---

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

             Wednesday, August 17, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 162

                             Headlines

ABT BUILDING: May Face Class Action Over Trim Board Problems
AES CORP: Class Suit in Brazil Still Awaiting Expert Opinion
AES CORP: Briefing on Motions in Merger-Related Suits Suspended
AES CORP: Will Defend Katrina-Related Suit If Served
AGENUS INC: Appeals From IPO Class Suit Settlement Still Pending

ALMOST FAMILY: Class Action Lawsuit in Kentucky Still Pending
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Final Settlement Hearing in "Rand" This Fall
APPLE INC: Conspired to Increase e-Book Prices, Suit Claims
ARBITRON INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
AUTOBYTEL INC: Appeal from IPO Class Suit Deal Remains Pending

AUTOBYTEL INC: Unit Continues to Defend Appeal from IPO Settlement
AVX CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Suit in South Carolina
B2MOBILE LLC: Settles Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Ads
B & H EDUCATION: Faces Wage & Hour Class Action in California
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Guidant Still Defends Product Liability Suits

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 1st Circuit Affirms Judgment in Securities Suit
BRISTOW GROUP: Superior Offshore Suit Dismissal Subject to Appeal
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Final Approval of Class Settlement Obtained
CAPITAL ONE: Awaits Court Decision in Interchange Litigation
CAPITAL ONE: Defending Interchange Fee Class Suits in Canada

CAPITAL ONE: Late Fees Litigation Remains Stayed
CAPITAL ONE: Unit Still Defends Credit Card Interest Rate Suits
CAPITAL ONE: Discovery Ongoing in Checking Account Overdraft Suit
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Grandview Cemetery Suit in Discovery Stage
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Labor Suits in California

CHEVRON CORP: Judge Fails to Provide Fair Trial, Plaintiffs Say
CHINA MEDICINE: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
CORVEL CORP: Final Hearing on "Williams" Suit Deal Set for Nov. 4
CORVEL CORP: Initial Settlement Payments Sent Under "Roche" Deal
CR BARD: 8th Cir. Denies St. Francis' Petition for Re-Hearing

CYNOSURE INC: Class Certification Motion Still Under Advisement
DATA LISTING: Sacked Call Center Employees Mull Class Action
EHEALTH ONTARIO: Government Vows to Fight Employee Class Action
ENCORE CAPITAL: Court Okays Class Action Settlement
EQ3 LTD: Recalls 20 Scarpa Dining Tables Due to Collapse Hazard

ERIN CAPITAL: Accused of Making Illegal Collections in Illinois
FAIR ISAAC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remanded
GOLDMAN SACHS: 7th Cir. Refuses to Certify T-Bond Class Action
GOLIATH INC: Class Action Press Conference Scheduled for Today
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Printer Class Action

M & F WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Suits
MACERICH COMPANY: Court to Hear Wage Suit Settlement on Sept. 2
MECHEL OAO: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Share Price Plunge
META FINANCIAL: MetaBank to Attend Mediation Session Next Month
META FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit in Iowa Now in Discovery

MILLER ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
NESS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Statewide Class Actions
PRICELINE.COM INC: Remaining Claim in "Peluso" Suit Dismissed
PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Suit Settlement Appeal

SEALED AIR: Cryovac-related Suits Still Stayed by Grace Bankruptcy
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in South Carolina
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Units Continue to Defend Katrina-Related Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Obtains Final Approval of AirTran Settlement
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Certification Plea Pending in Suit vs. AirTran

STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Suits in Discovery Stage
SYNGENTA CROP: Magistrate Upholds Order on Atrazine Documents
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Ontario Horsepower Suit Remains Pending
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Quebec Horsepower Suit
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Defends Antitrust Suits in U.S. and Canada

THESTREET INC: Awaits Decision on Appeal from Suit Settlement
TIM HORTONS: Arguments on Franchisee Class Action Begin
TRAVELZOO INC: Disputes Federal Securities Class Action
UGI CORP: Unit Continues to Defend "Swiger" Suits in West Virginia
UNITED FIRE: Hurricane Katrina-related Suits Remain Pending

UNITED PARCEL: Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending in California
UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Approval of "Barber" Suit Settlement
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Suit in New York
UNITED STATES: DHS Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions
WALMART: Settles Life Insurance Class Action for $2 Million

WYETH CANADA: Sechelt Woman Launches Premarin Class Action
ZORAN CORP: Continues to Defend Merger-related Suit in Delaware
ZORAN CORP: Calif. Suit Stayed Pending Litigation of Del. Suit




                             *********

ABT BUILDING: May Face Class Action Over Trim Board Problems
------------------------------------------------------------
A Trim Board class action may be an option for home and business
owners who had their property installed with this wood trim
product and experienced problems, such as decay or mold growth.
Potentially, a Trim Board class action lawsuit could allow these
individuals a chance to collectively file a claim to seek
compensation for a loss of resale value and other damages.  To
find out if you may be able to participate in a Trim Board class
action, visit http://www.classaction.org/trimboard.htmlto receive
a no cost evaluation of your claim.

A Trim board class action lawsuit may be possible for property
owners experiencing problems with this wood trim, as it has been
alleged that the product is defective.  Manufactured by ABT
Building Products Corporation and Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
and marketed for exterior use, TrimBoard is allegedly unsuitable
for outside use due to its tendency to absorb moisture under
normal conditions.  Allegedly, this moisture absorption can
compromise the fiberboard's visual appearance, stability and
longevity and lead to decay, rotting and swelling. Furthermore,
these problems could reportedly result in insect infestation and
the growth of fungi, mildew or mold.

If you experienced TrimBoard problems after your property was
installed with this wood trim, Class Action.org has more
information on your possible legal options.  To learn more about
the potential for a Trim Board class action and to receive a free
online review of your claim, visit Class Action.org today.  The
Trim board class action attorneys working with the site are
providing this case evaluation at no cost and remain committed to
protecting the rights of property owners who experienced problems
with TrimBoard wood trim, which was also sold under the names Pro
Trim and Choice Trim.

                      About Class Action.org

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


AES CORP: Class Suit in Brazil Still Awaiting Expert Opinion
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit in Brazil against a subsidiary of The AES
Corporation is still in the evidentiary state awaiting the
production of the court's expert opinion, 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.

AES Florestal, Ltd. ("Florestal"), had been operating a pole
factory and had other assets, including a wooded area known as
"Horto Renner," in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
(collectively, "Property"). Florestal had been under the control
of AES Sul ("Sul") since October 1997, when Sul was created
pursuant to a privatization by the Government of the State of Rio
Grande do Sul. After it came under the control of Sul, Florestal
performed an environmental audit of the entire operational cycle
at the pole factory. The audit discovered 200 barrels of solid
creosote waste and other contaminants at the pole factory. The
audit concluded that the prior operator of the pole factory,
Companhia Estadual de Energia El‚trica ("CEEE"), had been using
those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at
the factory. Sul and Florestal subsequently took the initiative of
communicating with Brazilian authorities, as well as CEEE, about
the adoption of containment and remediation measures. The Public
Attorney's Office has initiated a civil inquiry (Civil Inquiry n.
24/05) to investigate potential civil liability and has requested
that the police station of Triunfo institute a police
investigation (IP number 1041/05) to investigate potential
criminal liability regarding the contamination at the pole
factory. The parties filed defenses in response to the civil
inquiry. The Public Attorney's Office then requested an injunction
which the judge rejected on September 26, 2008, and the Public
Attorney's office no longer has a right to appeal the decision.
The environmental agency ("FEPAM") has also started a procedure
(Procedure n. 088200567/059) to analyze the measures that shall be
taken to contain and remediate the contamination. Also, in March
2000, Sul filed suit against CEEE in the 2nd Court of Public
Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in Sul's name the
Property that it acquired through the privatization but that
remained registered in CEEE's name. During those proceedings, AES
subsequently waived its claim to re-register the Property and
asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the Property.
That claim is pending. In November 2005, the 7th Court of Public
Treasure of Porto Alegre ruled that the Property must be returned
to CEEE. CEEE has had sole possession of Horto Renner since
September 2006 and of the rest of the Property since April 2006.
In February 2008, Sul and CEEE signed a "Technical Cooperation
Protocol" pursuant to which they requested a new deadline from
FEPAM in order to present a proposal. In March 2008, the State
Prosecution office filed a Public Class Action against AES
Florestal, AES Sul and CEEE, requiring an injunction for the
removal of the alleged sources of contamination and the payment of
an indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($4 million). The
injunction was rejected and the case is in the evidentiary state
awaiting the production of the court's expert opinion. The
proposal was delivered on April 8, 2008. FEPAM responded by
indicating that the parties should undertake the first step of the
proposal which would be to retain a contractor. In its response,
Sul indicated that such step should be undertaken by CEEE as the
relevant environmental events resulted from CEEE's operations. It
is estimated that remediation could cost approximately R$14.7
million ($9 million). Discussions between Sul and CEEE are
ongoing.


AES CORP: Briefing on Motions in Merger-Related Suits Suspended
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on pending motions in the class action lawsuits related
to The AES Corporation's proposed acquisition of DPL, Inc., has
been suspended following the parties execution of a memorandum of
understanding in July 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 April 20, 2011, the Company announced the execution of a
definitive agreement (the "Merger Agreement") with DPL Inc.
("DPL"), the parent company of Dayton Power & Light Company, a
utility company based in Ohio. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, AES agreed to acquire DPL for an enterprise value of
$4.7 billion, consisting of cash proceeds of $3.5 billion and the
assumption of net debt of approximately $1.2 billion. Through its
operating subsidiaries DP&L and DPL Energy Resources, DPL serves
over 500,000 customers in West Central Ohio. Additionally, DPL
operates over 3,800 MW of power generation facilities and provides
competitive retail energy services to industrial and commercial
customers. Upon closing of the transaction, DPL will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of AES.

Purported stockholders of DPL filed nine putative derivative
and/or class actions in Ohio state court and three such suits in
Ohio federal court against DPL and its board of directors relating
to DPL's agreement to merge with the Company. Most of those
lawsuits name the Company as a defendant. The lawsuits are
substantially similar and allege that the price offered in the
merger is unfair, DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duty by
agreeing to the merger at an unfair price, and the Company aided
and abetted that breach by offering an unfair price. The lawsuits
seek to enjoin the merger and some suits also seek unspecified
damages. One of the state lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice. The defendants' motions to dismiss the
remaining eight state lawsuits are pending. The three federal
lawsuits were consolidated, and the plaintiffs in those suits
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting state and federal
disclosure claims and moved to enjoin the merger prior to the vote
of DPL's shareholders on the merger. The defendants filed motions
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The federal court
established a briefing schedule on those motions and ordered
limited discovery on certain disclosure claims. Subsequently, in
July 2011, the defendants and the federal plaintiffs executed a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
litigation, subject to certain confirmatory discovery and court
approval, pursuant to which DPL would make certain additional
disclosures to stockholders to its final proxy statement prior to
the shareholder vote on the merger. Such a settlement, if a
stipulation of settlement is filed with and ultimately approved by
the federal court, would also dismiss the consolidated federal
lawsuits with prejudice and release all claims by DPL stockholders
concerning the merger. After execution of the MOU, the federal
court suspended briefing on the motions pending before it. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will assert them
vigorously if the potential settlement is not consummated;
however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in
its efforts.


AES CORP: Will Defend Katrina-Related Suit If Served
----------------------------------------------------
The AES Corporation 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, that it hasn't been served with the
new class action lawsuit related to Hurricane Katrina.

In May 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Mississippi
federal court against the Company and numerous unrelated
companies. The lawsuit alleges that greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly
increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina. The
plaintiffs assert claims for public and private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, and declaratory judgment. The plaintiffs
seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business,
clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify
their alleged damages. These and other plaintiffs previously
brought a substantially similar lawsuit in the federal court but
failed to obtain relief. The Company has not been served with the
new lawsuit to date. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses and will assert them vigorously if it is served; however,
there can be no assurances that it would be successful in its
efforts.


AGENUS INC: Appeals From IPO Class Suit Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from a settlement of coordinated lawsuits over initial
public offerings remain pending, according to Agenus Inc.'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, its Chairman and CEO, Garo H. Armen, Ph.D., and two
investment banking firms that served as underwriters in its
initial public offering were named as defendants in a federal
civil class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. Substantially similar actions
were filed concerning the initial public offerings for more than
300 different issuers, and the cases were coordinated for pre-
trial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92. The lawsuit alleges that the brokerage arms
of the investment banking firms charged secret excessive
commissions to certain of their customers in return for
allocations of the Company's stock in the offering. The lawsuit
also alleges that shares of the Company's stock were allocated to
certain of the investment banking firms' customers based upon
agreements by such customers to purchase additional shares of its
stock in the secondary market. The parties have reached a global
settlement of the litigation. Under the settlement, the insurers
will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the
defendants, and the defendants will bear no financial liability.
Agenus and the other defendants will receive complete dismissals
from the case. In October 2009, the Court entered an order
granting final approval of the settlement, and subsequently
judgment was entered. Various objectors have filed appeals. If for
any reason the settlement does not become effective, the Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intend
to defend the action vigorously. The Company is unable to predict
the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate its potential
liability, if any.

Agenus Inc. is a biotechnology company working to develop
treatments for cancers and infectious diseases.


ALMOST FAMILY: Class Action Lawsuit in Kentucky Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Almost Family Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action complaint in Kentucky, 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 April 27, 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article
exploring the relationship between the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services home health payment policies and the utilization
rates of certain home health agencies.  Following The Wall Street
Journal article, on May 12, 2010, the United States Senate Finance
Committee sent a letter to each of the publicly traded companies
mentioned in the article requesting information including Medicare
utilization rates for therapy visits.  The Company is cooperating
fully with the Senate Finance Committee regarding the requested
information.

Four putative class action lawsuits pending against Almost Family
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky were consolidated into a single class action lawsuit
entitled In Re Almost Family Securities Litigation.  The
consolidated complaint was filed on March 4, 2011.  The complaint
refers to The Wall Street Journal article and the subsequent
governmental investigations and alleges that the Company, its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer violated
federal securities laws.  The complaint seeks damages and awards
of attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company and its officers have
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but the motion is not yet
fully briefed.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Final Settlement Hearing in "Rand" This Fall
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is
expected to hold the final hearing to consider approval of a
settlement of a class action lawsuit against American National
Insurance Company in the fall of 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.

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit
wherein the Plaintiff proposes to certify a class of persons who
purchased certain American National proprietary deferred annuity
products in the State of California (Rand v. American National
Insurance Company, U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, filed February 12, 2009). Plaintiff alleges that
American National violated the California Insurance, Business and
Professions, Welfare and Institutions, and Civil Codes through its
fixed and equity-indexed deferred annuity sales and marketing
practices by not sufficiently providing proper disclosure notices
on the nature of surrender fees, commissions and bonus features
and not considering the suitability of the product. Certain claims
raised by Plaintiff relate to sales of annuities to the elderly.
Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, restitution, interest,
penalties, attorneys' fees, punitive damages and rescissionary
and/or injunctive relief in an unspecified amount. In September
2010, the Court granted partial summary judgment for American
National due to the nonexistence of certain California Insurance
Code violations, and granted partial summary judgment against
American National as to whether the Plaintiff received a
disclosure notice required by the California Insurance Code.
Plaintiff contends that the alleged disclosure violation will
support a California Unfair Competition Law claim.

American National negotiated a settlement agreement with the
plaintiff. During the quarter ended March 31, 2011, American
National reserved $12,000,000 for this settlement agreement. The
Court has reviewed the settlement agreement terms and entered an
Order of Preliminary Approval and ordered notice to go to the
parties. The Court is expected to hold a final approval hearing in
the fall of 2011. In the event final approval is not granted,
American National believes that it has meritorious defenses to
this lawsuit; however, no prediction can be made as to the
probability or remoteness of any recovery against American
National.


APPLE INC: Conspired to Increase e-Book Prices, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Petru, Marcus Mathis, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Apple Inc., Hachette Book Group,
Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., Macmillan Publishers, Inc.,
Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Simon & Schuster, Inc., Case No. 3:11-
cv-03892 (N.D. Calif., August 9, 2011) alleges that Apple and the
other Defendants, which are publishers, are engaged in
anticompetitive conduct.

The Plaintiffs said in their complaint that i) the Defendants
increased and stabilized eBook pricing, and (ii) forced Amazon to
stop discounting eBook prices on Publisher Defendants' titles.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful
conduct, Class Members in various states have been injured in
their businesses and property in that they paid more for eBooks
than they would have paid absent the Defendants' unlawful conduct,
the Plaintiffs argue.  The Defendants' conspiracy and agreements
worked as intended, they added.

Mr. Petru, a resident of Oakland, California, purchased at least
one eBook at a price above $9.99 from a Publisher Defendant for
use on his Amazon Kindle.  Mr. Mathis, a resident of Natchez,
Mississippi, has purchased several eBooks from Publisher
Defendants at a price above $9.99 for use on his Sony Reader.

Apple is a California corporation and is a leading manufacturer of
mobile devices designed to distribute, store, and display digital
media.  Hachette Book is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and its
imprints include Little, Brown & Co. and Grand Central Publishing.
HarperCollins is a leading U.S. trade publisher and its imprints
include Ecco, Harper, Harper Perennial and William Morrow.
Macmillanis a group of leading publishing companies and its U.S.
publishers include Farrar Straus and Giroux, Henry Holt & Company,
Picador, and St. Martin's Press.  Penguin Group (USA) is the U.S.
affiliate of Penguin Group, one of the largest English-language
trade book publishers in the world.  Penguin's imprints include
Viking, Riverhead Books, Dutton and Penguin Books.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shana Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-4486
          Facsimile: (866) 734-0622
          E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com


ARBITRON INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitron Inc. continues to defend itself in a securities class
action lawsuit initiated by a local union in New York, 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 30, 2008, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund filed a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a purported Class of all purchasers of
Arbitron common stock between July 19, 2007, and November 26,
2007. The plaintiff asserts that Arbitron, Stephen B. Morris (the
Company's former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer),
and Sean R. Creamer (currently the Company's Executive Vice
President, U.S. Media Services & formerly Chief Financial Officer)
violated federal securities laws. The plaintiff alleges
misrepresentations and omissions relating, among other things, to
the delay in commercialization of the Company's PPM ratings
service in November 2007, as well as stock sales during the period
by company insiders who were not named as defendants and Messrs.
Morris and Creamer. The plaintiff seeks class certification,
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees, among
other remedies. On September 22, 2008 the plaintiff filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint. On November 25, 2008, the Company,
Mr. Morris, and Mr. Creamer each filed Motions to Dismiss the
Amended Class Action Complaint. In September 2009, the plaintiff
sought leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in
lieu of oral argument on the pending Motions to Dismiss. The court
granted leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint and
denied the pending Motions to Dismiss without prejudice.

On or about October 19, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint. Briefing on motions to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint was completed in March 2010. The
Company and each of Mr. Morris and Mr. Creamer again moved to
dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On
September 24, 2010, the Court granted Mr. Creamer's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims against him, and all claims against
Mr. Creamer were dismissed with prejudice. The motions to dismiss
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint by the Company and Mr.
Morris were denied. The Company and Mr. Morris each then filed
answers denying the claims.

The Company intends to defend itself and its interests vigorously
against these allegations

Arbitron Inc. is a media and marketing information services firm
primarily serving radio, advertising agencies, cable and broadcast
television, advertisers, retailers, out-of-home media, online
media and print media.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Appeal from IPO Class Suit Deal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order approving a settlement in the class
action lawsuit relating to Autobytel Inc.'s initial public
offering 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.

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Autobytel, certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in the Company's
initial public offering.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which
is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  This
action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs allege that
the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket
at predetermined prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus
for the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading
in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose
these arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.  The action is being coordinated with approximately 300
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including the
parties in the Autobytel case, reached a settlement.  The insurers
for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the
settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including Autobytel.
On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  The settlement approval was appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was
dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the district court
to determine if the appellant is a class member with standing to
appeal.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the
Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this
matter.  If the settlement does not survive appeal, and Autobytel
is found liable, it is possible that damages could be greater than
Autobytel's insurance coverage, and the impact on Autobytel's
financial statements could be material.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Unit Continues to Defend Appeal from IPO Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
An affiliate of Autobytel, Inc., continues to defend itself from
an appeal taken from a court order approving a settlement in a
class action lawsuit filed in relation to the unit's initial
public offering, 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.

Between April and September 2001, eight separate purported class
actions virtually identical to the one filed against Autobytel
were filed against Autoweb.com, Inc., certain of Autoweb's former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in Autoweb's
initial public offering.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which
is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  It
purports to allege violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants
agreed to allocate stock in Autoweb's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
Plaintiffs also allege that the prospectus for Autoweb's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The action is
being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  The parties in the
approximately 300 coordinated cases, including Autoweb's case,
reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Autoweb.  On October 6, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.  The settlement approval
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  One appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was
remanded to the district court to determine if the appellant is a
class member with standing to appeal.  Due to inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict
the ultimate outcome of this matter.  If the settlement does not
survive that appeal, and Autoweb is found liable, it is possible
that damages could be greater than Autoweb's insurance coverage
and the impact on Autobytel's financial statements could be
material.


AVX CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Suit in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation continues to defend itself from a putative class
action lawsuit in South Carolina, 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.

There are two suits pending with respect to property adjacent to
the Company's South Carolina factory claiming property values have
been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain
pollutants from its property.  On November 27, 2007, a suit was
filed in the South Carolina State Court by certain individuals
seeking certification as a class action which has not yet been
determined.  Another suit is a commercial suit filed on
January 16, 2008 in South Carolina State Court.  Both of these
suits are pending.  The Company intends to defend vigorously the
claims that have been asserted in these two lawsuits. At this
stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to
responsible parties or the amount, if any, of damages.  It is not
reasonably possible to estimate a range of loss and accordingly,
no accrual for costs has been recorded and the potential impact of
either of the lawsuits on the Company's financial position,
results of operations, and cash flows cannot be determined at this
time.


B2MOBILE LLC: Settles Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Edelson McGuire, LLC on August 12 disclosed that a settlement has
been reached in a class action lawsuit relating to the alleged
transmission of text-message advertisements to 47 million people
nationwide.

According to the settlement agreement filed in Oakland Federal
Court, the lawsuit is against two companies that allegedly
benefited from text-message advertisements sent by one of the
companies, which included promotions for automobiles, online
education, payday loans, and real estate, in violation of a
provision of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The
text messages involved either came from the shortened phone number
"77893" or contained a Web site link, such as: 1500cashasap.com,
offerspotusa.com, myauto411.com, usauto101.com, topcash88.com,
car499.com, topcash1500.com, jumpoffer.com, myedu411.com,
jobsusa411.com, and homesusa911.com.

The settlement, which was preliminarily approved July 29, 2011,
establishes a $12.2 million cash settlement fund out of which
payments of up to $100 will be made to each wireless account
holder who received a text message from Defendant B2Mobile, as
well as administrative costs and attorneys' fees.  The defendants
B2Mobile LLC and LeadClick Media, Inc. have denied the
advertisements violated any laws or were in any way improper or
harmful to consumers.  The Court must still decide whether to
finally approve the settlement.

Edelson McGuire in Chicago -- a firm that regularly handles
consumer technology class actions -- were appointed by the Court
to serve as attorneys for the class.  "This settlement is a
positive step for consumers nationwide and sets an example for
others in the mobile messaging industry to follow," commented Ryan
D. Andrews, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The lawyers for the Class, Jay Edelson, Myles McGuire, Ryan D.
Andrews, and Christopher L. Dore, encourage those who believe they
received the text messages described above to visit
http://www.TextAdClass.comto learn more details about the
settlement and how to apply for a settlement payment.  Class
members may also call the Settlement Administrator at 1- 866-591-
7263 or Edelson McGuire at 1-866-354-3015 for more information.


B & H EDUCATION: Faces Wage & Hour Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
On July 28, 2011, the California class action attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit
against B & H Education, Inc. in San Diego, California alleging
the Beauty Schools of violating the rights of admissions advisers
under the California Labor Code.  The class action lawsuit against
B & H Education for wage & hour violations was filed in San Diego
Superior Court, entitled Cardwell vs. B & H Education Inc., Case
No. 37-2011-00095291.

The class action complaint filed against B & H Education by the
San Diego overtime attorneys alleges that the beauty schools
unlawfully altered employee time records in order to create the
false illusion that proper meal breaks were given to employees.
More specifically, the complaint states B & H Education "altered
employee time records by recording fictitious thirty (30) minute
meal breaks . . .  when in fact the employees did not take a meal
break."  According to the California Labor Code, employers are
required to provide non-exempt employees with a 30-minute,
uninterrupted and off-duty meal break for every 5 hours of work.

The B & H Education Admissions Advisors class action lawsuit
further alleges that the beauty schools intentionally
misclassified the admissions advisors as exempt from overtime
compensation in order to avoid wage & hour requirements in
violation of California labor laws.  In the complaint, admissions
officers claim to have performed basic day-to-day activities or
report to a higher authority with issues, which means these
employees fall outside the scope of "'administrative' or
'executive' exemptions," and therefore should not be exempt from
overtime pay.  Under California overtime laws, employers are
required to pay employees overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of eight hours in a single workday or forty hours
in a workweek.

For more information, visit the B & H Education Admissions
Advisors class action Web site or call (866) 771-7099.

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Guidant Still Defends Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation's subsidiary, Guidant Corporation,
continues to defend itself against product liability lawsuits
around the world, 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.

Two product liability class action lawsuits and approximately 20
individual lawsuits involving approximately 20 individual
plaintiffs remain pending in various state and federal
jurisdictions against Guidant alleging personal injuries
associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain
2005 and 2006 product communications. The majority of the cases in
the United States are pending in federal court but approximately
five cases are currently pending in state courts. On November 7,
2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established
MDL-1708 (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota and appointed a single judge to preside over all the
cases in the MDL. In April 2006, the personal injury plaintiffs
and certain third-party payors served a Master Complaint in the
MDL asserting claims for class action certification, alleging
claims of strict liability, negligence, fraud, breach of warranty
and other common law and/or statutory claims and seeking punitive
damages. The majority of claimants do not allege physical injury,
but sue for medical monitoring and anxiety. On July 12, 2007, the
Company reached an agreement to settle certain claims, including
those associated with the 2005 and 2006 product communications,
which was amended on November 19, 2007. Under the terms of the
amended agreement, subject to certain conditions, the Company
would pay a total of up to $240 million covering up to 8,550
patient claims, including almost all of the claims that have been
consolidated in the MDL as well as other filed and unfiled claims
throughout the United States. On June 13, 2006, the Minnesota
Supreme Court appointed a single judge to preside over all
Minnesota state court lawsuits involving cases arising from the
product communications. At the conclusion of the MDL settlement in
2010, 8,180 claims had been approved for participation. As a
result, the Company made all required settlement payments of
approximately $234 million, and no other payments are due under
the MDL settlement agreement. On April 6, 2009, September 24,
2009, April 16, 2010 and August 30, 2010, the MDL Court issued
orders dismissing with prejudice the claims of most plaintiffs
participating in the settlement; the claims of settling plaintiffs
whose cases were pending in state courts have been or will be
dismissed by those courts. On April 22, 2010, the MDL Court
certified an order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation remanding the remaining cases to their trial courts of
origin.

The Company is aware of approximately 29 Guidant product liability
lawsuits pending internationally associated with defibrillator
systems or pacemaker systems, including devices involved in the
2005 and 2006 product communications, generally seeking monetary
damages. Six of those suits pending in Canada are putative class
actions, four of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead
class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court
certified a class of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted
in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. On
May 8, 2009, the Court certified a class of persons in whom
pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members
with derivative claims.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 1st Circuit Affirms Judgment in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of judgment
in favor of Boston Scientific Corporation in the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed 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 September 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported
securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the period
March 31, 2003 through August 23, 2005, alleging that the Company
and certain of its officers violated certain sections of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Four other plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, each
filed additional purported securities class action suits in the
same court on behalf of the same purported class. On February 15,
2006, the District Court ordered that the five class actions be
consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public Employee
Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on April 17, 2006. The consolidated amended
complaint alleges that the Company made material misstatements and
omissions by failing to disclose the supposed merit of the Medinol
litigation and DOJ investigation relating to the 1998 NIR ON(R)
Ranger with Sox stent recall, problems with the TAXUS(R) drug-
eluting coronary stent systems that led to product recalls, and
the Company's ability to satisfy U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) regulations concerning medical device quality. The
consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 8, 2006, which
was granted by the District Court on March 30, 2007. On April 16,
2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the
dismissal of only plaintiff's TAXUS(R) stent recall-related claims
and remanded the matter for further proceedings. On February 25,
2009, the District Court certified a class of investors who
acquired the Company's securities during the period November 30,
2003 through July 15, 2004. The defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment and a hearing on the motion was held on April 21,
2010. On April 27, 2010, the District Court granted defendants'
motion and on April 28, 2010, the District Court entered judgment
in defendants' favor and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal on May 27, 2010. The oral argument in the First
Circuit Court of Appeals was held February 10, 2011. On August 4,
2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's entry of judgment in favor of the defendants.


BRISTOW GROUP: Superior Offshore Suit Dismissal Subject to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Offshore International Inc. has filed notice that it will
appeal the dismissal of its class action complaint against Bristow
Group Inc., 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 June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow
Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The purported class
action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Among other things,
the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to
raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services
between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005.  The plaintiff was
seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
In September 2010, the court granted the Company's and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds.  The
plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking
leave to amend its original complaint which was partially granted
to permit limited discovery.  The Company and the other defendants
again filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit which were granted.
The plaintiff has since filed notice that it will appeal the
judgment.  The Company intends to continue to defend against this
lawsuit vigorously.  The Company is currently unable to determine
whether it could have a material effect on its business, financial
condition or results of operations.


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Final Approval of Class Settlement Obtained
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye Partners L.P. obtained in May 2011 final court approval of
an agreement to settle a consolidated amended class action filed
against the Company in Texas, 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 19, 2010, Buckeye consummated a transaction pursuant
to a plan and agreement of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
its general partner, Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., BGH's general
partner and Grand Ohio, LLC ("Merger Sub"), its subsidiary.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub was merged into BGH,
with BGH as the surviving entity (the "Merger").  In the
transaction, the incentive compensation agreement (also referred
to as the incentive distribution rights) held by Buckeye's general
partner was cancelled, the general partner units held by its
general partner (representing an approximate 0.5% general partner
interest in Buckeye) were converted to a non-economic general
partner interest, all of the economic interest in BGH was acquired
by Buckeye and BGH unitholders received aggregate consideration of
approximately 20.0 million of Buckeye's LP Units.

On July 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management LLC, BGH GP Holdings,
LLC and each of MainLine Management's directors in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas under the caption Broadbased
Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al.  In the Petition, the
plaintiff alleged that MainLine Management and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public unitholders by,
among other things, acting to facilitate the sale of BGH to
Buckeye in order to facilitate the gradual sale by BGH GP of its
interest in BGH and failing to disclose all material facts in
order that the BGH unitholders could cast an informed vote on the
Merger Agreement.  Among other things, the Petition sought an
order certifying a class consisting of all BGH unitholders, a
determination that the action was a proper derivative action,
damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.

On August 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management, Merger Sub, Buckeye,
Buckeye GP and each of MainLine Management's directors in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas under the caption Henry
James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al.  In the Petition, the
plaintiff alleged that MainLine Management and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public unitholders by,
among other things, failing to disclose all material facts in
order that the BGH unitholders could cast an informed vote on the
Merger Agreement.  The Petition also alleged that Buckeye, Buckeye
GP and Merger Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty.  Among other things, the Petition sought an order certifying
a plaintiff class consisting of all of BGH unitholders, an order
enjoining the Merger, rescission of the Merger, damages in an
unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management, BGH GP, ArcLight
Capital Partners, Kelso & Company, Buckeye, Buckeye GP and each of
MainLine Management's directors in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas under the caption JR Garrett Trust v. Buckeye GP
Holdings L.P. et al.  In the Petition, the plaintiff alleged that
MainLine Management and its directors breached their fiduciary
duties to BGH's public unitholders by, among other things,
accepting insufficient consideration, failing to condition the
Merger on a majority vote of public unitholders of BGH, and
failing to disclose all material facts in order that the BGH
unitholders could cast an informed vote on the Merger Agreement.
The Petition also alleged that Buckeye, Buckeye GP, BGH GP,
ArcLight and Kelso aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty.  Among other things, the Petition sought an order certifying
a class consisting of all of BGH's unitholders, an order enjoining
the Merger, damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 24, 2010, the District Court of Harris County, Texas
entered an order consolidating the three previously filed putative
class actions (Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al.,
Henry James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al., and JR Garrett
Trust v. Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., et al.,) under the caption of
Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al. and appointing
interim co-lead class counsel and interim co-liaison counsel.  The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended class action
and derivative complaint on September 1, 2010.  The Complaint
purported to be a putative class and derivative action alleging
that MainLine Management and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties to BGH's public unitholders in connection with
the Merger by, among other things, accepting insufficient
consideration and failing to disclose all material facts in order
that BGH's unitholders could cast an informed vote on the Merger
Agreement, and that we, Buckeye GP, MainLine Management, Merger
Sub, BGH GP, ArcLight and Kelso aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On October 29, 2010, the parties to the litigation entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding in connection with a proposed
settlement of the class action and the Complaint.  The MOU
provides for dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a
release of the defendants from all present and future claims
asserted in the litigation in exchange for, among other things,
the agreement of the defendants to amend the Merger Agreement to
reduce the termination fees payable by BGH upon termination of the
Merger Agreement.

In addition, the MOU provides that, in settlement of the
plaintiffs' claims (including any claim against the defendants by
the plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees or expenses related to
the litigation), the defendants (or their insurers) will make a
cash payment of $900,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys'
fees, subject to final court approval of the settlement.  On
January 25, 2011, pursuant to the MOU, the parties signed a
Stipulation of Settlement.  The Stipulation of Settlement was
filed with the court, and the court preliminarily approved the
settlement on March 21, 2011.  The court held a hearing on May 23,
2011 to consider the fairness of the settlement and whether to
finally approve the settlement.  On May 23, 2011, after the
hearing, the court issued an order that, among other things,
finally approved all terms of the settlement and dismissed the
action.


CAPITAL ONE: Awaits Court Decision in Interchange Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation is awaiting court rulings on
motions to dismiss and for class certification in the consolidated
lawsuit alleging conspiracy to fix interchange fees, 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 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the
"Interchange Lawsuits") against MasterCard and Visa and several
member banks, including the Company's subsidiaries and the
Company, alleging among other things, that the defendants
conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The complaints
seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be
trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted
similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only. In October 2005,
the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for certain purposes, including discovery. Fact and expert
discovery have closed. The parties have briefed and presented oral
argument on motions to dismiss and class certification and are
awaiting decisions from the court.

The defendant banks are members of Visa U.S.A., Inc. ("Visa"). As
members, the Company's subsidiary banks have indemnification
obligations to Visa with respect to final judgments and
settlements of certain litigation against Visa. In the first
quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock. With IPO
proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the benefit of
member banks to fund certain litigation settlements and claims,
including the Interchange Lawsuits. As a result, in the first
quarter of 2008, the Company reduced its Visa-related
indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded in other
liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-interest
expense. The Company made an election in accordance with the
accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets and
liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the fair
value of the guarantee at December 31, 2010 and June 30, 2011 was
zero. In January 2011, the Company entered into a MasterCard
Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with other
defendant banks, which apportions between MasterCard and its
member banks any costs and liabilities of any judgment or
settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.


CAPITAL ONE: Defending Interchange Fee Class Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation is defending itself against
class action lawsuits in Canada related to credit card interchange
fees, 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 2011, a furniture store owner, on behalf of himself and
other merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit
cards, filed a class action in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia (Vancouver Registry) against the Visa and MasterCard
membership associations related to credit card interchange fees.
In May 2011, another merchant, on behalf of himself and other
merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit cards,
filed a class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Toronto Region) asserting the same alleged violations of law
related to credit card interchange fees and network rules. Both
class actions name Visa and MasterCard and a number of member
banks, including Capital One Financial Corporation, which only
issues MasterCard branded credit cards in Canada. The class action
complaints allege that the associations and member banks are
liable for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, constructive trust
and unlawful interference with economic interests and violated
Canadian anti-competition laws by (a) conspiring to fix supra-
competitive interchange fees and merchant discounts, and (b)
requiring participation in the respective networks and adherence
to Visa and MasterCard Rules to acceptance of payment guarantee
services.


CAPITAL ONE: Late Fees Litigation Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------
In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including Capital One Financial
Corporation. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
defendants conspired to fix the level of late fees and over-limit
fees charged to cardholders, and that these fees are excessive. In
May 2007, the cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging violations of
federal statutes and state law. The amended complaint requests
civil monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive
relief. In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended
complaint. Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal
of their claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository
Institutions Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair
Competition Law (the "UCL"), but not their antitrust conspiracy
claims. In June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed
the matter pending the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the
defendant financial institutions. In December 2010, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals entered an additional order continuing
the stay of the matter pending the bankruptcy proceedings.

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 quarter ended June 30, 2011.


CAPITAL ONE: Unit Still Defends Credit Card Interest Rate Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation's subsidiary, Capital One Bank
(USA), National Association, continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits relating to credit card interest rates,
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, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed a dismissal entered in favor of COBNA in Rubio v. Capital
One Bank, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in 2007. The plaintiff in Rubio
alleged in a putative class action that COBNA breached its
contractual obligations and violated the Truth In Lending Act (the
"TILA") and the UCL when it raised interest rates on certain
credit card accounts. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution,
attorney's fees and an injunction against future rate increases.
The District Court granted COBNA's motion to dismiss all claims as
a matter of law prior to any discovery. On appeal, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal with respect to
the TILA and UCL claims, remanding the case back to the District
Court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit upheld the
dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, finding
that COBNA was contractually allowed to increase interest rates.
In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied COBNA's Petition for
Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. In January 2011, COBNA
filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court,
seeking leave to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling. On April 4,
2011, the United States Supreme Court denied Capital One's writ of
certiorari, and as a result, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case
back to the District Court to begin discovery.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter involves similar issues as Rubio. This multi-
district litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010
transfer order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on
Multi-district Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia two pending putative class actions against COBNA -
Nancy Mancuso, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al.,
(E.D. Virginia); and Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A., (N.D. Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was
subsequently transferred into the MDL. On August 2, 2010, the
plaintiffs in the MDL filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges in a putative class action
that COBNA breached its contractual obligations, and violated the
TILA, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the UCL, the
California False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised
interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The MDL plaintiffs
seek statutory damages, restitution, attorney's fees and an
injunction against future rate increases. Fact discovery is now
closed and the parties are preparing for summary judgment filings.


CAPITAL ONE: Discovery Ongoing in Checking Account Overdraft Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation and other parties to the
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation are currently engaged in
discovery, 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 May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One
Bank (USA), National Association or COBNA were named as defendants
in a putative class action named Steen v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges the Company's
practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds
fees on consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that the
Company's methodology for posting transactions to customer
accounts is designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees,
supporting claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion,
unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices
laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees. In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern
District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part
of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving numerous defendant
banks, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In January
2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against Capital
One, National Association or CONA in the MDL court. In February
2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On March 21, 2011, the MDL court granted the motion to dismiss
claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
under Texas law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other
respects. On April 18, 2011, CONA moved for reconsideration of
those portions of the court's ruling denying its motion to
dismiss, and on June 7, 2011, CONA moved for certification of an
interlocutory appeal. The MDL court denied the motion to
reconsider on June 23, 2011. The parties are now engaged in
discovery.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Grandview Cemetery Suit in Discovery Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against current and former owners of
Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana, including subsidiaries of
Carriage Services, Inc., is in the discovery 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.

On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including the Carriage subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery.  Plaintiffs claim that the
cemetery owners performed burials negligently, breached
Plaintiffs' contracts, and made misrepresentations regarding the
cemetery.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the claims occurred
prior, during and after the Company owned the cemetery.  On
October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana.  On
April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been scheduled to
file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add
new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to
abandon other claims.  The Company, as well as several other
Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint
and add parties.  In April 2009, two Defendants moved to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing
Plaintiffs in this action.  On March 31, 2010, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.  In that
order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain
new counsel.  In addition, all discovery has been stayed and all
pending motions including Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an
amended complaint and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
were dismissed without prejudice to re-file with leave of Court
upon retention of new counsel.  On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a
petition for writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals seeking relief from the trial court's order of
disqualification of counsel.  On May 19, 2010, the Defendants
responded to the petition of mandamus.  On July 8, 2010, the
Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandamus.
Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order, Plaintiffs were given
60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain new counsel to
prosecute this action on their behalf.  Plaintiffs retained new
counsel and the trial Court granted the newly retained Plaintiffs'
counsel 90 days to review the case and advise the Court whether or
not Plaintiffs would seek leave to amend their complaint to add
and change the allegations as are currently stated therein and
whether or not they would seek leave to amend the proposed class
representatives for class certification.  Plaintiffs moved for
leave to amend both the class representatives and the allegations
stated within the complaint.  Defendants filed oppositions to such
amendments.  The Court has recently issued an order permitting the
Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the class representatives and
a portion of their claims; however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims
have been dismissed.  Discovery in this matter will proceed.
Carriage intends to defend this action vigorously.  Because the
lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, the Company is unable to
evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to the Company
or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, if any,
at this time.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Labor Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits filed in California alleging that
the Company violated labor laws, 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 28, 2011.

On January 9, 2007, two former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure to
pay proper wages, improper payroll deductions, and violations of
the California meal and break period laws, among other claims
(Guardado v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case
No. BC360426).  This case was previously stayed by the parties
through December 2008, pending the California Supreme Court's
decision to review Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of
San Diego County (No. S166350, 2008).  On July 6, 2010, the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  A notice
of appeal was subsequently filed by the plaintiffs on August 3,
2010.  On June 20, 2011, the parties reached a negotiated
settlement agreement in Case No. BC360426.  The settlement in Case
No. BC360426 is subject to preliminary and final approval by the
Court. Based on the current status of Case No. BC360426, the
Company has reserved an immaterial amount for potential future
payments.

On May 10, 2010, three hourly restaurant employees in the State of
California filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior
Court, Placer County, against the Company alleging violations of
the California Labor Code by requiring employees to purchase
uniforms and other work tools to perform their jobs, among other
claims (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al;
Case No. S CV 27073).  In October 2010, the Company gave notice to
the respective courts in Case No. S CV 27073 and Case No. BC360426
that such cases may be related.  On July 28, 2010, a lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the Santa Clara County Superior Court
(Rusteen v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case
No. 1-10-CV-178233) claiming similar and additional allegations to
those asserted in Case No. BC360426 including, among other things,
violations of California's wage and hour laws with respect to
alleged failure to pay the plaintiff overtime, reporting time pay
and minimum wages, allow proper meal breaks or rest periods, and
provide adequate pay statements.  In October 2010, the Company
gave notice to the respective courts in Case No. 1-10-CV-178233
and Case No. BC360426 that such cases may be related.  The
plaintiff in Case No. 1-10-CV-178233 seeks unspecified amounts of
penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of himself and
other purported class members.  On April 6, 2011, a Class Action
Complaint in Intervention was filed by a former staff member from
the Company's Irvine, California restaurant seeking to join Case
No. S CV 27073.  The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions.  Based
on the current status of this matter, the Company has not reserved
for potential future payments.


CHEVRON CORP: Judge Fails to Provide Fair Trial, Plaintiffs Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
lawyers for the Ecuadorian plaintiffs suing Chevron Corp.,
including lawyer Steven Donziger, filed motions on Aug. 10
alleging that U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan is failing to
provide a fair trial.

Both motions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in Chevron's declaratory judgment
trial, which is currently scheduled for Nov. 14.

The first motion, filed by the Ecuadorian plaintiffs, attempts to
show how Judge Kaplan's expedited schedule for the trial is not
only "unfair to the Ecuadorian plaintiffs but would also not be
consistent with procedures compatible with due process," their
lawyers wrote.

The court, they argue, has set an unrealistic discovery and trial
schedule "which will allow Chevron to put on its pre-packaged set-
piece featuring the alleged shenanigans of counsel and a retrial
of certain aspects of the underlying case."

The time allowed makes it impossible for the Ecuadorian
plaintiffs, "who are not the well-organized 'entity' Chevron has
portrayed to the press and the court," to adequately gather their
witnesses and evidence.

"The truncated schedule plays right into Chevron's hands as it
does not allow the Ecuadorian plaintiffs to develop the evidence
they need for trial, not the least of which is evidence of
Chevron's own misdeeds in Ecuador, to their great prejudice and
against the interests of justice," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote
in the 11-page motion.

The court filing asks that Judge Kaplan continue the trial so the
plaintiffs have a "reasonable" amount of time to prepare a proper
defense to Chevron's allegations.

The second motion, filed by lawyers for Mr. Donziger, who
represented the Ecuadorian plaintiffs for the 18-year history of
the case, again asks that Judge Kaplan let Mr. Donziger fully
participate in the November trial.

His lawyers argue in the 11-page filing that Chevron is seeking,
with the judge's approval, a "do over" of the trial it lost in
Ecuador.

"Chevron's recent fraud-focused expert submissions are of a piece
with its strategy from the outset of this litigation.  Since day
one, Chevron has used isolated snippets from Donziger to create
claims that the Ecuadorian judgment is the product of fraud or
corruption and to divert attention from the undeniable evidence of
environmental catastrophe underlying the Lago Agrio Court's
decision," Mr. Donziger's lawyers wrote.

"Unless the Court rethinks some of its decisions about who can
defend, and how and when that defense should happen, the 'do over'
will be a one-sided show trial without any semblance of fairness
or due process or concern for the merits."

They also argue that the oil giant is seeking to make Mr. Donziger
the principal focus of their trial where he has no right to defend
himself.

"The exclusion of Donziger from full intervention in this 'do-
over' trial has reached the point of absurdity.  The trial will be
about him, and he won't be there to defend himself against Chevron
calumny," his lawyers wrote.

In February, after an eight-year trial, an Ecuadorian court found
Chevron liable for dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into
the Amazon, causing an outbreak of disease and decimating
indigenous groups.  Damages were found to be up to $18 billion.

Chevron, which has vowed never to pay the judgment, filed a
racketeering lawsuit, alleging that the Ecuador suit has been used
to threaten the oil company, mislead U.S. government officials,
and harass and intimidate its employees -- all to extort a
financial settlement from the company.

In March, Judge Kaplan issued an injunction blocking worldwide
enforcement of the judgment.  That ruling is under an expedited
appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York,
with arguments set for September.


CHINA MEDICINE: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the common stock of China Medicine
Corporation between November 30, 2006, and March 23, 2011,
inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at 310-201-9150 or
Toll Free at 888-773-9224, by e-mail at shareholders@glancylaw.com
or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com

The Complaint charges China Medicine and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
China Medicine, through its subsidiaries, distributes
pharmaceutical and medical products in the People's Republic of
China.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about
the Company's business and financial performance.  On March 23,
2011, China Medicine filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission announcing that the Company's board of
directors had concluded that China Medicine's financial statements
for its 2008 and 2009 fiscal years and quarterly reports during
fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were unreliable.  On the next
trading day, as a result of the foregoing news, the price of China
Medicine stock dropped more than 53% from its closing price of
$1.16 per share on March 23, 2011 to a close of $0.54 per share on
March 24, 2011.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than September 16, 2011, to serve as lead
plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  To
be a member of the class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150
          Toll Free: 888-773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


CORVEL CORP: Final Hearing on "Williams" Suit Deal Set for Nov. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider final approval of the settlement resolving
a class action lawsuit against CorVel Corporation has been set for
November 4, 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 March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD. ("Williams"), as
plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
filed a First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class
Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St.
Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation ("CorVel") and its
insurance carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and
Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other
unrelated parties. Williams alleges that CorVel violated
Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act (the "AWPA"), which requires
a payor accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days'
advance written notice or point of service notice in the form of a
benefit card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the
contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured
under that payor's health benefit plan.

On March 31, 2011, CorVel entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the
class setting forth the terms of settlement of this class action
lawsuit. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to
the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
final non-appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana
state court, CorVel will pay $9 million to resolve claims for
which CorVel recorded a $9 million pre-tax charge to earnings
during the March 2011 quarter. In addition, CorVel will assign to
the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of CorVel's
insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the class.
The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration
Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana
Hospital Association dba Lake Charles Memorial Hospital as
previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within the
settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed to
request that the appropriate courts stay all related proceedings
in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana Office of
Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding before the
American Arbitration Association in which the parties are named,
until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and receives
final court approval. The settlement does not constitute an
admission of liability.

On June 23, 2011, CorVel and class counsel executed a definitive
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contains the same
terms and conditions as were set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding. Accordingly, CorVel made a $9 million cash payment
into escrow on July 6, 2011. As set forth in the settlement
agreement, certain contingencies such as preliminary court
approval, resolutions of objections filed by class members
challenging the fairness of the settlement, class members excluded
from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold, and
final court approval, must be satisfied before the settlement
become final.

On June 23, 2011, the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of St. Landry, Louisiana granted preliminary approval of
settlement. Notice of the settlement is being given to Class
Members. The Court has set a deadline of October 16, 2011 for
parties to opt out of or object to the proposed settlement. The
Court has set the hearing for final approval on November 4, 2011.

In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members
will release CorVel and all of its affiliates and clients for any
claims relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or
reimbursement of a workers' compensation bill, including but not
limited to claims under the AWPA. Plaintiffs have also agreed to a
notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply
with the AWPA. As noted, the Memorandum of Understanding is
contingent upon the execution of a mutually acceptable definitive
settlement agreement. Under Louisiana law, once the parties have
executed such a settlement agreement, they must apply to the court
for approval of the settlement following a court-supervised
process of notice to the class and an opportunity for the class to
be heard about the fairness of the settlement or to be excluded
from the settlement. CorVel expects to be able to arrive at such a
definitive settlement agreement by the end of June 2011, but there
can be no assurance that the parties will be able to reach a
definitive settlement agreement within that timeframe or at all,
that the court will approve the settlement or that a large number
of class members will not opt out of the settlement. If a
definitive settlement agreement is not reached or is not approved
by the court, all related proceedings in State and Federal Court,
as well as the Louisiana Office of Workers Compensation and the
arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association
that have been stayed pending settlement will resume.


CORVEL CORP: Initial Settlement Payments Sent Under "Roche" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial payments under the settlement agreement resolving the
class action lawsuit filed by Kathleen Roche against CorVel
Corporation were sent in July 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 February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a
putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial
District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the Company. The
case sought unspecified damages based on the Company's alleged
failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members
of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the
Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review
medical providers' bills. On October 29, 2010, the Company entered
into a settlement agreement providing for the payment of $2.1
million to class members and up to an additional $700,000 for
attorneys' fees and expenses, and as a result the Company accrued
$2.8 million of estimated liability for this settlement agreement
during the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Initial payments were
sent to class members on July 18, 2011. The Company denies that
its conduct was improper in any way and has denied all liability.
In exchange for the settlement payment by the Company, class
members consisting of Illinois medical providers (excluding
hospitals) have released the Company and all of its affiliates for
claims relating to any PPO or usual and customary reductions
recommended by the Company on class members' medical bills. On
January 21, 2011, the Circuit Court gave final approval to the
settlement and awarded class counsel $700,000 in attorneys' fees
and expenses and a $5,000 incentive award to Kathleen Roche, the
class representative.


CR BARD: 8th Cir. Denies St. Francis' Petition for Re-Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has denied St.
Francis Medical Center's petition for a re-hearing of its appeal
in the class action lawsuit entitled St. Francis Medical Center,
et al. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031,
United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri,
Southeastern Division), according to C. R. Bard's August 5, 2011
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In June 2011, the Court of Appeals, in a re-hearing of its prior
decision, affirmed the decision of the District Court that granted
the Company's summary judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice
all counts brought against the Company in this action.  St.
Francis Medical Center may request a review of the decision by the
U.S. Supreme Court.


CYNOSURE INC: Class Certification Motion Still Under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification motion filed in the class action lawsuit
filed by Dr. Ari Weitzner against Cynosure, Inc., is still under
advisement, 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 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against the
Company under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or
the TCPA in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County
seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys
fees. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff
and other recipients without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients. Under the TCPA, recipients of
unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up
to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500
per facsimile for knowing or willful violations. Based on
discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately
three million facsimiles were sent on the Company's behalf by a
third party to approximately 100,000 individuals. On February 6,
2008, several months after the close of discovery, the plaintiff
served a motion for class certification, which the Company opposed
on numerous factual and legal grounds, including that a nationwide
class action may not be maintained in a Massachusetts state court
by Dr. Weitzner, a New York resident; individual issues
predominate over common issues; a class action is not superior to
other methods of resolving TCPA claims; and Dr. Weitzner is an
inadequate class representative.  The Company also believes it has
many merits defenses, including that the faxes in question do not
constitute "advertising" within the meaning of the TCPA and many
recipients had an established business relationship with the
Company and are thereby deemed to have consented to the receipt of
facsimile communications. The Court held a hearing on the
plaintiff's class certification motion in June 2008, but no
decision on the motion has been rendered. In July 2010, the Court
issued an order dismissing this matter without prejudice for Dr.
Weitzner's failure to prosecute the case in August 2010, Dr.
Weitzner filed a motion for relief from the dismissal order, which
the Court allowed. At a status conference held in November 2010,
the Court confirmed that the class certification motion was still
under advisement. The Company are not currently able to estimate
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome of this lawsuit.

In July 2008, the Company commenced a declaratory judgment action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
requesting a declaration that Dr. Weitzner's and the putative
class claims are covered under the Company's general liability
insurance policies. In August 2008, the Company's insurance
company filed an Answer and Counterclaim against the Company
seeking a declaration that the Company's policy does not provide
coverage for Dr. Weitzner's claims. In August 2008, the Company
filed a reply to the Counterclaim. The insurance company filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment in December 2008, and the Company
cross moved for Summary Judgment in January 2009. The Court held a
hearing on the motions in February 2009, and in April 2009
rendered a decision that the Company's liability insurer is
obligated to provide the Company with a defense to the Weitzner
action and, if necessary, indemnify the Company for the putative
class claims. Thereafter, the Company's liability insurer filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the Company opposed. The court
denied the insurer's motion in May 2009. In January 2010, the
court entered an Order for Judgment consistent with its April 8,
2009 decision that the insurer is obligated to defend the Company
against the putative class claims and to indemnify the Company for
any single damages, attorneys' fees or costs. Per agreement of the
parties, the Company was awarded $0.4 million in fees and costs
for the period through July 1, 2009. The insurer filed a Notice of
Appeal of the judgment in January 2010. The matter was fully
briefed and the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments in January 2011. On May 12, 2011, the First Circuit
issued an opinion reversing the District Court's decision in favor
of the Company and ordering that judgment enter in favor of the
insurer. Final judgment after remand was entered on May 12, 2011
and the case is now concluded.


DATA LISTING: Sacked Call Center Employees Mull Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hibbard, writing for Finger Lakes Times, reports that nearly
140 employees of a call center in the Village of Penn Yan, New
York that shut down earlier this year have joined in a class-
action suit against the business's parent company.

In a lawsuit filed July 28 in federal court, employees of The
Connection claim the parent company, Data Listing Services, LLC,
failed to give them sufficient warning of the mass layoff and
plant closing in early February.  Specifically, the workers said
they were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their
termination as required by the federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and 90 days' notice as required
by the New York WARN Act.


EHEALTH ONTARIO: Government Vows to Fight Employee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Ontario's Liberal government vowed
on Aug. 12 to fight a proposed class-action suit by employees at
scandal-plagued eHealth Ontario, who have taken the first step in
the legal action to get pay raises.

Hundreds of employees at the electronic health records agency were
promised merit increases of 1.9% and bonuses averaging 7.8% this
year, despite a Liberal government order to freeze public sector
wages for two years.

After the planned increases were reported in March, Health
Minister Deb Matthews told the eHealth board to take another look
at the plan in light of the government's wage freeze, which was
announced in the 2010 budget to deal with a deficit now at $16
billion.

"I did not direct them (to rescind the wage hikes)," said
Ms. Matthews.  "What I did was say 'Go back, take another look at
this and think about it in the context of our fiscal reality, and
in the context that eHealth is working hard to earn back its
reputation."'

EHealth Ontario was at the centre of a scandal three years ago
over untendered contracts and expense account abuses after the
ombudsman found the agency spent C$1 billion but had very little
to show for it.  David Caplan, the health minister at the time,
was forced to resign because of all the negative publicity
surrounding eHealth.

The eHealth board did the right thing in cancelling the promised
pay hikes and bonuses, said Ms. Matthews.

Shibley Righton, a Toronto law firm, sent eHealth a letter dated
July 19 in which it said it was starting a class action for
"breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from eHealth's
recession and non-payment of the merit increase and performance
incentives."

Dozens of eHealth employees signed a petition to start the class-
action suit, said Jaqueline King of Shibley Righton.

"These aren't just senior vice-presidents that aren't getting a
bonus," said Ms. King.  "These are people that were promised a
bonus and make probably a lot less than you and I in most cases
. . . and then are told 'No, sorry.  It's not that you don't
deserve it or that you didn't earn it."'

The New Democrats said the Liberals didn't properly think through
the consequences of their voluntary public sector wage freeze and
should not waste more money fighting the eHealth workers in court.

"We've got the (Dalton) McGuinty government talking a big game
about controlling costs and obviously not . . . contemplating how
this commitment conflicts with promises and contractual
obligations to its employees," said NDP justice critic
Peter Kormos.  "Rather than resolve the issue as the government
should be doing in a speedy manner, it's going to spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars defending a lawsuit that probably has not
got a defense."

Written letters outlining each employee's merit increase and bonus
pay that were given to eHealth workers last spring will provide
them with strong evidence for their class-action suit, added
Mr. Kormos.

The Progressive Conservatives said the merit pay increases should
never have been offered to eHealth workers in the first place

"Merit pay is for completing a job on time and on budget," said
PC critic Jim Wilson.  "Dalton McGuinty failed spectacularly on
both counts."

Ms. Matthews vowed to defend taxpayers in court from the eHealth
workers who want their raises.

"It's not just unfortunate, it's wrong that they're taking this
legal action," she said.  "We will do everything we need to do to
protect the people of Ontario."

EHealth Ontario did not immediately return calls on Aug. 12 for
comment on the proposed lawsuit.

The government announced in the 2010 budget that it wanted about
one million public sector workers, from civil servants to nurses
and teachers, to accept a voluntary wage freeze to trim the
deficit.

However, many arbitrators have ignored the proposed wage freeze
because the Liberals did not introduce legislation to back it up,
so public sector workers from nurses to police have continued to
get pay hikes in their new contracts.

The government says it will not provide the extra funding to
hospitals, municipalities or any of its agencies to cover wage
increases for a two-year period, and warned they will have to find
the money within their existing budgets.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Court Okays Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Joan E. Solsman, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Encore Capital Group Inc. said a federal court approved a
contentious settlement to a class-action suit that alleged the
debt collector used defective affidavits to win repayment cases.

Attorneys general in dozens of states were fighting the settlement
they said could make it much harder for law enforcement to
regulate the sector.

The agreement approved on Aug. 12 in Federal Court in Northern
District of Ohio called for about 1.4 million class members
included in a federal class-action suit to drop claims against
Encore in return for up to $5.7 million.

After the proposed deal was disclosed in February, attorneys
general from 38 states submitted a filing to the federal court in
Ohio, arguing the settlement could be used as a precedent
throughout the country to throw out other allegations of faulty
affidavits.  In the June filing, they also complained that the
$5.7 million figure was "paltry."

Among the attorneys general who joined the filing were Lori
Swanson of Minnesota and Greg Abbott of Texas.  Both have filed
separate suits against Encore that claim the company "robo-signed"
affidavits to collect debts owed by residents of their states.

On Aug. 12, Encore said the court approved the federal class-
action settlement, and it defended past data as well as its
updated procedures.

"As the judge indicated at the fairness hearing, there have been
many 'rash' allegations made against the company that simply had
no basis in fact," Encore Chief Executive Brandon Black said in a
release.

Encore said it made changes to its affidavit process in 2009,
including revised language to make it clear that the signers'
knowledge was based upon a review of business records.

The company's general counsel, Ronald Naves, said the resolution
of the case involved "simple process improvements and language
changes to Encore's affidavits that would allow the company's
account data to be admitted properly into court."

"After years of litigation by multiple plaintiffs, there was no
evidence that the company's account data were false," he said.

Encore's shares were up 0.9% at $22.50 in after-hours trading on
Aug. 12.


EQ3 LTD: Recalls 20 Scarpa Dining Tables Due to Collapse Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 20 Scarpa wood and glass round dining tables were
voluntarily recalled by EQ3 Ltd., of Winnipeg, Canada, in
cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The wooden table base can split and/or collapse, causing the glass
table top to fall.  This poses collapse and impact hazards to
consumers.

EQ3 is aware of four incidents where the table base split and/or
cracked, causing the table top to slant or fall.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled dining tables have a round top made of tempered
glass, and three interlocking wooden legs, either black or brown
in color.  The tables measure 60 inches in diameter and 30 inches
high.  They have a nearly half inch thick (10 mm) clear glass top.
Recalled tables have five screw holes in the joint where the legs
meet.  "Model 24396" and "Made In/Fabrique Au: China" are printed
on a label at the joint.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11750.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at EQ3
Stores and furniture stores nationwide from January 2011 through
June 2011 for about $500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Scarpa tables and
contact EQ3 to arrange for pickup of the table in exchange for a
free replacement product or full refund.  EQ3 has contacted all
known purchasers.  For additional information, contact EQ3 toll-
free at (888) 988-2014 between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday and 12:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m. on
Saturday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.EQ3.com/


ERIN CAPITAL: Accused of Making Illegal Collections in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mariusz Rewak, individually and on behalf of the classes defined
herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mariusz Rewak
v. Erin Capital Management LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-28506 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., August 11, 2011) seeks redress for the Defendant's
conduct in taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois
Collection Agency Act.  The lawsuit seeks relief against void
judgments.

The Plaintiff alleges that Erin Capital collected debts from
debtors located in Illinois although it was unlicensed.  Erin
Capital also instituted post-judgment proceedings against more
than 150 Illinois consumers between January 1, 2008, and July 23,
2010, and collected money from yet other Illinois consumers.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Erin Capital is a limited liability company chartered under
Delaware law, and is engaged in the business of purchasing or
claiming to purchase charged-off consumer debts and enforcing the
debts against the consumers by filing collection lawsuits and
otherwise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


FAIR ISAAC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remanded
----------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of the settlement of a putative class
action against a subsidiary of Fair Isaac Corporation has been
remanded 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 quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

Braun Consulting, Inc. (which the Company acquired in November
2004) was a defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 26, 2001, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Case No. 01 CV 10629) that alleges violations of federal
securities laws in connection with Braun's initial public offering
in August 1999.  This lawsuit is among approximately 300
coordinated putative class actions against certain issuers, their
officers and directors, and underwriters with respect to such
issuers' initial public offerings.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval.  This
settlement requires no financial contribution from the Company.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10,
2009.  The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on September 10,
2009.  The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the settlement and certified the settlement classes on
October 5, 2009.  The Court determined that the settlement is fair
to the class members, approved the settlement and dismissed, with
prejudice, the case against the Company and its individual
defendants.  Appeals of the opinion granting final approval were
filed, and the appeals filed by one objector have been remanded to
the district court to determine standing to appeal.  Due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the settlement
remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the matter is
uncertain.


GOLDMAN SACHS: 7th Cir. Refuses to Certify T-Bond Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit laid to rest a
class action against Goldman Sachs over insider trading of
government securities in 2001, affirming a $200,000 settlement to
only one plaintiff.

The criminal conduct at issue occurred almost 10 years ago, on
Oct. 31, 2001.  That morning, at a Treasury Department meeting,
Goldman consultant Peter Davis, Jr., learned that the government
was suspending the sale of new 30-year bonds.

The meeting ended at 9:25 a.m.  Attendees learned that the
information was embargoed until 10:00 a.m.  Mr. Davis, however,
passed the tip on to some of his clients, including former Goldman
Vice President John Youngdahl.

At 9:35 a.m., Sachs traders began to buy futures contracts for 30-
year treasury securities, expecting the price to rise.  When the
Treasury posted the news on its Web site at 9:43 a.m., bond prices
jumped at the largest one-day increase in 14 years.

The Treasury did not issue 30-year bonds again until 2006.

But abnormal trading patterns just before the announcement
attracted an investigation by the Securities Exchange Commission,
which resulted in a civil complaint filed against Mr. Davis,
Mr. Youngdahl and Goldman in September 2003.

Denying that its traders knew the information was embargoed,
Goldman settled to avoid litigation.  Mr. Davis cooperated with
prosecutors and avoided an indictment.  Mr. Youngdahl was charged
with fraud and sentenced to 33 months in prison.

In March 2004, Premium Plus Partners filed a class action against
Goldman on behalf all traders who had held short positions in
futures contracts on Oct. 31, 2001.  Short position holders borrow
shares and immediately sell, hoping the price will go down so that
they can return the shares and keep the difference in price.  When
the price of securities went up, the short holders lost money.
"Economists would say that the reason for the price increase was
the fact that a desirable asset, the 30-year Treasury bond, had
become scarcer," Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote.  "But
Premium Plus blamed the increase on Goldman Sachs's trading, which
it described as giving Goldman Sachs market power through an
excessively large position."

The court never reached the merits of these allegations.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan declined to certify a
class, but also refused to grant summary judgment for the bank.
Goldman settled with the only remaining plaintiff, Premium Plus,
agreeing to pay $200,000 plus interest.

At the same time, George Tomlinson, as well as four other short-
holders, filed suit on the same grounds.  His case was dismissed
by U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo as outside the statute of
limitations.

With both claims extinguished, the suit appeared to have ended.
But Premium Plus sought to certify another class, seeking to
spread litigation costs among other investors and increasing the
size of its award.  That motion was denied.

Premium Plus and Mr. Tomlinson both appealed, but found no relief
at the Chicago-based federal appeals court.

"Tomlinson would be a bad representative for the class because he
litigated and lost; Premium Plus Partners is a bad representative
because it litigated and won," Judge Easterbrook wrote.

Only an intervening party could have kept the class action alive,
the court ruled.

"But Premium Plus does not want to keep the case going long enough
for someone else to intervene; the only 'someone' who stepped
forward was Tomlinson.  Premium Plus proposes to be the
representative itself, even though its claim has been resolved. No
decision of which we are aware allows that."

The court affirmed the judgments, but ordered the settlement to
include compound interest dating back to Oct. 31, 2001.

"An award of [compound interest] simply returns both the money,
and the time value of its use, to Premium Plus," Judge Easterbrook
wrote.  "That the interest comes to more than 50% of the principal
reflects the length of time that Goldman Sachs has had the money."

Premium Plus can still file a claim for attorneys' fees.

A copy of the Decision in Premium Plus Partners, L.P., et al. v.
Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., Nos. Nos. 09-4010, 10-1118 & 10-1119
(7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/AF1FFXIQ.pdf

Premium Plus was represented by:

          Anthony Fata, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          30 North LaSalle Street
          Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880

Goldman Sachs was represented by:

          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600


GOLIATH INC: Class Action Press Conference Scheduled for Today
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Richardson, writing for blogdowntown, reports that last
November, the world of Downtown's hostess bars briefly burst into
the public consciousness after a late-night LAPD raid at Club 907
resulted in 88 arrests.

After briefly reopening -- and rehiring -- the club closed in the
months after the November 5 raid.  Nine months later, the
aftermath of the incident continues.

Today, former employees of the club will hold a press conference
to discuss the class action lawsuit they have just filed against
the club's operator, Goliath Inc.  The suit charges operators
Michelle Hutchinson and Dennis Bowers with systematic abuse,
including sexual harassment, wage theft and substandard working
conditions.

More than 80 former employees are participating in the suit.  They
are represented by Monica Guizar of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld
and Bert Voorhees and Rebecca Peterson-Fisher of Traber &
Voorhees.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles conducted
interviews with those interviewed after the raid and found that
the women working inside were paid far less than minimum wage,
required to earn a minimum quota per-week and to make up any
under-quota amount out of their own pocket before getting paid for
future weeks.  According to the group, management gave better
shifts to employees who were more tolerant of patrons' sexual
advances.

Hostess clubs do not feature nudity, but instead offer patrons the
chance to choose a girl to dance and sit with them.  According to
rates posted on the door the night of the raid, Club 907 charged
$30 per hour.  The club, like most Downtown hostess clubs, did not
serve alcohol.

A number of hostess clubs continue to operate in the Downtown
area.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Printer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to dismiss a class action that claims Hewlett-
Packard knew that one of its multi-use printers "has a defect that
causes the printer to randomly skip pages when copying, scanning
and faxing."

Lead plaintiff Chaim Kowalsky said HP's Office Jet Pro All-in-One
printer of the 8500 series has a defect that causes the device to
skip pages.

As a result, the document feeder can only take "two to three
sheets at a time," though it is advertised as being able to hold
50 sheets.

In April, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh found the proposed class
failed to raise facts that would suggest that HP knew about the
alleged defect in the printer, and dismissed the complaint.

Mr. Kowalsky filed an amended complaint in May, saying "HP's
claims regarding the 'core functions' of the 8500 printer 'could
only be verified as accurate through testing of the printer.'"

Mr. Kowalsky, who bought his printer in July 2009, also said
consumers began to complain about the "recurring page-skipping
problem" as early as April 2009.

Judge Koh, a San Jose, Calif., judge, found the plaintiff raised a
"plausible inference" that HP knew about the defect, rejecting the
tech company's latest motion to dismiss.

"According to plaintiff, HP claims in its advertising and on its
Web site that it tests its printers using 'the recognized ISO/IEC
24734 and 24735 standards' prior to releasing them to the
marketplace," the judge wrote.

"The 24735 standard requires multiple tests using repeated
scanning of a multi-page document through the printer's [automatic
document feeder]."

A copy of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Kowalsky v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02176 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/12/hp.pdf


M & F WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worlwide Corp. continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits arising from MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.'s merger
transaction proposal, 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 June 13, 2011, the Company's Board of Directors received a
letter from MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., proposing a merger
transaction pursuant to which all outstanding shares of common
stock of the Company not owned by Holdings would be converted into
the right to receive $24.00 in cash per share.

In connection with the June 13, 2011 proposal by Holdings to
acquire all outstanding shares of common stock of the Company not
owned by Holdings for $24.00 in cash per share, beginning on
June 14, 2011, six putative shareholder class action lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Supreme Court for
the State of New York.  The Delaware actions (titled Martin v. M&F
Worldwide Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6566-VCS (filed June 14, 2011);
Israni v. M&F Worldwide Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6571-VCS (filed
June 16, 2011); Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp., et al., C.A. No.
6593-VCS (filed June 21, 2011); and Pill v. Perelman, et al., C.A.
No. 6602-VCS (filed June 23, 2011) name as defendants the Company,
each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors
and Holdings, and allege that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under Delaware law in connection with the
Proposal, and that Holdings aided and abetted those alleged
breaches.  The New York actions (titled Wright v. M&F Worldwide
Corp., et al., Index. No. 651707/2011 (filed June 17, 2011) and
Feit v. Perelman, et al., Index No. 651743/2011 (filed June 23,
2011) name the same defendants, and allege virtually identical
claims, as the Delaware Actions.

The plaintiffs in both the Delaware Actions and New York Actions
seek, among other things, to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
any transaction arising from the Proposal, an accounting for any
damages resulting from the alleged wrongs, and rescissory damages
if a transaction is consummated prior to the Court's final
judgment.  Plaintiffs further seek the costs of the action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
court deems just and proper.  Defendants believe that the lawsuits
are entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend these
actions.


MACERICH COMPANY: Court to Hear Wage Suit Settlement on Sept. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider preliminary approval of a settlement of a
class action lawsuit against The Macerich Company has been set for
Sept. 2, 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.

A putative class action complaint was filed on September 1, 2010
involving a single plaintiff based on alleged wage and hour
violations. The parties have reached a settlement that is subject
to court approval. The court hearing to preliminarily approve the
settlement is scheduled for September 2, 2011. The Company has
accrued an estimate for the amount of the settlement, which is not
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.


MECHEL OAO: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Share Price Plunge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuliya Fedorinova, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that OAO
Mechel, Russia's largest producer of coking coal, won its bid to
have a U.S. judge dismiss a class action suit filed in 2009 by
investor Dean Frederick and four pension funds over share-price
declines.

Judge Richard Sullivan in the District Court of the Southern
District of New York ruled in Mechel's favor on Aug. 9, court
documents show.

Mechel, controlled by billionaire Igor Zyuzin, was sued by
investors over the drop in its share price after Russian
authorities said in 2008 the company was engaged in anti-
competitive conduct.

Mechel's American Depositary Receipts lost half their value in New
York trading in the week after Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said
July 24 the company avoided taxes and sold coal to a Swiss unit at
a quarter of the price charged domestically.

Mechel "failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
company's financial well-being, business relationships and
prospects," Mr. Frederick said in his complaint.

Ekaterina Videman, a spokeswoman for Mechel, declined to comment
on the court decision.

The case is Frederick v. Mechel OAO, 09-cv-3617, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


META FINANCIAL: MetaBank to Attend Mediation Session Next Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, MetaBank,
and other parties to the class action lawsuit Guardian Angel
Credit Union v. MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB (USDC,
District of NH), were ordered to attend a mediation session next
month, 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.

Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported MetaBank
certificates of deposit continue to be addressed.  In all, nine
cases have been filed to date, and of those nine, three have been
dismissed, and four have been settled for payments that the
Company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the
costs of litigation.  Of the two remaining cases, one is a class
action case.  On May 5, 2010, in that class action, Guardian Angel
Credit Union v. MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB (USDC,
District of NH), the court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify the class. Recently, both parties filed motions for
summary judgment in this matter.  The court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and denied the
defendants' motion with regard to the contract and negligent
supervision causes of action.  The court did grant defendants'
motion for summary judgment with regard to the vicarious liability
cause of action and the plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees.  In
a separate motion, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend
the complaint to include a claim for punitive damages.  The court
has ordered the parties to attend a mediation session before the
magistrate judge assigned to the case in September 2011.  The
court has tentatively scheduled the case for trial in December
2011.

Additionally, a lawsuit relating to this matter has been filed by
Airline Pilots Assoc Federal Credit Union in the Iowa District
court for Polk County, Case No. CL-118792.  The underlying matter
was first disclosed in the Company's quarterly report for the
period ended December 31, 2007, which stated that an employee of
the Bank had sold fraudulent CDs for her own benefit.  The
unauthorized and illegal actions of the employee have since
prompted a number of demands and lawsuits seeking recovery on the
fraudulent CDs to be filed against the Bank, which have been
disclosed in subsequent filings.  The employee was prosecuted,
convicted and, on June 2, 2010, sentenced to more than seven years
in federal prison and ordered to pay more than $4 million in
restitution.  Notwithstanding the nature of her crimes, which were
unknown by the Bank and its management, plaintiffs in the two
remaining cases seek to impose liability on the Bank under a
number of legal theories with respect to the remaining $3.6
million of fraudulent CDs that were issued by the former employee.
The Bank and its insurer, which has assumed defense of the action
and which is advancing defense costs subject to a reservation of
rights, continue to vigorously contest liability in the remaining
actions.  The Company's estimate of a range of possible losses is
approximately $0 to $0.4 million as of August 5, 2011.


META FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit in Iowa Now in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit In re Meta Financial Group, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, No. 10-4108-MWB will now move into the
discovery phase following denial of the defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims against them, according to Meta Financial
Group, 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 October and November, 2010, former stockholders Thirumalesh
Bhat and Alaa M. Elgaouni filed separate purported class action
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa against the Company and certain of its officers
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws.  The
lawsuits, which purport to be brought on behalf of those who
purchased the Company's stock between May 14, 2009 and October 15,
2010, allege that the Company and the named officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and
misleading public statements allegedly made during this period by
the Company and its officers.  On December 15, 2010, Mr. Bhat
voluntarily dismissed his complaint.  In the remaining matter,
renamed by the Court as In re Meta Financial Group, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, former stockholder Eden Partnership was
named lead plaintiff on January 12, 2011.  On April 11, 2011,
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them, but on
July 18, 2011, the Court denied the motion.  The matter will now
move into the discovery phase. The complaint does not specify an
amount of damages sought. The Company denies the allegations in
the complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defense.  An
estimate of the Company's possible loss cannot be made because of
the early stage of the litigation.


MILLER ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on August 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
the common stock of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. during the
period from March 15, 2010 through August 1, 2011, seeking to
recover investors' damages from violations of federal securities
laws.

To join the Miller class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's
Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com or call Jonathan Horne,
Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.  The
case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
against Miller, its Chief Executive Officer, Scott Boruff and CFO
Paul Boyd.  The Complaint alleges that the Company overstated the
value of assets it purchased in a bankruptcy sale by over 1,000%,
and that the Company falsely claimed it had obtained the approval
of its registered independent accountant, KPMG, for this
valuation.

On July 28, 2011, analysts Melissa Davis and Janice Shell issued a
report questioning the valuation.  The report revealed that the
assets had been on the market for a year, and that industry
experts found the valuation incredible.  On July 29, 2011, Miller
issued an annual report on Form 10-K, purporting to rebut the
claims, and purporting to include an unqualified audit letter from
KPMG.  On August 1, 2011, Miller issued a current report on Form
8-K saying that the July 29 10-K should no longer be relied upon
because, among other things, KPMG had not completed its audit.

Disclosure that its financial statements can no longer be relied
on caused Miller's stock price to drop, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 11, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact:

          Jonathan Horne, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Telephone: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jhorne@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


NESS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ness Technologies, Inc. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated putative class action lawsuit captioned In re Ness
Technologies, Inc. Shareholders 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.

Eight putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company, its directors, Citi Venture Capital International and
certain of its subsidiaries in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in connection with the definitive merger agreement the
Company signed on June 10, 2011. All eight lawsuits contain
substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar
relief. In all eight actions, plaintiffs allege generally that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the merger by, among other things, carrying out a process
that they allege did not ensure adequate and fair consideration to
the Company's stockholders. They further allege that CVCI and its
subsidiaries aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duties.
Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuits on behalf of the
Company's public stockholders and seek equitable relief to enjoin
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger or rescissory
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief. On
July 8, 2011, these eight lawsuits were consolidated under the
caption In re Ness Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
(C.A. No. 6569-VCN). On July 18, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint which asserts the same claims as
the original eight complaints, plus a claim for breach of the duty
of disclosure based on alleged disclosure failures in the
Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on
June 30, 2011. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 22,
2011, the Court of Chancery held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion
for expedited proceedings. On August 3, 2011, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' motion in all respects except for limited and focused
expedited discovery to answer the narrow question of whether
either the Company's financial advisor or the special committee of
the board of directors were conflicted because of their
relationships with CVCI. The Company and its directors believe
that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against the asserted claims.

Ness Technologies, Inc. is a global provider of IT and business
services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Statewide Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Incorporated continues to defend itself in putative
class actions pending across the country, 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 and certain third-party defendant online travel
companies are currently involved in approximately fifty lawsuits,
including certified and putative class actions, brought by or
against states, cities and counties over issues involving the
payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes and the Company's
"merchant" hotel business.  The Company's subsidiaries
Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all
of these cases.  Generally, each complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated each jurisdiction's
respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law.
Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement,
penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.  The
Company is also involved in one consumer lawsuit relating to,
among other things, the payment of hotel occupancy taxes and
service fees.  In addition, approximately sixty municipalities or
counties, and at least six states, have initiated audit
proceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than forty
municipalities in California), issued proposed tax assessments or
started inquiries relating to the payment of hotel occupancy and
other taxes (i.e., state and local sales tax).  Additional state
and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is
subject to, among other things, hotel occupancy and other taxes
(i.e., state and local sales tax) and could seek to collect such
taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively.

In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the
Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts
may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the
assessments and the applicability of the ordinances in judicial
proceedings.  This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to
play" or "pay first."  For example, the City of San Francisco
assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an amount that
includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel occupancy
taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009.  Payment of these
amounts, if any, is not an admission that the Company believes it
is subject to such taxes and, even if such payments are made, the
Company intends to continue to assert its position vigorously.
The Company has successfully argued against a "pay first"
requirement asserted in another California proceeding.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse
developments in these pending or future cases and proceedings.
For example, in October 2009, a jury in a San Antonio class action
found that the Company and the other online travel companies that
are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes of the
local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are, therefore,
subject to the requirements of those ordinances.  On July 1, 2011,
the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in
connection with this case.  In addition to ruling that hotel tax
was due from defendants on the markup and service fee, the court
held defendants liable for penalties and interest per the terms of
each city's applicable ordinance, but capped at 15% of the total
amount of unpaid taxes at the time of entry of judgment;
ordinances without a penalty provision are assessed a fifteen 15%
penalty under the Texas Tax Code.  The Company expects
supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law to be issued
by the court, followed by a judgment.  The Company intends to
vigorously pursue an appeal of the judgment on legal and factual
grounds.

An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may
encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit
proceedings or other regulatory inquiries.  In addition, an
unfavorable outcome or settlement of these actions or proceedings
could result in substantial liabilities for past and/or future
bookings, including, among other things, interest, penalties,
punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs.  There have been,
and will continue to be, substantial ongoing costs, which may
include "pay first" payments, associated with defending the
Company?s position in pending and any future cases or proceedings.
An adverse outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and
results of operations and could be material to the Company's
earnings or cash flow in any given operating period.

To the extent that any tax authority succeeds in asserting that
the Company has a tax collection responsibility, or the Company
determines that it has such a responsibility, with respect to
future transactions, the Company may collect any such additional
tax obligation from its customers, which would have the effect of
increasing the cost of hotel room reservations to its customers
and, consequently, could make the Company's hotel service less
competitive and reduce hotel reservation transactions;
alternatively, the Company could choose to reduce the compensation
for its services on "merchant" hotel transactions.  Either step
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and
results of operations.

In many of the judicial and other proceedings initiated to date,
municipalities seek not only historical taxes that are claimed to
be owed on the Company's gross profit, but also, among other
things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees
and costs.  Therefore, any liability associated with hotel
occupancy tax matters is not constrained to the Company's
liability for tax owed on its historical gross profit, but may
also include, among other things, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees.  To date, the majority of the taxing
jurisdictions in which the Company facilitates hotel reservations
have not asserted that taxes are due and payable on the Company's
U.S. "merchant" hotel business.  With respect to municipalities
that have not initiated proceedings to date, it is possible that
they will do so in the future or that they will seek to amend
their tax statutes and seek to collect taxes from the Company only
on a prospective basis.

As a result of this litigation and other attempts by jurisdictions
to levy similar taxes, the Company has established a reserve for
the potential resolution of issues related to hotel occupancy and
other taxes in the amount of approximately $29 million at June 30,
2011 compared to approximately $26 million at December 31, 2010
(which includes, among other things, amounts related to the
litigation in San Antonio). The reserve is based on the Company?s
reasonable estimate, and the ultimate resolution of these issues
may be less or greater, potentially significantly, than the
liabilities recorded.

The statewide class actions and putative class actions are:

* City of Los Angeles, California v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.
   (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County; filed in
   December 2004)

* City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
   District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; filed in
   November 2005)

* City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
   District Court for the Western District of Texas; filed in May
   2006)

* City of Jacksonville, Florida, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
   al. (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County,
   Florida; filed in July 2006)

* City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
   District Court for the District of New Mexico; filed in July
   2007)

* City of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, et al. v. priceline.com
   Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Middle
   District of Tennessee; filed in June 2008)

* Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey v. priceline.com
   Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of
   New Jersey; filed in June 2008); (U.S. Court of Appeals for the
   Third Circuit; appeal filed in April 2009)

* Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson
   County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al. (Circuit
   Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas; filed in September 2009)

* County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   (Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania; filed
   Nov. 2009); (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; appeal filed
   in November 2010)

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in all
of the on-going proceedings.

Priceline.com Incorporated offers customers hotel room
reservations at over 190,000 hotels worldwide through the
Booking.com, priceline.com and Agoda brands.



PRICELINE.COM INC: Remaining Claim in "Peluso" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois court granted a motion to voluntarily dismiss the
remaining claim against Priceline.com Incorporated in a
consolidated class action lawsuit captioned Peluso v. Orbitz.com.
et al., 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 re Chiste, et al. v. priceline.com Inc., et al. (United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York; filed in
December 2008), the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
all claims against it except the breach of fiduciary claim, which,
on June 21, 2011, the court ordered transferred to Illinois.  On
June 29, 2011, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
resolution of the remaining claim, which was consolidated under
Peluso v. Orbitz.com, et al., 11 Civ. 4407 on July 14, 2011.  On
July 13, 2011, plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the court's
orders in the Southern District of New York.  On July 26, 2011,
the Peluso court granted plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss
the claim against the Company in the Northern District of
Illinois.

Priceline.com Incorporated offers customers hotel room
reservations at over 190,000 hotels worldwide through the
Booking.com, priceline.com and Agoda brands.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Suit Settlement Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The remaining appeal from the settlement of securities class
action lawsuits in New York is still pending, according to
Priceline.com Incorporated'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 16, March 26, April 27, and June 5, 2001, four putative
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York naming priceline.com, Inc.,
Richard S. Braddock, Jay Walker, Paul Francis, Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
as defendants (01 Civ. 2261, 01 Civ. 2576, 01 Civ. 3590 and 01
Civ. 4956).  Shives et al. v. Bank of America Securities LLC et
al., 01 Civ. 4956, also names other defendants and states claims
unrelated to the Company.  The complaints allege, among other
things, that the Company and the individual defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing and selling priceline.com
common stock in the Company's March 1999 initial public offering
without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in
the offering, including the lead underwriters, had allegedly
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.  After extensive negotiations, the parties
reached a comprehensive settlement on or about March 30, 2009.  On
April 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement.  On June 9, 2009, the court granted the
motion and scheduled the hearing for final approval for
September 10, 2009.  The settlement, previously approved by a
special committee of the Company's Board of Directors, compromised
the claims against the Company for approximately $0.3 million. The
court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on
October 5, 2009.  Notices of appeal of the court's order have been
filed with the Second Circuit.  All but one of the appeals has
been resolved.  The remaining appeal is still pending.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in all
of the proceedings.  The Company has accrued for certain legal
contingencies where it is probable that a loss has been incurred
and the amount can be reasonably estimated.  Except as disclosed,
such amounts accrued are not material to the Company's
consolidated balance sheets and provisions recorded have not been
material to the Company's consolidated results of operations or
cash flows.  The Company is unable to estimate the potential
maximum range of loss.

Priceline.com Incorporated offers customers hotel room
reservations at over 190,000 hotels worldwide through the
Booking.com, priceline.com and Agoda brands.


SEALED AIR: Cryovac-related Suits Still Stayed by Grace Bankruptcy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed against Sealed Air Corporation as a
result of its purchase of W.R. Grace & Co.'s Cryovac packaging
business in 1998 remain stayed due to Grace's Chapter 11
bankruptcy case, 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.

Since the beginning of 2000, the Company has been served with a
number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac
transaction, it is responsible for alleged asbestos liabilities of
Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were also named as co-
defendants in some of these actions.  Among these lawsuits are
several purported class actions and a number of personal injury
lawsuits.  Some plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury or
wrongful death, while others seek medical monitoring,
environmental remediation or remedies related to an attic
insulation product.  Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor
Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing
materials that are the subjects of these cases.  None of these
cases has reached resolution through judgment, settlement or
otherwise.  Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding has stayed
all of these cases.


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonoco Products Company continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit pending in South Carolina, according to the
Company's August 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2011.

On July 7, 2008, the Company was served with a complaint filed in
the United States District Court for South Carolina by the City of
Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated. The suit is a class action on behalf
of those who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 7, 2007 and September 18, 2007, except officers and
directors of the Company. The complaint, as amended, alleges that
the Company issued press releases and made public statements
during the class period that were materially false and misleading.
The complaint also names certain Company officers as defendants
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees. The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the suit.


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Units Continue to Defend Katrina-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company's subsidiaries -- Alabama Power Company,
Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Southern Power
Company -- are defending themselves against a class action
complaint filed in Mississippi alleging damages as a result of
Hurricane Katrina, 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.

Common law nuisance claims for injunctive relief and property
damage allegedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions have become
more frequent, and courts have been debating whether private
parties and states have standing to bring such claims. In another
common law nuisance case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi dismissed private party claims against
certain oil, coal, chemical, and utility companies alleging
damages as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The court ruled that the
parties lacked standing to bring the claims and the claims were
barred by the political question doctrine. In October 2009, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district
court and held that the plaintiffs did have standing to assert
their nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims and none of the
claims were barred by the political question doctrine. In May
2010, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the case based on procedural
grounds, reinstating the district court decision in favor of the
defendants. On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' petition to reinstate the appeal. This case is now
concluded.

However, on May 27, 2011, a class action complaint alleging
damages as a result of Hurricane Katrina was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by the
same plaintiffs who brought the previous common law nuisance case
involving substantially similar allegations. The current
litigation was filed against numerous chemical, coal, oil, and
utility companies (including Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf
Power, and Southern Power) and includes many of the same
defendants that were involved in the earlier case. Each Southern
Company entity named in the lawsuit believes these claims are
without merit. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Obtains Final Approval of AirTran Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. obtained final court approval of its
settlement of class action lawsuits filed by stockholders of
AirTran Holdings, Inc., that challenged the acquisition of AirTran
by the Company, 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 September 28, 2010, Frederick Leonelli filed a purported class
action lawsuit (the "Leonelli complaint") on behalf of himself and
similarly situated AirTran stockholders in the First Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada for Carson City against
AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Arne G. Haak, AirTran's Senior Vice
President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each
member of the AirTran board of directors, the Company, and
Guadalupe Holdings Corp. ("Merger Sub"). The Leonelli complaint
generally alleged that the consideration received by AirTran's
stockholders in the merger was unfair and inadequate and that the
AirTran officers and directors named as defendants (the
"individual AirTran defendants") breached their fiduciary duties
by approving the merger agreement through an unfair and flawed
process and by approving certain deal protection mechanisms
contained in the merger agreement. The Leonelli complaint further
alleged that AirTran, the Company, and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the individual AirTran defendants in the breach of their
fiduciary duties to AirTran's stockholders. The Leonelli complaint
sought injunctive relief to (i) enjoin the defendants from
consummating the merger unless AirTran adopted and implemented a
procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price for
AirTran's stockholders and disclosed all material information to
AirTran's stockholders, (ii) direct the individual AirTran
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction in the best interests of AirTran's stockholders, and
(iii) rescind the merger agreement, including the deal protection
devices that may have precluded premium competing bids for
AirTran.  It also sought plaintiff's costs and disbursements of
the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and
such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just
and proper. On the same day, Frank Frohman filed a second
purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit (the "Frohman
complaint") in the same court and against the same defendants
(other than Mr. Haak) as the Leonelli complaint. The allegations
in the Frohman complaint, as well as the relief requested, were
generally the same as those set forth in the Leonelli complaint.
The Frohman complaint was consolidated into the Leonelli complaint
on December 9, 2010. On December 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint (the "Leonelli consolidated complaint")
asserting the same claims and requesting the same relief against
the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak). The Leonelli
consolidated complaint also included new allegations, as part of
its breach of fiduciary duty claim, that the individual AirTran
defendants caused the Company to file a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the SEC on November 19, 2010 which omitted or
misrepresented material information regarding the merger. AirTran
and the individual AirTran defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Leonelli consolidated complaint on January 7, 2011, which was
joined by the Company and Merger Sub on the same day.

Four purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuits were also
filed in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and
for Orange County, Florida. Harry Hoffner filed a purported class
action lawsuit on September 30, 2010 against the same defendants
(other than Mr. Haak and Merger Sub) as in the Leonelli complaint.
This was followed by lawsuits filed by Robert Debardelan on
October 8, 2010, Thomas A. Rosenberger on October 12, 2010, and
Robert Loretitsch on October 15, 2010 against the same defendants
plus Merger Sub. The allegations in these actions, as well as the
relief requested, are also generally the same as those set forth
in the Leonelli complaint. On November 15, 2010, these actions
were consolidated into one action styled In re AirTran Shareholder
Litigation (the "consolidated Florida action"). On December 2,
2010, the consolidated Florida action was stayed in its entirety
pending resolution of the earlier filed Leonelli complaint.

On October 8, 2010, Douglas Church filed another purported AirTran
shareholder class action lawsuit (the "Church complaint") in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark
County against the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as in the
Leonelli complaint. The allegations set forth in the Church
complaint, as well as the relief requested, were generally the
same as those set forth in the Leonelli complaint with one
addition. The Church complaint additionally alleged, as part of
its breach of fiduciary duty claim, that the individual AirTran
defendants (other than Mr. Haak) received greater benefits under
the merger agreement than other former AirTran stockholders. Mr.
Church voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit on November 30, 2010, but
on December 2, 2010, he re-filed a new lawsuit against the same
defendants in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada (the "Church federal complaint"). The Church federal
complaint makes the same claims and seeks the same relief as his
original lawsuit, but includes new claims for alleged violations
of Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly providing misleading and incomplete information in the
Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on November 19,
2010. Specifically, the Church federal complaint alleges that the
disclosures contained in the Form S-4 Registration Statement
omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the
process of approving the merger agreement, the merger
consideration, and the intrinsic value of AirTran. AirTran and the
individual AirTran defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Church
federal complaint on December 22, 2010, which remains pending.

On January 18, 2011, William Nesbit filed another purported
AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit again in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada against the same
defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as in the Leonelli complaint. The
allegations and claims set forth in the Nesbit lawsuit, as well as
the relief requested, are generally the same as those set forth in
the Church federal complaint. On May 16, 2011, the Nesbit lawsuit
was stayed pending resolution of the earlier filed Leonelli and
Church complaints.

While the Company believes that each of the lawsuits is without
merit, the parties to the Leonelli consolidated complaint and the
Church federal complaint entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") on January 26, 2011 to settle those
lawsuits. The settlement provided for the inclusion of additional
disclosures with respect to various aspects of the merger in the
proxy statement/prospectus sent to AirTran stockholders soliciting
approval of the merger on February 11, 2011. The settlement also
provides for the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses, subject to court approval and conditional certification
of a settlement class. These terms were included in the
stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties on May 6,
2011.  Final approval of the settlement was obtained on July 28,
2011 with the court reserving judgment on the amount of attorneys'
fees to be paid to class counsel.  The settlement resolves and
releases on behalf of the entire class of former AirTran
stockholders, all claims that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith, among other claims.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Certification Plea Pending in Suit vs. AirTran
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for certification is still pending in the class action
lawsuit against Southwest Airlines Co.'s subsidiary, AirTran
Holdings, 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 May 2, 2011 (the "acquisition date"), the Company acquired all
of the outstanding equity of AirTran Holdings, Inc. ("AirTran
Holdings"), the former parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc.
("AirTran Airways"), in exchange for Southwest Airlines Co.
("Southwest Airlines") common stock and cash.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc., (Delta) and AirTran Holdings, Inc., in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in
Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with
Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked
luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The initial
complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of
persons or entities in the United States who directly paid Delta
and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning December 5,
2008. After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other
nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class
actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were
consolidated before a single federal district court judge in
Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint filed in the
consolidated action on February 1, 2010 broadened the allegations
to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to cut capacity on
competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act.  In addition to treble damages, the
Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief against a
broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as
attorneys' fees. On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2
of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy
with respect to the imposition of a first bag fee and the
airlines' capacity and pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which AirTran and
Delta have opposed.  The Court has not yet ruled on the class
certification motion.  AirTran denies all allegations of
wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint,
and intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Suits in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
Antitrust class action lawsuits filed against Steel Dynamics,
Inc., and other steel manufacturing companies are in the discovery
stages, 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 September 17, 2008, the Company and eight other steel
manufacturing companies were served with a class action antitrust
complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago by Standard Iron Works of
Scranton, Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the United States, starting in 2005, by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products.  Seven
additional lawsuits, each of them materially similar to the
original, have also been filed in the same federal court, each of
them likewise seeking similar class certification.  All but one of
the Complaints purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products between
January 1, 2005, and the present.  The other Complaint purports to
be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all indirect
purchasers of steel products within the same time period.  In
addition, on December 28, 2010, the Company and the other co-
defendants were served with a substantially similar complaint in
the Circuit Court of Cocke County, Tennessee, purporting to be on
behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee.  The
case has been removed to federal court.  All Complaints seek
treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief.  On January 2,
2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a Joint Motion
to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits.  On June 12,
2009, however, the Court denied the Motion.  The parties are
currently conducting discovery.  The Company believes that the
lawsuits are without merit and is aggressively defending these
actions.  Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, the Company
cannot presently determine the ultimate outcome of this
litigation, however the Company has determined, based on the
information available at this time, that there is not presently a
"reasonable possibility" (as that term is defined in ASC 450-20-
20), that the outcome of these legal proceedings would have a
material impact on our financial condition, results of operations,
or liquidity.


SYNGENTA CROP: Magistrate Upholds Order on Atrazine Documents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that U.S. Magistrate Judge Phil Frazier decided not to tear up an
order that protects the privacy of Syngenta Crop Protection in
litigation with Stephen Tillery.

On Aug. 11, Judge Frazier rejected a plea from the Environmental
Law and Policy Center and the Prairie Rivers Network to vacate an
order allowing confidentiality in discovery.

The lawyer for the groups, Howard Learner of Chicago, had argued
that all records of the case belonged to the public even if
Mr. Tillery filed them for no public purpose.

On Aug. 5, he wrote that all documents filed under seal have been
used in a court proceeding and are subject to a presumptive right
of public access.

"This statement applies equally to documents that have been filed
with the court as exhibits -- even those exhibits that were not
individually cited in the briefs to which they were attached,"
Mr. Learner wrote.

Syngenta argued that the order complied with Seventh Circuit law,
and Judge Frazier agreed.

"The court is satisfied that the protective order complies with
relevant authority, which allows litigants to maintain a level of
secrecy when they exchange information regarding their claims and
defenses," Judge Frazier wrote.

"The protective order does not order the parties to file documents
under seal and does not require the clerk to maintain documents
under seal.

"Moreover, the order does not govern information used at trial or
filed in connection with dispositive motions.

"The order anticipates that any decision to maintain materials
under seal will be made at a later date, following a ruling on a
separate motion supported by the necessary showing of good cause."

Judge Frazier assists District Judge Phil Gilbert, who presides
over Mr. Tillery's claim that weed killer atrazine contaminates
water.

In July, Judge Gilbert denied a motion from the nature groups to
unseal all documents.

Mr. Learner moved for reconsideration on Aug. 2.

"If the defendants claim that certain documents constitute or
contain trade secrets, they must specifically show that the
information amounts to trade secrets in the relevant industry,"
Mr. Learner wrote.

"For material to be protected as a trade secret, it must give the
holder an economic advantage and threaten a competitive injury.

"Business information whose release harms the holder only because
the information is embarrassing or reveals weaknesses does not
qualify for trade secret protection."

He wrote that according to Syngenta, "Plaintiffs filed the sealed
documents as part of a premeditated scheme designed to exert
pressure on Syngenta by disclosing Syngenta's so called
confidential information to the public."

He wrote that the case Syngenta cited didn't apply, but he didn't
deny the scheme.

He wrote that the exhibits might underpin Judge Gilbert's ruling
on a motion to dismiss Swiss holding company Syngenta AG for lack
of jurisdiction.

At a hearing in July, Judge Gilbert said he would decide the
motion as soon as possible.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Ontario Horsepower Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against Tecumseh Products Company and several other
companies relating to the mislabeling of horsepower of lawnmower
engines 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 March 19, 2010 Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the Company and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of
lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition
in lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel
the horsepower of lawnmower engines and lawnmowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for
their own use and not for resale, a lawnmower containing a gas
combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either
the lawnmower or the engine contained within the lawnmower was
manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors
between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment.  Plaintiffs seek
undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and
equitable relief.  In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation
and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company
and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have
notified the Company that they claim indemnification with respect
to this lawsuit under the Company's Purchase Agreement with them.
At this time, the Company does not have a reasonable estimate of
the amount of its ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any
potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to
its financial position, consolidated results of operations and
cash flows.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Quebec Horsepower Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the Province of
Quebec relating to mislabeling of horsepower of lawnmower engines
in Canada, 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, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against the Company and several other defendants advancing
allegations similar to the class action lawsuits filed under the
Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages,
interest, costs, and equitable relief.  Snowstorm Acquisition
Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh
Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November
2007, have notified the Company that they claim indemnification
with respect to this lawsuit under the Stock Purchase Agreement
with them.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Defends Antitrust Suits in U.S. and Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself from
antitrust class action lawsuits filed in the United States and
Canada, 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 17, 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division and a
formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic
Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil related to investigations
by these authorities into possible anti-competitive pricing
arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor
industry.  The European Commission began an investigation of the
industry on the same day.

The Company is cooperating fully with these investigations.  In
addition, the Company has entered into a conditional amnesty
agreement with the DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate
Leniency Policy.  Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to
not bring any criminal prosecution with respect to the
investigation against the Company as long as the Company, among
other things, continues its full cooperation in the investigation.
The Company has received similar conditional immunity from the
European Commission, the SDE, and the competition authorities in
other jurisdictions.

While the Company has taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and
other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs.  The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups.
All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation
procedures.

On June 24, 2010, Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor
Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A.
LLC entered into a settlement agreement with direct-purchaser
plaintiffs to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid the
costs and distraction of this ongoing class action litigation.
The Settlement Agreement was made by and between the Company and
its subsidiaries and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually
and on behalf of a class of persons who purchased in the United
States, its territories and possessions, directly from a defendant
during the period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2008:
(a) compressors of less than one horsepower used for
refrigeration, freezing or cooling purposes, and/or (b)
refrigeration products, including condensers, containing
compressors of less than one horsepower used for refrigeration,
freezing or cooling purposes.  Compressors used for air-
conditioning applications are specifically excluded.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for
plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser claims
against the Company relating to the Covered Products, the Company
agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in
addition, agreed to pay up to $250,000 for notice and
administrative costs associated with administering the settlement.
These costs were accrued as an expense in the second quarter of
2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010) in the line item
captioned "Impairments, restructuring charges, and other items".
On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of Tecumseh's proposed
settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because the time
frame and products covered by the proposed settlement class were
inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same day, granting in
part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss claims by the
direct purchaser plaintiffs.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs have
filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling
dismissing these claims.  As a result of these rulings, both
Tecumseh and the direct purchaser plaintiffs have the option to
rescind the Settlement Agreement, in which case the settlement
amount will be returned to Tecumseh. Alternatively, Tecumseh and
the direct purchaser plaintiffs may agree to amend the Settlement
Agreement to be consistent with the Court's rulings on the motion
to dismiss.  Even if the court approves the Settlement Agreement,
if the Company's customers representing a significant percentage
of purchases of Covered Products choose not to participate in the
settlement (opt-out), the Company has the right under certain
circumstances to withdraw from the Settlement Agreement and have
the settlement funds returned.

In the United States, the remaining indirect purchaser class
actions are in a preliminary stage.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on June 30, 2010.  The Company and other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class
action on August 30, 2010.  Briefing on the motions has been
completed and the motions are still pending before the Court.
Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust
law generally are jointly and severally liable to private
claimants for three times the actual damages caused by their joint
conduct.  As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, the
Company's civil liability will be limited pursuant to the
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, as
amended.  As long as the Company continues to cooperate with the
civil claimants and comply with the requirements of ACPERA, the
Company will be liable only for actual, as opposed to treble,
damages and will not be jointly and severally liable for claims
against other participants in the alleged anticompetitive conduct
being investigated.

In Canada, the class actions are in a preliminary stage.  Due to
uncertainty of the Company's liability in these cases, or other
cases that may be brought in the future, the Company has not
accrued any liability in its financial statements, other than for
the claims subject to the Settlement Agreement.  The Company's
ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future
settlements or resolution of these claims could be material to its
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows.

The Company anticipates that it will incur additional expenses as
it continues to cooperate with the investigations and defend the
lawsuits.  The Company expenses all legal costs as incurred in the
consolidated statements of operations.  Such expenses and any
restitution payments could negatively impact the Company's
reputation, compromise its ability to compete and result in
financial losses in an amount which could be material to its
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows.


THESTREET INC: Awaits Decision on Appeal from Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
TheStreet, Inc. is awaiting a decision on an appeal from a
settlement resolving consolidated class actions arising from the
Company's initial public offering, according to TheStreet's
August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In 2001, the Company, certain of its current or former officers
and directors and certain underwriters were named in a securities
class action related to the Company's initial public offering.
Similar suits were filed against approximately 300 other issuers
and their underwriters, all of which are included in a single
coordinated proceeding in the district court. The complaints
allege that the prospectus and the registration statement for the
IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly solicited
and received "excessive" commissions from investors and that some
investors in the IPO allegedly agreed with the underwriters to buy
additional shares in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price
of the Company's stock. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.
In 2003, the district court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the claims against it under Rule 10b-5 but motions to
dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
were denied as to virtually all of the defendants in the
consolidated cases, including the Company. In addition, some of
the individual defendants in the IPO Litigations signed a tolling
agreement and were dismissed from the action without prejudice on
October 9, 2002. In 2003, a proposed collective partial settlement
of this litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the
issuer defendants in the consolidated actions, the issuer officers
and directors named as defendants, and the issuers' insurance
companies. The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement in 2005 but in 2007 the settlement was terminated, in
light of a ruling by the appellate court in related litigation in
2006 that reversed the trial court's certification of classes in
that related litigation. In 2009, another settlement was entered
into and approved by the trial court. Under the settlement, the
Company's obligation of approximately $339,000 would be paid by
the issuers? insurance companies. The settlement was appealed; in
May 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed one appeal
and remanded another appeal to the District Court to determine
whether the appellant has standing. There can be no assurance that
the approval of the settlement will not be reversed on appeal and
that the settlement will be implemented in its current form, or at
all. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate
outcome of the matter is uncertain.

TheStreet, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a
digital financial media company.


TIM HORTONS: Arguments on Franchisee Class Action Begin
-------------------------------------------------------
FinancialPost.com reports that a key stage of a class action
lawsuit that reveals infighting at one of Canada's most venerated
brands began in earnest in a Toronto courtroom on Aug. 15.

Archibald and Anne Jollymore -- the two franchise owners from
Burlington, Ont. who launched the claim against Tim Hortons Inc.
-- looked on from the front row of the visitors' gallery as their
lawyers took the floor.

The plaintiffs' primary allegation is that a chain-wide switch to
par-baking in a central factory, which replaced in-store scratch
baking starting around 2002, cut into their profits.  Some have
dubbed the dispute the "Always Fresh" lawsuit.

Three years after the pair started the claim in June 2008, the
case has finally wound its way to this showdown, a two-week motion
for certification as a class action.  Tim Hortons' own motion for
summary judgment, dismissing the claim entirely, is set to be
heard at the same time.

Tim Hortons argues in court documents that franchisee profits have
actually been increasing since 2002 and that there is no
contractual obligation for any particular level of profit in any
case.

The Jollymores have a long history with the company.

Mr. Jollymore joined Tim Hortons in 1977 and went on to hold
senior management positions before leaving in 1994 and becoming a
franchise owner, according to court documents.  His wife,
Ms. Jollymore, a trained pastry chef, has been a franchisee since
1988.

Adding to the cast of characters in the doughnut drama is former
franchisee Cyril Garland, who was also previously part of the
senior management team at Tim Hortons, who swore an affidavit in
support of the plaintiffs' case.

Meanwhile, a handful of current Tim Hortons senior managers, some
of whose tenures at the top overlapped with Mr. Jollymore, have
sworn affidavits in support of the company's case, including Paul
House, executive chairman and interim president and CEO.

The principal dispute in the case goes back to the "Always Fresh"
conversion, which started in the early 2000s.  Tim Hortons opened
a factory in Brantford, Ont. as a joint venture with Irish company
IAWS Group PLC.  The factory makes donuts, Timbits and other baked
goods, which are frozen and shipped to stores across the country.
Tim Hortons sold its interest in the venture for C$475-million in
2010, but the factory will continue to supply the stores until
2016.

Surrounded by tables stacked high with bound volumes of documents,
Jerome Morse, of Adair Morse LLP, lawyer for the plaintiffs, took
the court through his arguments on the price of a doughnut on Aug.
15.

The plaintiffs contend that the price of an unfinished doughnut
after the Always Fresh conversion tripled to 18 cents from the
previous, from-scratch price.

Store owners are required to buy from the Brantford factory and
Mr. Morse argued the owners of the factory charge a mark-up on
doughnuts that is not "commercially reasonable."

But in written argument submitted to the court, lawyers for Tim
Hortons from Stikeman Elliott LLP dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations on the cost of doughnuts, noting that post-conversion
labor costs as well as unnecessary waste and the hassle of dealing
with multiple suppliers are greatly reduced.

"The plaintiffs' approach to costs makes no sense," the defendants
say in a court document.

Tim Hortons further argues the plaintiffs have made errors in
their calculations and that the court should not engage in
analyzing a third-party contract on the issue of whether a mark-up
is "commercially reasonable."

Lawyers for the company will get the chance to address the court
directly starting today when lawyers for the plaintiffs are
scheduled to wrap up their arguments on why the case should be
certified as a class action.

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said they were seeking
a combined amount of C$1.95 billion in damages on behalf of a
class they said could include between 500 and 800 franchise
owners.

Justice George Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is
presiding over the hearing, scheduled for this week and the week
of Aug. 29, when he will hear arguments on Tim Hortons' motion for
summary judgment.


TRAVELZOO INC: Disputes Federal Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Travelzoo Inc. on Aug. 12 disclosed that a purported class action
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and certain of
its officers and directors.  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, and claims that the company has issued
false and misleading information concerning the company's business
and prospects.  The action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who purchased the company's shares during a recent period.

The company stated that it strongly believes the case is
completely without merit.  Chris Loughlin, Travelzoo's chief
executive officer, commented: "We believe that our disclosures
have been accurate and fully compliant with the company's
obligations under securities laws and under the rules of NASDAQ.
As is the case with many meritless securities class action claims,
the filing of this action follows a decline in Travelzoo's share
price, in a period of continued volatility in the share price.  We
intend to vigorously defend against these meritless claims."

Travelzoo Inc. (Nasdaq: TZOO) is a global Internet media company.
With more than 24 million subscribers in North America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific and 23 offices worldwide, Travelzoo(R) publishes
deals from more than 2,000 travel, entertainment and local
companies.  Travelzoo Deal Experts review offers to find the best
deals and confirm their true value.  In Asia Pacific, Travelzoo is
independently owned and operated by Travelzoo (Asia) Ltd. and
Travelzoo Japan K.K. under a license agreement with Travelzoo Inc.


UGI CORP: Unit Continues to Defend "Swiger" Suits in West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation's subsidiaries continue to defend themselves in
the class action lawsuits filed by Samuel and Brenda Swiger in
West Virginia, 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 1996, a fire occurred at the residence of Samuel and Brenda
Swiger (the "Swigers") when propane that leaked from an
underground line ignited. In July 1998, the Swigers filed a class
action lawsuit against AmeriGas Propane, L.P. or AmeriGas OLP
(named incorrectly as "UGI/AmeriGas, Inc."), in the Circuit Court
of Monongalia County, West Virginia, in which they sought to
recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages
and attorney's fees, for themselves and on behalf of persons in
West Virginia for whom the defendants had installed propane gas
lines, resulting from the defendants' alleged failure to install
underground propane lines at depths required by applicable safety
standards. On December 14, 2010, AmeriGas OLP and its affiliates
entered into a settlement agreement with the class, which was
preliminarily approved by the Circuit Court of Monongalia County
on January 13, 2011.

In 2005, the Swigers also filed what purports to be a class action
in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia against
UGI, an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and
the General Partner -- AmeriGas Propane, Inc., and their insurance
carriers and insurance adjusters. In the Harrison County lawsuit,
the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of the West
Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence,
intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The Swigers have
also requested that the Court rule that insurance coverage exists
under the policies issued by the defendant insurance companies for
damages sustained by the members of the class in the Monongalia
County lawsuit. The Circuit Court of Harrison County has not
certified the class in the Harrison County lawsuit at this time
and, in October 2008, stayed that lawsuit pending resolution of
the class action lawsuit in Monongalia County. The Company
believes it has good defenses to the claims in this action.


UNITED FIRE: Hurricane Katrina-related Suits Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed by policyholders against United Fire &
Casualty Company as a result of Hurricane Katrina remain 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.

The Company is named as a defendant in various lawsuits relating
to disputes arising from damages that occurred as a result of
Hurricane Katrina in 2005.  These lawsuits include actions seeking
certification from the court to proceed as a class action suit and
actions filed by individual policyholders.  These cases involve,
among other claims: disputes as to the amount of reimbursable
claims in particular cases; the scope of insurance coverage under
homeowners and commercial property policies due to flooding, civil
authority actions, loss of use and business interruption; breach
of the duty of good faith or violations of Louisiana insurance
claims-handling laws or regulations (which cases involve claims
for statutory damages and, in some cases, punitive or exemplary
damages); the applicability of Louisiana's so-called "Valued
Policy Law," pursuant to which insurers must pay the total insured
value of a structure that is totally destroyed if any portion of
such damage was caused by a covered peril, even if the principal
cause of the loss was an excluded peril; and the scope or
enforceability of the water damage exclusion in the policies.  The
Company has established its loss and loss settlement expense
reserves on the assumption that the application of the Valued
Policy Law will not result in the Company having to pay damages
for perils not otherwise covered.  The Company believes that, in
the aggregate, these reserves are adequate.

The Company intends to continue to defend the cases related to
losses incurred as a consequence of Hurricane Katrina.  There are
approximately 69 individual policyholder cases pending and three
class action cases pending as of June 30, 2011.  The Company's
evaluation of these claims and the adequacy of recorded reserves
may change if it encounters adverse developments in the further
defense of these claims.  In the six-month periods ended June 30,
2011 and 2010, the Company incurred $5.8 million and $5.4 million
of loss and loss settlement expenses from Hurricane Katrina claims
and related litigation.


UNITED PARCEL: Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit alleging
wage-and-hour law violations in California, 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 is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws. In one of these cases, Marlo v.
UPS, which was certified as a class action in a California federal
court in September 2004, plaintiffs allege that they improperly
were denied overtime, and seek penalties for missed meal and rest
periods, and interest and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of 1,300 full-time supervisors. In August 2005,
the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all
claims, and plaintiffs appealed the ruling. In October 2007, the
appeals court reversed the lower court's ruling. In April 2008,
the court decertified the class and plaintiffs appealed. After
decertification of the class, plaintiffs filed 56 individual
lawsuits raising the same allegations as in the underlying class
action. As of June 30, 2011, 53 of the original 56 lawsuits have
been favorably resolved by dismissal, summary judgment granted to
the Company or trial defense verdict. Two cases resulted in a
plaintiff's verdict for an immaterial amount, and one case remains
pending. Of the 56 original lawsuits, plaintiffs have filed
appeals in 7 of those cases. Accordingly, at this time, the
Company does not believe that any loss associated with these
matters, would have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Headquartered in Atlanta, UPS serves more than 220 countries and
territories worldwide.


UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Approval of "Barber" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. is awaiting definitive documentation
and court approval of a settlement resolving a class action
captioned Barber Auto Sales v. UPS, 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 Barber Auto Sales v. UPS, which a federal court in Alabama
certified as a class action in September 2009, the plaintiff
asserts a breach of contract claim arising from the Company's
assessment of shipping charge corrections when UPS determines that
the "dimensional weight" of packages is greater than reported by
the shipper. On June 1, 2011, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case for an immaterial amount. The
settlement remains subject to definitive documentation and court
approval.

Headquartered in Atlanta, UPS serves more than 220 countries and
territories worldwide.


UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. continues to defend itself in a class
action complaint over alleged price-fixing activities in New York,
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 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. The Company was not named in this
case. On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants.
UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants
named in the amended complaint. The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself in this case. There are multiple factors that
prevent the Company from being able to estimate the amount of
loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1)
the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant its
motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, and the scope of the
plaintiffs' claims is therefore unclear; (2) the scope and size of
the proposed class is ill-defined; (3) there are significant legal
questions about the adequacy and standing of the putative class
representatives; and (4) the Company believes that it has a number
of meritorious legal defenses. Accordingly, at this time, the
Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss
that may result from these matters or to determine whether such
loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Headquartered in Atlanta, UPS serves more than 220 countries and
territories worldwide.


UNITED STATES: DHS Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Jenna
Greene, immigrant advocates filed a class action suit on Aug. 11
against the Department of Homeland Security for unlawfully
detaining immigrants and U.S. citizens identified through local
law enforcement agencies.

The Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center sued
DHS in Illinois federal court, challenging the constitutionality
of immigration detainers, which instruct local police to continue
to detain people suspected of immigration violations, even after
no other basis for custody exists, until U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement officers arrive to take the person into
custody.

The complaint alleges that the detainers violate the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments because DHS "fails to establish probable cause
before issuing the detainers, does not notify individuals that
detainers have been issued against them, and provides no means by
which individuals can challenge their extended detention."  Also,
the suit charges that the use of detainers violates the 10th
Amendment because it requires state and local governments to
implement federal law.

One plaintiff in the case, Jose Jimenez Moreno, is a 34-year old
U.S. citizen who is being held at the Winnebago County Jail in
Illinois on other charges.  The detainer, however, is preventing
him from getting out on bail -- and is invalid, since he's a
citizen.

"Without ever interviewing or speaking to him, ICE issued an
immigration detainer against Mr. Jimenez on March 22, 2011.  To
date, ICE has never had contact with Mr. Jimenez," the complaint
states.

Another plaintiff, Maria Jose Lopez, is a 29-year old legal
permanent resident who is being detained at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Tallahassee.  In November 2010, she
pled guilty to "misprision of a felony" a non-removable offense
for immigration purposes.  Still, "because of her detainer, at the
end of her term of lawful custody, Ms. Lopez is unlawfully subject
to being held an additional 48 hours or more in the custody of
FCI-Tallahassee when, but for the detainer, she would otherwise be
released," the complaint states.

A DHS spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.


WALMART: Settles Life Insurance Class Action for $2 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Silvestrini, writing for The Tampa Tribune, reports that
Walmart has agreed to pay more than $2 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit that alleges the retail giant secretly took out
life insurance policies on some of its Florida workers in the
1990s.

After attorneys' fees and other costs, the settlement will result
in an estimated payout of $5,800 each to the estates of more than
200 deceased former employees, according to court filings in U.S.
District Court.  The two lead plaintiffs, Richard Armatrout of
Tampa and Wayne Atkinson of Pasco County, are each to receive
$10,000.

The plaintiffs' wives, Karen Armatrout and Rita Atkinson, were
former Walmart employees who died in 1996 and 1997, respectively.

When contacted for comment, plaintiffs' attorney Michael Myers
released a joint statement from his clients and Walmart: "The
settlement is the result of significant arms-length negotiations
and is fair and reasonable.  Walmart has not bought company-owned
life insurance (COLI) in 15 years, and it just makes sense to
settle this matter."

The plaintiffs' law firms in Houston and Miami are expected to
receive $673,000 in legal fees under the settlement.

U.S. District Judge James Moody on Aug. 11 gave preliminary
approval to the settlement and scheduled a hearing for Oct. 17,
when the beneficiaries of the class action can object if they
wish.

The class includes the executors and administrators of the estates
of people whose lives were insured under Corporate Owned Life
Insurance Polices purchased by Walmart while they worked as
associates in Florida and whose deaths occurred no later than
Jan. 31, 2000, and resulted in the payment of insurance policy
payments to Walmart.

The company received $55,000 to $90,000 on each policy payout,
according to court filings.

The settlement ends a string of litigation that began more than
four years ago.

Walmart has maintained all along that it did nothing wrong and
that it informed employees that it was taking out the policies in
their names.  The company said employees were allowed to opt out.

The lawsuit, however, alleges the company told employees that
Walmart would not collect policy benefits.

The company has said in court filings that it received more than
$9 million in payouts from the policies, which were taken out on
all full-time Walmart employees who, in December 1993, were ages
18 to 70 and participated in the medical benefits plan.  The
company stopped taking out the policies in 1995 but continued to
receive payouts on employees who died, even after they left
Walmart.

Walmart, which said it canceled its policies in early 2000 because
it was losing money on the arrangement, says the program was
intended to reduce its income taxes and help pay rising employee
health care costs.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has settled three other lawsuits on the issue
in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.


WYETH CANADA: Sechelt Woman Launches Premarin Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Wood, writing for Coast Reporter, reports that a Sechelt
woman has started a class action lawsuit against Wyeth Canada Inc.
on behalf of all Canadian women who have been afflicted with
breast cancer as a result of taking hormone replacement therapy.

Dianna Stanway is relieved her seven-year battle to officially
file the lawsuit against the makers of the drug Premarin is now
over, as Madam Justice Miriam Gropper certified the class action
lawsuit Aug. 4 in B.C. Supreme Court.

"It is my view that the question of whether the defendant's
conduct was sufficiently reprehensible or high-handed to warrant
punishment is capable of being determined as a common issue at the
trial in this proceeding where the common issues will be
determined," Justice Gropper said in her ruling.

Ms. Stanway said she is pleased the courts have certified her
lawsuit.

"This has been going on for seven years.  It's been a long time,"
she said.

Ms. Stanway took Premarin for relief of symptoms of menopause for
several years, but stopped taking the drug after reading reports
it was linked to breast cancer.  This came too late, however, as
she was diagnosed with ductal and lobular breast cancer just two
months after she had stopped taking the drug.

According to a media statement from Ms. Stanway's lawyers, their
plaintiff alleges that the defendant marketed the hormone
replacement products for decades without sufficient research as to
their safety, and that the defendant failed to investigate warning
signs, dating back to the 1970s, concerning the risks posed by the
drugs.  Worse, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant used
'ghost-writing' in scientific journals to distort and downplay
these risks.

So far, Ms. Stanway said there are about nine women involved in
the lawsuit, but she expects many more to join as news of the
class action lawsuit spreads.

"I think there will be lots of people to come forward. I don't
really know how many, but I had five people call me this morning,
and when I was talking to my lawyer this morning, she said they
had quite a few calls too," Ms. Stanway told Coast Reporter
Aug. 8.  "People who called wanted to really just know what to
expect if they get involved, and all they really have to do is
produce proof they took Premarin.

"We were never told about the side effects of it causing cancer,
and that's the thing."

Ms. Stanway's Vancouver lawyer Douglas Lennox called the case an
important public health issue.

"When information about the risks of breast cancer and hormone
replacement therapy was first published, sales of the defendant's
products plunged in Canada and in countries around the world,"
Mr. Lennox said.  "This was followed by an unprecedented drop in
the rates of breast cancer in Canada and in other countries.  This
epidemiological evidence suggests that the defendant's products
may have been responsible for literally thousands of needless
cancers."

Ms. Stanway's legal team expects hundreds, if not thousands of
women to come forward and join the class action lawsuit that will
likely not reach the courts for a year or two.

"We look forward to bringing this case to trial," added Toronto
lawyer David Klein.  "Many similar lawsuits have already been
successfully tried to conclusion in the United States, resulting
in repeated verdicts against the defendants.  This has led to the
settlement of more than 3,300 cases in that country.

"Pfizer Inc., which purchased the defendant two years ago,
recently set aside C$772 million to resolve remaining claims in
the United States.  The drug is the same no matter which side of
the border it is sold on.  The harm is the same.  It is time for
the defendant to also compensate injured Canadian women."

Women who were prescribed Premplus or Premarin in combination with
progestin in Canada between Jan. 1, 1997 and Dec. 1, 2003, who
were later diagnosed with breast cancer can be involved in the
lawsuit.

If you feel you or someone you know should join this class action
lawsuit, visit http://www.kleinlyons.comor call them at 1-604-
874-7171.


ZORAN CORP: Continues to Defend Merger-related Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoran Corporation continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit arising from its merger agreement with CSR
plc, 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 23, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in Delaware Chancery Court by Judy Kauffman Goldstein, an alleged
stockholder of the Company who seeks to represent a class
comprised of the Company's stockholders.  The complaint in this
action names as defendants the Company, the members of the
Company's board of directors as of the date of the Goldstein
complaint, CSR plc and Zeiss Merger Sub, Inc.  The Goldstein
complaint alleges that the director defendants breached fiduciary
duties assertedly owed to the Company and its stockholders by
entering into the merger agreement with CSR that was announced on
February 22, 2011; that CSR and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; and that if the merger is
allowed to proceed, the stockholders will suffer damages because
their shares will be acquired for less than their actual value.
The plaintiff seeks an order of the Court certifying the action as
a class action; rescinding the merger and/or preliminarily
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger; enjoining
the defendants from taking any further action to interfere with a
consent solicitation previously commenced by Ramius Value and
Opportunity Master Fund Ltd.; and/or awarding damages, attorney's
fees and costs.

On February 25, 2011, a second purported class action was filed in
the same court by Lawrence Zucker, an alleged stockholder of the
Company, who seeks to represent the same purported class.  The
complaint in this action names as defendants the members of the
Company's board of directors as of the date of the complaint and
the Company.  The allegations contained in the Zucker complaint
are largely similar to the allegations contained in the complaint
filed by Judy Kauffman Goldstein, except that the Zucker complaint
also alleges that the Company aided and abetted alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty by the director defendants; does not name CSR
plc or Merger Sub as defendants; and does not allege that CSR or
Merger Sub aided or abetted any alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The plaintiff seeks similar relief to that sought in the
Goldstein complaint, except that the Zucker complaint does not
seek any relief with respect to the consent solicitation of Ramius
Value and Opportunity Master Fund Ltd.  On March 10, 2011, the
Chancery Court consolidated the Goldstein and Zucker actions and
designated the Goldstein complaint as the operative complaint in
the consolidated action.  On May 19, 2011, an amended complaint
was filed in the consolidated action.  In addition to the
allegations in the original complaints in the Goldstein and Zucker
actions, the consolidated complaint alleges that the registration
statement filed by CSR on April 19, 2011 containing CSR and the
Company's preliminary proxy statement/prospectus fails to provide
the Company's stockholders with material information and provides
them with materially misleading information.  The amended
complaint requests the same relief as the original complaints,
except that it does not request an order enjoining the defendants
from taking any further action to interfere with the Ramius
consent solicitation.


ZORAN CORP: Calif. Suit Stayed Pending Litigation of Del. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in a California state court arising
from Zoran Corporation's merger agreement with CSR plc is stayed
while a consolidated class action lawsuit over the same merger
agreement is being litigated in Delaware, 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 29, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
California Superior Court, Santa Clara County by Clal Finance
Mutual Funds Corporation, an alleged stockholder of the Company
that seeks to represent a class comprised of the Company's
stockholders.  The complaint in this action names as defendants
the Company, four members of the Company's board of directors, CSR
plc and Merger Sub.  The Clal Finance complaint alleges that the
director defendants breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to
the Company and its stockholders by engaging in a flawed sale
process that culminated in the merger agreement with CSR that was
announced on February 20, 2011; that the Company, CSR and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; and
that if the merger is allowed to proceed, the stockholders will
suffer damages because their shares will be acquired for less than
their actual value.  The plaintiff seeks an order of the Court
certifying the action as a class action; rescinding the merger
and/or preliminarily enjoining the defendants from consummating
the merger; directing the director defendants to commence a sale
process designed to secure the best possible consideration for the
Company's stockholders; and/or awarding damages, attorneys' fees
and costs.  Accordingly, the Company's potential loss, if any, is
not reasonably estimable at this time.  On April 29, 2011, the
Court entered its order, upon the stipulation of the parties, that
the defendants need not respond to the complaint in this action
until and unless the plaintiff filed an amended complaint or
notified the defendants that it intended not to file an amended
complaint.  On May 2, 2011, counsel for the plaintiff agreed with
counsel for the defendants that the California litigation would be
stayed while the Delaware cases were being litigated, and that the
plaintiff and its attorneys would only request relief, if at all,
through the Delaware litigation.



                            *********

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  * * *