigations, more than thirty
putative class action lawsuits concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads were filed and were later consolidated for pre-
trial proceedings in the Southern District of New York.  The
consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges
conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their
content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and
fix prices for digital downloads.  The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory, statutory and treble damages.  All defendants,
including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on July 30, 2007.  On October 9, 2008, the
District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all
defendants, including the Company. On November 20, 2008,
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the order of the District
Court to the Circuit Court for the Second Circuit.  Oral argument
took place before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on
September 21, 2009.

On January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of
the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
On January 27, 2010, all defendants, including the Company, filed
a petition for rehearing en banc with the Second Circuit.  On
March 26, 2010, the Second Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing en banc.  On August 20, 2010, all defendants including
the Company, filed a petition for Certiorari before the Supreme
Court.  The petition was rejected on January 10, 2011.  Upon
remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims based mainly on arguments made but not addressed by
the District Court in defendants' original motion to dismiss.  On
July 18, 2011, the District Court issued an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part.  The
case will proceed into discovery, including a determination as to
whether class treatment is appropriate, based on a schedule to be
determined by the District Court.  The Company intends to defend
against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these suits.  Any litigation the Company may become
involved in as a result of the inquiries of the Attorney General
and Department of Justice, regardless of the merits of the claim,
could be costly and divert the time and resources of management.


WELLS FARGO: Settlement Deal Biggest Yet for '33 Act Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that Wells
Fargo and KPMG's $627 million securities class action settlement
is the biggest-yet settlement of class action claims arising from
the subprime mortgage crisis, surpassing the much higher-profile
$601.5 million Countrywide settlement from last February.

"It's a smaller case than Countrywide, and a larger settlement,"
said Max Berger, a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann and one of the lead counsel in the Wells Fargo class
action.  It's no surprise that Bernstein Litowitz (along with
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check)
led the Wells Fargo case to such a great result for shareholders.
The firm has been on a roll all summer long.

Consider just the five weeks.  Bernstein has been lead counsel in
two other important settlements: a $205 million deal with
Washington Mutual Inc. directors, officers, auditor, and
underwriters; and the first-ever settlement of a mortgage-backed
securities class action, a $125 million agreement with Wells
Fargo.  The firm has filed a half-dozen major new cases, including
Allstate's MBS suit against Morgan Stanley; Dexia and TIAA-CREF's
MBS complaints against Deutsche Bank (both of which ran in excess
of 100 pages); a 429-page opt-out complaint against Countrywide on
behalf of 15 big institutional investors; and, of course, the
leading derivative suit against News Corp (along with Grant &
Eisenhofer).  And then there are the recent judicial decisions
Bernstein Litowitz has won: Judge Jed Rakoff's first-ever
certification of a class of MBS investors in a megacase against
Merrill Lynch; Judge Kevin Castel's expansion of liability for
BofA and two former execs in the Merrill merger class action;
Judge Lewis Kaplan's ruling that class claims can proceed against
former Lehman executives; and Judge Nancy Gertner's denial of
State Street's motion to dismiss securities class action claims.
And that's all since July 1.

It's almost impossible to believe that the firm has only 15
partners and 55 lawyers; just drafting the Dexia, TIAA-CREF, and
Countrywide complaints must have taken untold hours.  But in an
interview on Aug. 5, founding partner Mr. Berger told me Bernstein
Litowitz is tiny by design.  The firm doesn't want to be a volume
player, cranking out putative class actions every time a company's
share price tanks.  It cultivates serious institutional investor
clients and carefully picks its battles, Mr. Berger said.  "We
don't want to bring every case," Mr. Berger said.  "And everyone
here works incredibly hard."

Even more remarkable than Bernstein Litowitz's size is its youth.
Mr. Berger said that at 65, he's the oldest partner.  The other 14
have an average age of 40.  Mr. Berger told me he's having a great
time watching the young lawyers he's hired and promoted come into
their own.  "They make me look good," he said.

In the Wells Fargo settlement, the firm will seek no more than
17.5 percent -- if of course the deal is approved by Manhattan
federal judge Richard Sullivan.  But 17.5 percent of $627 million
is almost $110 million.  "You're not going to believe this, but
from my perspective, I worry about paying our bills," Mr. Berger
said. "Not that I'm concerned we can't, but as an old-fashioned
person, I've lived through the ups and downs, good times and bad.

Thomson Reuters' Mr. Frankel said we can all drool now at the
prospect of a $110 million payday, but that was no sure thing when
Bernstein Litowitz decided to devote a big chunk of its resources
to subprime and MBS cases.  "These are tough cases," Mr. Berger
said.  In the early stages of subprime litigation, Mr. Berger
pointed out, a lot of federal judges seemed inclined to agree with
defendants who argued that investors lost money not because of
fraud but because of the overall decline in the economy.  But
Bernstein Litowitz stayed the course.

In prosecuting the subprime cases, the firm made a couple of
decisions that turned out to be really smart.  Bernstein lawyers
didn't waste a lot of time trying to go after the credit-rating
agencies, once it was clear that the agencies' First Amendment
defenses provided them with broad protection.  "They're
distractions and they cause delay," Mr. Berger told Mr. Frankel
me.  "When we have solvent defendants, it's not necessary to add
to our burden."

Similarly, the firm focused on claims under the Securities Act of
1933 that don't require a showing of the defendants' fraudulent
intent.  The Aug. 5 Wells Fargo deal, for instance, settles claims
that the bank misled investors in bond offerings -- but not that
it engaged in securities fraud.  Mr. Berger said the $627 million
settlement appears to be the largest resolution of a securities
class action that only includes '33 Act claims.

Mr. Frankel asked Mr. Berger if there was ever a moment, before
the settlements began to roll in, that he and his partners
questioned the wisdom of pushing into subprime and MBS class
actions.  "There was no looking back," he said.  "That's not how
we operate."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Gas-Pricing Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging manipulation of published gas price indices,
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.

Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the Company and others, in
each case seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The Company is
currently a defendant in class action litigation and other
litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri and Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of natural gas in those states. These cases were
transferred to the federal court in Nevada. In 2008, the court
granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the
Company and most of the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack
of standing. In 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in
the Company's favor. The court's order became final on July 18,
2011, and the Company expects that the Colorado plaintiffs will
appeal.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted the Company's joint motions for summary judgment to
preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal
Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive jurisdiction to resolve
those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs' class
certification motion as moot. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs'
filed their notice of appeal with the Nevada district court.
Because of the uncertainty around these current pending unresolved
issues, including an insufficient description of the purported
classes and other related matters, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposures at this time. However, it
is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these items
could result in future charges that may be material to the
Company's results of operations.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Royalty Payments Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit over alleged improper calculation of oil and
gas royalty payments, 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 September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County Colorado, alleging the Company improperly calculated oil
and gas royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that
it received from the sale of natural gas and extracted products,
improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts
withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs
sought to certify as a class of royalty interest owners, recover
underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments resulting
from calculation errors. The Company entered into a final partial
settlement agreement. The partial settlement agreement defined the
class members for class certification, reserved two claims for
court resolution, resolved all other class claims relating to past
calculation of royalty and overriding royalty payments, and
established certain rules to govern future royalty and overriding
royalty payments. This settlement resolved all claims relating to
past withholding for ad valorem tax payments and established a
procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding in the
future. The first reserved claim is whether the Company is
entitled to deduct in its calculation of royalty payments a
portion of the costs the Company incurs beyond the tailgates of
the treating or processing plants for mainline pipeline
transportation.  The Company received a favorable ruling on the
Company's motion for summary judgment on the first reserved claim.
Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and the Colorado Court of Appeals
found in the Company's favor in April 2011. In June 2011,
Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Colorado
Supreme Court.  The Company anticipates that court will issue a
decision on whether to grant further review later in 2011 or early
in 2012. The second reserved claim relates to whether the Company
is required to have proportionately increased the value of natural
gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and,
if required, whether the Company did so and are thus entitled to
deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs in
calculating royalty payments. The Company anticipates trial on the
second reserved claim following resolution of the first reserved
claim.  The Company believes its royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and Colorado law. At this time, the plaintiffs have
not provided the Company a sufficient framework to calculate an
estimated range of exposure related to their claims. However, it
is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of this item
could result in a future charge that may be material to the
Company's results of operations.


XENOPORT INC: Hearing on Plea to Dismiss Suit Set for Sept. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on XenoPort, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities lawsuit has been scheduled for September 23, 2011,
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 July 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as defendants.  The lawsuit alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in
connection with allegedly false, misleading and incomplete
statements issued by the defendants related to the Company's
product candidate, Horizant (gabapentin enacarbil) Extended-
Release Tablets, as a potential treatment of restless legs
syndrome ("RLS"), which allegedly made it impossible for investors
to meaningfully understand the drug's potential for approval by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  The plaintiff sought
damages, an award of its costs and injunctive and/or equitable
relief on behalf of a purported class of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period between
May 5, 2009, and February 17, 2010.  Another lawsuit was filed in
September 2010 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California making substantially similar
allegations, on behalf of a purported class of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period between
March 16, 2009, and May 5, 2010.  In November 2010, a motion to
consolidate the complaints and appoint a lead plaintiff was
granted.  In January 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  The Company responded to the complaint with a motion
to dismiss.  On May 20, 2011, the court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.  An
amended complaint was filed on June 14, 2011.  In the amended
complaint, the plaintiff seeks damages, an award of its costs and
injunctive and/or equitable relief on behalf of a purported class
of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period between May 7, 2008, and February 17, 2010.  The
Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on
July 29, 2011.  A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss has
been scheduled for September 23, 2011.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend this lawsuit vigorously. The Company is not able to
estimate the possible cost to the Company from this matter, as
this lawsuit is at an early stage and the Company cannot be
certain how long it may take to resolve this matter or the
possible amount of any damages that the Company may be required to
pay. Therefore, the Company has not established any reserves for
any potential liability relating to this lawsuit.


ZIPCAR INC: Accused of Imposing Unlawful Late Fees in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zipcar, Inc., is facing a putative class action lawsuit in
Massachusetts alleging that its late fees are unlawful penalties,
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 July 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Reed v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-
11340-RGS.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company's late fees are
unlawful penalties.  The lawsuit purports to assert claims against
the Company for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and for
declaratory judgment, and requests certification of a class
consisting of all Zipcar members who have incurred late fees at
the presently imposed rates.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified
amounts of restitution and disgorgement of the revenues and/or
profits that the Company allegedly received from imposing late
fees, as well as a declaration that such late fees are void,
unenforceable, and/or unconscionable, and an award of attorneys'
fees and costs.  While the Company intends to contest the
plaintiff's claims vigorously, neither the outcome of this
litigation nor the amount and range of potential damages or
exposure associated with the litigation can be assessed at this
time.


ZYNGA GAME: "Special Offer" Class Action Heads to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Prieskop at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action over "special offers" from Zynga's online Facebook games
will head to arbitration, a federal judge ruled.

Rebecca Swift filed the 2009 lawsuit on behalf of players of
YoVille game Zynga created for Facebook users.  In addition to
Zynga, Ms. Swift sued several entities that developed "special
offers" that she said are fraudulent and meant to drive up profit.

When the case was first filed, Zynga and its co-defendants could
not pursue arbitration provisions from their service contracts
because of a doctrine in California law that held certain class
waivers in consumer arbitration agreements as unconscionable.

In April 2011, however, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion that federal arbitration law pre-empts
the state law.

Zynga moved to compel arbitration and stay litigation, saying
Concepcion now requires courts to defer to contracts and enforce
bilateral arbitration.

Mr. Swift countered that Zynga could not enforce its terms of
service agreement, saying she did not give proper consent since
she agreed by clicking a button beneath a block of text to access
the game.

But U.S. District Judge Elizabeth LaPorte rejected this argument
on the grounds that a reasonable internet user would know he was
entering into a legal contract under those circumstances and could
easily access the text of the terms of service.

Judge LaPorte also found that Zynga had not waived its right to
compel arbitration by raising the argument earlier.  The law did
not allow Zynga to elect arbitration before Concepcion and the
"failure to reserve" argument is based on a misconstruction of the
contract's language and purpose, the 17-page decision states.

Mr. Swift furthermore is not exempt from the arbitration clause as
a victim of theft because she failed to argue that her claims met
the definition of theft, Judge LaPorte ruled.

The judge also held that Zynga's terms of service agreement was
not unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.  The legal
definition of unconscionable requires both procedural and
substantive unconscionability, and Ms. Swift could not demonstrate
procedural unconscionability.

After granting Zynga's motion, the judge disagreed that the
companies behind the "special offers" have standing to enforce
arbitration as agents of Zynga.

A third-party liabilities section of the terms of service
agreement created a distinction between Zynga and those companies,
Judge LaPorte said, adding that the companies acted as
contractors, not agents.

Though they cannot participate in the arbitration, Judge LaPorte
agreed to stay the litigation involving them until Zynga and
Ms. Swift sort out their dispute.

Because of these findings, the judge denied competing discovery
motions as moot.

A copy of the Order Granting Zynga's Motion to Compel Arbitration;
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Other Defendants' Parallel
Motion to Stay; Denying as Moot: (1) Motion to Compel Discovery,
(2) Motion to Hear Cross-Motion to Stay Discovery on Shortened
Time, (3) Motion to Stay Discovery; Granting Motion to Seal in
Swift, et al. v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., et al.,  Case No. 09-
cv-05443 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/10/zynga.pdf


* India's Class Action Facility Covers Small Investors
------------------------------------------------------
Ronojoy Banerjee, writing for The Financial Express, reports that
the facility of class action lawsuit to be included in India's
soon-to-be amended Company Law for the benefit of small investors
will also be extended to public depositors in unlisted companies
currently deprived of any armor of protection, according to
sources from the ministry of corporate affairs.

Class action is a suit in which a group of people with the same
grievance sue a defendant claiming damages.  This is reckoned to
be a facility especially suitable for small investors and is set
to find a place in the Companies Bill which has recently been
vetted by a Parliamentary committee and is expected to be tabled
in the House in the winter session.

Concerned over the lack of regulatory oversight over fund raising
from the public by unlisted companies through issuance of bonds
and debentures, the ministry has decided to empower such investors
with the tool of the class action suit.  Last month, the finance
ministry, too, has made a proposal to this effect, the sources
said.  Investors subscribe to these bonds on the promise of high
returns and there are several instances of them taken for a ride
by the firms concerned.

"Investors are lured by companies on the promise of higher
returns.  But it turns out that they have no intention of paying
back.  What option do investors have in such cases?" an official
source wondered.

He said that the provision has been included in the Companies Bill
which needs approval from the Prime Minister Office before going
to Parliament in a couple of weeks.  Since unlisted companies are
not required to follow stringent disclosure norms, the government
feels it could have a damaging impact on investors.

In an interview to FE, corporate affairs minister Veerappa Moily
had said that the ministry of corporate affairs would be
addressing the issue of small investors in unlisted companies very
seriously.  "We are very serious about the matter.  Small holders
cannot go to the court because it is not viable.  However, if a
group of investors or depositors as a class can go to court, it
would save them of a lot of legal hassles," he had said.

Managing director of Corporate Professionals Pavan K Vijay said
that the government's move would go a long way in empowering small
investors.

He said that since it was difficult for government to oversee
every activity of unlisted companies, the investors should play
that role.  "At present public depositors in unlisted companies
have little power.  Once the class action suit comes into force,
it should keep such erring companies on their toes," he said.

The matter recently came to light when media reports blew the lid
over various unlisted companies that were taking deposits from the
public on the promise of very high returns.  "We want investors to
become more vigilant. Government cannot monitor every activity;
hence investors need to be forthright in this matter," a
government source said.

The mechanism of class action suit was first introduced in the
Companies Bill in 2009 following the Satyam carnage.

However, it was restricted only to the shareholders of the listed
companies.  In fact, soon after the scam broke out, two leading
law firms in the US had filed class action suits against the
promoters of Satyam on behalf of shareholders.


                            *********

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  * * *