CAR_Public/110818.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 18, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 163

                             Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Still Defends Securities Lawsuit in Arkansas
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Scient'x Purchase
APPLE INC: Forced Amazon to Stop Discounting eBooks, Suit Claims
ASSURED GUARANTY: Defendants Seek Writ of Mandamus in Alabama Suit
AT&T: Sues Bursor & Fisher Over T-Mobile Merger Class Action

BABCOCK & WILCOX: To Defend Suit Over "Radiation" in Tenn. Plant
BNY MELLON: Continues to Defend Suits Over Securities Lending
BNY MELLON: Unit Continues to Defend Suits Over Madoff Investment
BNY MELLON: Continues to Defend Medical Capital-Related Suits
BNY MELLON: Defends Suits Over Foreign Exchange Matters

BP: Feb. 2012 Trial Set for Consolidated Oil Spill Litigation
CALAMOS ASSET: Appeal From "Brown" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
CALAMOS ASSET: Awaits Decisions in "Rutgers" Class Suit
CALAMOS ASSET: Illinois Court Dismisses "Bourrienne" Suit
CENTRAL PACIFIC: In Talks to Resolve "Peterson" Class Suit

CENTRAL VERMONT: Defends Merger-Related Suits
CHINA EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
CHINA NATURAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware
CIGNA INSURANCE: ABA Therapy Suit Gets Class Action Status
CON-WAY INC: EWA Continues to Defend WARN Class Suit in Ohio

CRANE CO: Continues to Defend Homeowners' Class Suit in New Jersey
DENDREON CORP: Oct. 3 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ohio
DIEBOLD INC: Court Okays Settlement in Labor & Wage Suit in Calif.
DUKE ENERGY: To Make Payments Under ERISA Suit Settlement

DYNEGY INC: To Appeal $1.6MM Award of Legal Fees in Class Suit
EI DUPONT: Reassesses Liability in Medical Monitoring Program
EL PASO NATURAL GAS: Continues to Defend Royalty Underpayment Suit
ENCORE ENERGY: Defends Vanguard-Related Suits in Texas & Delaware
ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Class Suits Over Southern Union Merger

ENTERGY CORP: Certification Hearing in Texas Suit Set This Month
GENON ENERGY: Nevada Court Dismisses Claims in 4 Antitrust Suits
HANSEN MEDICAL: Still Awaits Decision in Consolidated Suit
HARBIN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suits
HILLENBRAND INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Certification Denial

INSMED INC: Agrees to Resolve Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Suit
LIVE NATION: Continues to Defend Suit Over Concert Ticket Prices
LIVE NATION: Still Awaits Settlement Okay in Consolidated Suit
LIVE NATION: Trial Set to Begin Oct. 2011 in Ticketmaster Suit

LIVE NATION: Units Continue to Defend Suits in Canada
MAINSTREAM INDUSTRIES: May Face Class Action Over Toxic Leak
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits
MERCK & CO: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Vioxx Securities Suits
MERCK & CO: Trial Conference in Vioxx ERISA Suits Set for Nov. 15

MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin Securities Litigation
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin ERISA Litigation
MOTRICITY INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington
NELNET INC: Unit Awaits Ruling on Plea for Stay Pending Rehearing
OLD NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Checking Account Practices Suit

ORIENT EXPRESS: Unit Defends Wage and Hour Suit in New York
PNC FINANCIAL: CBNV Suit Plaintiffs Seek to File Amended Complaint
PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss Lawsuit in Orange County
PRUDENTIAL FOX: Settles Class Action Over Administrative Fees
PUBLIC STORAGE: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in California

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Engle Progeny Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Brown" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in "Sateriale" Suit Appeal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery Still Ongoing in "VanDyke" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Lights" Suits vs. Units Remain Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit vs. Units Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiff Allowed to Amend ERISA Complaint
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Ruling in "Cleary" Suit Appeal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" and "Dahl" Suits Still Stayed

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Turner" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Unit Continues to Defend 6 Suits in Canada
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Units Continue to Defend Antitrust Suits
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Units Still Await Ruling in "Smith" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: U.S. Supreme Court Denies "Scott" Suit Petition

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit vs. Units Remain Stayed
ROSETTA STONE: Continues to Defend Salaried Managers' Class Suit
ROSETTA STONE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
SAN DIEGO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Program
SHELL: Accepts Full Liability for Two Oil Spills in Nigeria

SOUTHERN STAR: Price Litigations I and II Remain Pending
SPRINT COMMS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
STATE OF IOWA: Discrimination Case Set to Go to Trial Next Month
STEVEN J. BAUM: Settlement Conferences Sought in Mortgage Suit
SUPPORT.COM INC: Appeal From Settlement Order Still Pending

SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Still to Sign Stipulation of Settlement
TD AMERITRADE: Still Awaits Final Okay of Accountholders Suit Deal
TD AMERITRADE: Still Awaits Order on Pleas to Dismiss "Ross" Suit
TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois
TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Defends Two Class Action Suits in Delaware

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Appeals vs. Deal
UNITED ONLINE: Court to Hear Consolidated Suit Deal on Dec. 15
YRC WORLDWIDE: Reaches Agreement With ERISA Class Suit Plaintiffs
YRC WORLDWIDE: Still Awaits Ruling on Co-Lead Plaintiffs Agreement

ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Remains Pending

* Northwestern Oklahoma State Univ. Benefits From Class Action




                             *********

ACXIOM CORP: Still Defends Securities Lawsuit in Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation is defending itself in a purported class action
lawsuit in Arkansas commenced by Macomb County Employees'
Retirement System, which alleges that the Company violated federal
securities laws, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On April 26, 2011 a lawsuit styled Macomb County Employees'
Retirement System v. Acxiom Corporation, et al was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
against the Company and certain current and former officers and a
director of the Company. The action seeks to be certified as a
class action covering persons who acquired Acxiom stock between
October 27, 2010 and March 30, 2011. The action purports to assert
claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by not
properly disclosing that the Company was experiencing a
significant decline in its International operations and that the
Company failed to properly and timely account for impaired assets
related to its International operations. The Company and the
individual defendants dispute such allegations and intend to
vigorously contest the case.


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Scient'x Purchase
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit over its acquisition of Scient'x
S.A.S., according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On December 17, 2009, the Company entered into an acquisition
agreement to acquire all of the shares of Scient'x S.A.S., with
Scient'x continuing after the acquisition as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company's newly formed and wholly owned Dutch
subsidiary. The acquisition, which closed on March 26, 2010, is
accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting. The
effective acquisition date for accounting purposes was the close
of business on March 31, 2010, the end of Scient'x's fiscal first
quarter. The Company purchased Scient'x to acquire Scient'x's
product portfolio and technology, its international distribution
network and existing customer base, and because of the increased
scale of the combined entities.  The transaction was structured as
an all stock transaction such that all of the outstanding stock of
Scient'x was exchanged, pursuant to a fixed ratio, for 24,000,000
shares of the Company's common stock. The shares to be paid by the
Company at the closing were reduced to 23,730,644 shares in
exchange for the Company paying certain acquisition fees and
expenses incurred by HealthPointCapital Partners, L.P. and
HealthPointCapital Partners II, L.P. (collectively,
"HealthPointCapital"), the Company's and Scient'x's principal
stockholders.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5,
2010 against the Company and certain of its directors and
executives alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On February 17, 2011,
an amended complaint was filed against the Company and certain of
its directors and officers adding alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933. HealthpointCapital, Jefferies & Company,
Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and Company, Inc., and Lazard
Capital Markets LLC are also defendants in this action. The
complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, about
the Company's business, financial condition, operations and
prospects, particularly relating to the Scient'x transaction and
the Company's financial guidance following the closing of the
acquisition. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. The Company
believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against this complaint, however no assurances can be
given as to the timing or outcome of this lawsuit.


APPLE INC: Forced Amazon to Stop Discounting eBooks, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patsy Diamond, 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.; and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-03954 (N.D.
Calif., August 11, 2011) is brought under federal and state
antitrust laws to enjoin Apple and the other Defendants' alleged
illegal conduct and to obtain damages.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants (i) increased and
stabilized eBook pricing, and (ii) forced Amazon to stop the
discounting eBook prices on Publisher Defendants' titles.
As result, 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.

Ms. Diamond is a resident of Los Angeles, California.  She asserts
that she has purchased several eBooks from the Publisher
Defendants at a price above $9.99 for use on her Amazon Kindle.

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.
Macmillan is 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.  Simon &
Schuster is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and is part of CBS
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Francis Ram, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  jkodroff@srkw-law.com
                  jjagher@srkw-law.com


ASSURED GUARANTY: Defendants Seek Writ of Mandamus in Alabama Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Assured Guaranty Ltd.'s principal insurance subsidiaries,
Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., and other defendants of a
putative class action filed by Jefferson County, Alabama, are
petitioning the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and other bond
insurers, were named as defendants in a civil action brought in
the circuit court of Jefferson County, Alabama relating to the
County's problems meeting its debt obligations on its $3.2 billion
sewer debt: Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al (filed
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-
2008-901907.00, a putative class action. The action was brought on
behalf of rate payers, tax payers and citizens residing in
Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and fraud in connection
with the issuance of the County's debt. The complaint in this
lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On January, 13, 2011,
the circuit court issued an order denying a motion by the bond
insurers and other defendants to dismiss the action. Defendants,
including the bond insurers, have petitioned the Alabama Supreme
Court for a writ of mandamus to the circuit court vacating such
order and directing the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs'
claims for lack of standing. The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
this lawsuit.


AT&T: Sues Bursor & Fisher Over T-Mobile Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Fitzgerald, writing for Mobiledia, reports that AT&T sued a
law firm for trying to stop its pending merger with T-Mobile, in a
move that may thwart future class-action lawsuits against its
deal.

The Dallas, Texas-based carrier said it is fighting New York law
firm Bursor & Fisher, which in July filed an arbitration request
for 11 clients alleging the $39 million merger violates the
Clayton Antitrust Act.  The firm also created a Web site for the
case to encourage customers to sign up for lawyers at AT&T's
expense, hoping to collect enough people to file a class action
lawsuit.

The carrier filed suits in eight U.S. jurisdictions to block
Bursor & Fisher, claiming an arbitration clause in its contracts
with customers prevents them from filing class action lawsuits.
The law firm said it signed up more than 1,000 customers who want
to stop the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, but AT&T says those customers
can't join together to fight the merger because of the arbitration
clause.

"The bottom line here is an arbitrator has no authority to block
the merger or affect the merger process in any way," AT&T said in
a statement on Aug. 12.  "AT&T's arbitration agreement with our
customers -- recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court -- allows
individual relief for individual claims.  Bursor & Fisher is
seeking class-wide relief wrapped in the guise of individual
arbitration proceedings, which is specifically prohibited by
AT&T's arbitration agreement."

Even if the clause does stop class action lawsuits against the
merger, individual lawsuits are still likely in the months leading
up to its potential approval, since some disapprove of the power
AT&T may get as a result.

AT&T's attempt to quash a possible class-action lawsuit comes as
opposition mounts against its impending acquisition of T-Mobile.
Sprint CEO Dan Hesse has been lobbying in Washington for months,
and has gotten several lawmakers to question whether the merger
will violate federal antitrust standards.

Some senators have agreed with Mr. Hesse, but others favor the
merger because of the potential of financial gain for their
states.

Lawsuits and Congressional pressure may lead some observers to
conclude the merger may be in trouble.  However, the deal has
garnered support from states such as Louisiana, whose Public
Service Commission said it would not block the merger because of
AT&T's promise to expand next-generation wireless Internet to most
of the U.S., creating thousands of jobs.

The final decision belongs to the Federal Communications
Commission, which began its 180-day review period of the deal
April 28.

The merger, though, may face legal challenges for years.  If
granted, the merger would propel AT&T to the top of the wireless
communications market, putting Verizon in second place and Sprint
in a distant third.  Verizon and Sprint, along with other future
wireless providers, may eventually ask the courts to intervene
when they find it increasingly difficult to compete through their
everyday business practices.


BABCOCK & WILCOX: To Defend Suit Over "Radiation" in Tenn. Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2011, approximately 18 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit styled
as a "class action" in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee against The Babcock & Wilcox Company,
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. ("B&W PGG"), Babcock
& Wilcox Technical Services Group, Inc. ("B&W TSG"), NOG-Erwin
Holdings, Inc. and others relating to the operation of the Nuclear
Fuel Services, Inc., facility in Erwin, Tennessee. The plaintiffs
seek compensatory and punitive damages alleging personal injuries
and property damage resulting from exposure to radiation and
hazardous materials released from the facility. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this matter, which is in its initial
stage. No discovery has been conducted and no trial date has been
set.  The Company is in the process of evaluating insurance and
Price Anderson indemnity coverage for this matter and believe that
the Company has coverage for the claims of the nature currently
asserted in this matter. The ultimate outcome of these proceedings
is uncertain and an adverse ruling, should coverage not be
available, could have a material adverse impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flow.

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


BNY MELLON: Continues to Defend Suits Over Securities Lending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues to defend itself
against three lawsuits over its securities lending program which
seek to proceed as class actions, according to the Company's
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

BNY Mellon or its affiliates have been named as defendants in a
number of lawsuits initiated by participants in BNY Mellon's
securities lending program, which is a part of BNY Mellon's
Investment Services business. The lawsuits were filed on various
dates from December 2008 to 2011, and are currently pending in
courts in Oklahoma, New York, Washington, California and South
Carolina and in commercial court in London. The complaints assert
contractual, statutory, and common law claims, including claims
for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs allege
losses in connection with the investment of securities lending
collateral, including losses related to investments in Sigma
Finance Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and certain asset-
backed securities, and seek damages as to those losses. Three of
the pending cases seek to proceed as class actions.


BNY MELLON: Unit Continues to Defend Suits Over Madoff Investment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation's subsidiary, Ivy Asset
Management LLC, continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits over investment losses related to Bernard L. Madoff,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On May 11, 2010, the New York State Attorney General commenced a
civil lawsuit against Ivy Asset Management LLC ("Ivy"), a
subsidiary of BNY Mellon that manages primarily funds-of-hedge-
funds, and two of its former officers in New York state court. The
lawsuit alleges that Ivy, in connection with its role as sub-
advisor to investment managers whose clients invested with Madoff,
did not disclose certain material facts about Madoff. The
complaint seeks an accounting of compensation received from
January 1997 to the present by the Ivy defendants in connection
with the Madoff investments, and unspecified damages, including
restitution, disgorgement, costs and attorneys' fees.

On Oct. 21, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor commenced a civil
lawsuit against Ivy, two of its former officers, and others in
federal court in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit
alleges that Ivy violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA") by failing to disclose certain material facts about
Madoff to investment managers subadvised by Ivy whose clients
included employee benefit plan investors. The complaint seeks
disgorgement and damages. On Dec. 8, 2010, the Trustee overseeing
the Madoff liquidation sued many of the same defendants in
bankruptcy court in New York, seeking to avoid withdrawals from
Madoff investments made by various funds-of-funds (including six
funds-of-funds managed by Ivy).

Ivy or its affiliates have been named in a number of civil
lawsuits filed beginning Jan. 27, 2009 relating to certain
investment funds that allege losses due to the Madoff investments.
Ivy acted as a sub-advisor to the investment managers of some of
those funds. Plaintiffs assert various causes of action including
securities and common-law fraud. Certain of the cases seek to
proceed as class actions and/or to assert derivative claims on
behalf of the funds. Most of the cases have been consolidated in
two actions in federal court in the Southern District of New York,
with certain cases filed in New York State Supreme Court for New
York and Nassau counties.


BNY MELLON: Continues to Defend Medical Capital-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation has been named as a
defendant in a number of class actions and non-class actions
brought by numerous plaintiffs in connection with its role as
indenture trustee for debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital
Corporation. The actions, filed in late 2009 and currently pending
in federal court in the Central District of California, allege
that The Bank of New York Mellon breached its fiduciary and
contractual obligations to the holders of the underlying
securities, and seek unspecified damages.

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


BNY MELLON: Defends Suits Over Foreign Exchange Matters
-------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is defending itself
against class action lawsuits filed in March and July 2011 over
foreign exchange matters, according to the Company's August 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Beginning in December 2009, certain governmental authorities have
requested information or served subpoenas on BNY Mellon seeking
information relating primarily to standing instruction foreign
exchange transactions in connection with custody services BNY
Mellon provides to certain clients, including certain governmental
entities and public pension plans. BNY Mellon is cooperating with
these inquiries.

BNY Mellon has been named as defendant in qui tam lawsuits
asserting claims under a state false claims act (or similar
statute). In early 2011, the Virginia Attorney General's Office
and Florida Attorney General's Office each filed a Notice of
Intervention in a qui tam lawsuit pending in its jurisdiction. In
addition, BNY Mellon has been named as a defendant in putative
class action lawsuits, which were filed in March 2011 and July
2011 and are currently pending in federal district courts in
Pennsylvania and California. The qui tam lawsuits and putative
class action lawsuits allege that BNY Mellon improperly charged
and reported prices for standing instruction foreign exchange
transactions executed in connection with custody services provided
by BNY Mellon.


BP: Feb. 2012 Trial Set for Consolidated Oil Spill Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that trial for
the Deepwater Horizon explosion will begin Feb. 27, 2012 and will
be broken into three phases, the judge overseeing the consolidated
oil-spill litigation said.  There are more than 100,000 plaintiffs
in the litigation so far.

At the monthly status conference on Aug. 12, U.S. Judge Carl J.
Barbier said he has not yet issued a formal trial plan, but it "is
essentially going to be the proposed trial plan that Anadarko
submitted a while back," which breaks the trial into three phases.

The first trial will be a "limitation trial" and pertains to
documents that Transocean filed, seeking to limit its liability.

Limitation of liability proceedings are reserved for vessel owners
under general maritime law, and allow the owner of a vessel to
limit its liability for damages that may have been, but were not
necessarily, due to the negligence of the companies responsible
for leasing and operating the vessel.

Transocean made and owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform.
The rig was leased by BP for use at the Macondo well.

The lease to the Macondo well was jointly owned by BP and
Anadarko.

The "incident phase" of the trial will begin Feb. 27, and will
deal with the conduct of various parties relating to control of
the Macondo well, and the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater
Horizon drilling platform.

Followed by a break, phase two will deal with issues of source
control and quantification of discharge.

Phase three will address all other issues, including containment,
skimming, dispersants and boom.

BP attorney Don Haycraft told Judge Barbier that with regard to
depositions, the parties "have done in six months what most courts
might take years to accomplish."

"We've come to the end of an incredibly intense deposition
period," Mr. Haycraft said: 176 depositions have been taken in the
past 6 months.

Judge Barbier agreed that the material covered in deposition has
been impressive.

BP attorney Andrew Langan said BP would begin producing documents
that day related to contracts with boat owners who participated in
BP's Vessels of Opportunity (VoO) program during the oil spill.

Mr. Langan said depositions related to VoO contracts will begin by
Sept. 30.

At the height of the oil spill, BP had hired 3,000 vessels for the
program, according to court documents.

Several dozens lawsuits claim that BP breached its contracts with
vessel owners by failing to pay for days worked and other
contract-related expenses, such as decontamination of the vessels
after the program ended.

In response to speculation over whether the VoO plaintiffs number
in the hundreds or thousands, Mr. Langan got a laugh from the
court when he said: "There were certainly several thousand vessels
out there; hopefully some of them are happy."

Steven Herman, of the plaintiff liaison counsel, said he believed
the plaintiffs seeking damages from breached VoO contracts number
at least a few hundred, if not thousands.

Moving along, Judge Barbier asked plaintiff counsel whether they
are discussing presentment issues with BP.

During the May status hearing, BP attorneys claimed that
presentment of claims to its Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) is
mandatory before a claimant may join the oil spill litigation.

As the "responsible party," the way BP handles its claims process
is governed by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), which was created
after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska.

The Oil Pollution Act states that a claimant must first present to
the claims facility established by the responsible party and that
90 days must pass without word from the responsible party or the
claim must be rejected before a claimant may litigate.

BP attorneys told the court in May that every litigant who did not
first present to the GCCF would be disqualified from the
litigation.

Plaintiffs' attorney Steven Herman told Judge Barbier that
plaintiff counsel and BP are working together to build a database
to keep track of the plaintiffs and their presentment status.

BP attorney Mr. Langan told the judge while the parties were
discussing the construction of a database, "The position we took
in May is our position."

The Aug. 12 hearing also addressed the status of evidence testing.

Steven O'Rourke, from the U.S. Department of Justice, told the
court that cement testing is complete, but analysis of cement from
the Macondo well that was found in the supply boat, the Damon
Bankston, is pending.

The completed testing involved turning cement powder into cement.

The powder was provided by Halliburton, which was responsible for
the cementing of the Macondo well.  Analysis of the cement was
done by a private company from Houston, Oilfield Testing &
Consulting.

The powder-into-cement "results are just a bunch of numbers,"
Mr. O'Rourke told Courthouse News.  The numbers have been given to
the parties, and the parties will determine what they mean.

Separate analysis was done on rocks found in the Damon Bankston.

Mr. O'Rourke told Courthouse News that analysis of the rocks
showed nine that are pieces of cement from the Macondo well.

Mr. O'Rourke said it is unknown how the cement pieces ended up in
the Bankston.

The Damon Bankston took in Deepwater Horizon survivors as they
jumped from the burning rig after the explosion.

The cement pieces will be given to National Energy Technology
Laboratory, an agency of the Department of Energy, to be analyzed.

The next status hearing is set for Sept. 16.


CALAMOS ASSET: Appeal From "Brown" Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit commenced
by Christopher Brown et al. remains pending, according to Calamos
Asset Management, Inc.'s August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC, an indirect subsidiary, were
named as defendants in a class action complaint filed on July 15,
2010 (Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No.
10-CV-04422 (N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common shareholder of the
Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund (CHI).  This
action was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the U.S. District
Court and re-filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
on September 13, 2010 (Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos,
Sr. et al., Civil Action No. 10CH39590).  Other defendants include
CHI, current and former trustees of CHI, John P. Calamos, Sr.,
Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal, William R. Rybak, Stephen B.
Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F. Hanauer, and unspecified
defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched in connection with the
redemption of auction rate preferred securities of CHI.  As to the
Company and Calamos Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i)
declaratory judgments that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched; (ii) an injunction
against the Company and Calamos Advisors serving as advisor or
otherwise earning fees for services to CHI; (iii) an unspecified
amount of monetary relief plus interest; (iv) an award of
attorney's fees and expenses; and (v) such other and further
relief, including punitive damages, as may be available to the
plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks to represent.  On
October 13, 2010, the defendants removed this action from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Christopher Brown et al. v
John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-06558 (N.D. Ill.)) and also
moved to dismiss the complaint.  On November 5, 2010, plaintiff
moved to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County.  On
March 14, 2011, the district court denied plaintiff's motion to
remand and dismissed the case.  Plaintiff has appealed that ruling
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
where the case is now pending.

The Company and Calamos Advisors believe that the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against
these allegations.


CALAMOS ASSET: Awaits Decisions in "Rutgers" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Calamos Asset Management, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit commenced by Rutgers
Casualty Insurance Company, and plaintiff's motion to remand the
case to the circuit court, according to the Company's August 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC, an indirect subsidiary,
were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed on
August 13, 2010 (Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company et al. v John
P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-5106 (N.D. Ill.)) by a putative
common shareholder of the Calamos Convertible and High Income Fund
(CHY). This action was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the
U.S. District Court and re-filed in Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, on December 22, 2010 (Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10CH53998).  Other
defendants include CHY, current and former trustees of CHY, John
P. Calamos, Sr., Nick P. Calamos, Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal,
William R. Rybak, Stephen B. Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F.
Hanauer and unspecified defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched in connection with the
redemption of auction rate preferred securities of CHY.  As to the
Company and Calamos Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i)
declaratory judgments that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched; (ii) an injunction
against serving as advisor or otherwise earning fees for services
to CHY; (iii) an unspecified amount of monetary relief plus
interest; (iv) an award of attorney's fees and expenses; and (v)
such other and further relief, including punitive damages, as may
be available to the plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks
to represent.  On January 21, 2011, the defendants removed this
action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Rutgers
Casualty Insurance Company et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al.,
No. 11-CV-00462 (N.D. Ill.)).  Defendants have also moved to
dismiss the complaint, and plaintiff has moved to remand the case
to the Circuit Court of Cook County.  The case is currently
awaiting decision of those motions.

The Company and Calamos Advisors believe that the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against
these allegations.


CALAMOS ASSET: Illinois Court Dismisses "Bourrienne" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted Calamos Asset Management, Inc.'s motion and dismissed the
lawsuit commenced by Russell Bourrienne, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC, an indirect subsidiary,
were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed on
September 14, 2010 (Russell Bourrienne et al. v John P. Calamos,
Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-5833 (N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common
shareholder of the Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income
Fund (CHI).  This action was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in
the U.S. District Court and re-filed in Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois on October 18, 2010 (Russell Bourrienne et al. v
John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10CH45119 ).  Other defendants
include current and former trustees of CHI, John P. Calamos, Sr.,
Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal, William R. Rybak, Stephen B.
Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F. Hanauer and unspecified
defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched in connection with the
redemption of auction rate preferred securities of CHI.  As to the
Company and Calamos Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i)
declaratory judgments that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched; (ii) an injunction
against serving as advisor or otherwise earning fees for services
to CHI; (iii) an unspecified amount of monetary relief plus
interest; (iv) an award of attorney's fees and expenses; and (v)
such other and further relief, including punitive damages, as may
be available to the plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks
to represent.  On November 12, 2010, the defendants removed this
action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Russell
Bourrienne et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-07295
(N.D. Ill.)).  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and on
August 4, 2011, the U.S. District Court granted defendant's
motion.


CENTRAL PACIFIC: In Talks to Resolve "Peterson" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Central Pacific Financial Corp. has entered into talks with
plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit filed in Hawaii in connection
with its overdraft practices and fees, according to the Company's
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

In March 2011, the Company and Central Pacific Bank were named as
defendants in a putative class action captioned as Gregory and
Camila Peterson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Central Pacific Bank, Central
Pacific Financial Corp. and Doe Defendants 1-50, Defendants, Case
No. 11-1-0457-03 VLC, in the First Circuit Court of Hawaii in
Honolulu. The complaint asserts claims for unconscionability,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations of Hawaii's Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practice Act, relating to the bank's overdraft
practices and fees. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief,
restitution, disgorgement, damages, interest, costs and attorneys'
fees.

The Company says that it is in discussions with the plaintiffs to
resolve the matter and the parties have agreed to perform
additional diligence in an attempt to reach an acceptable outcome.
Because this diligence is ongoing, at this time, the Company is
not able to estimate the amount of costs or a reasonable range of
potential costs that the Company may need to incur to resolve this
matter.


CENTRAL VERMONT: Defends Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------
Central Vermont Public Service Corporation is defending itself
against class action lawsuits over its pending merger with Gaz
Metro Limited Partnership and its terminated merger with Fortis,
Inc., according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

                  Pending Merger with Gaz Metro

On July 11, 2011, CVPS, Gaz Metro Limited Partnership ("Gaz
Metro") and Danaus Vermont Corp., an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Gaz Metro ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").

Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement, unanimously approved by the boards of directors
of CVPS and Gaz Metro Inc., the general partner of Gaz Metro,
Merger Sub will merge with and into CVPS (the "Merger"), with CVPS
continuing as the surviving corporation and an indirect, wholly
owned subsidiary of Gaz Metro.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the Merger,
each issued and outstanding share of CVPS common stock (other than
shares which are held by any wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company or in the treasury of the Company or which are held by Gaz
Metro or Merger Sub, or any of their respective wholly owned
subsidiaries, all of which shall cease to be outstanding and shall
be canceled and none of which shall receive any payment with
respect thereto, and dissenting shares) will automatically be
converted into the right to receive in cash, without interest,
$35.25 per share (the "Merger Consideration"), less any applicable
withholding taxes.

Completion of the Merger is subject to various customary
conditions.  They include, among others, approval by CVPS
shareholders; expiration or termination of the applicable Hart-
Scott-Rodino Act waiting period; receipt of all required
regulatory approvals from, among others, FERC and the PSB; the
absence of any governmental action challenging or seeking to
prohibit the Merger; and the absence of any material adverse
effect with respect to CVPS. Each party's obligation to consummate
the Merger is also subject to additional customary conditions
including, subject to certain exceptions, the accuracy of the
representations and warranties of the other party and performance
in all material respects by the other party of its obligations.

The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for both
CVPS and Gaz Metro and further provides that upon termination of
the merger agreement under specified circumstances, CVPS may be
required to pay Gaz Metro a termination fee of $17.5 million and
reimburse Gaz Metro for up to $2 million of its reasonable out-of-
pocket transaction expenses.

            Terminated Merger Agreement with Fortis

On May 27, 2011, CVPS, FortisUS Inc., Cedar Acquisition Sub Inc.,
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis ("Merger Sub") and
Fortis Inc., the ultimate parent of Fortis ("Ultimate Parent"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Fortis Merger
Agreement").

On July 11, 2011, prior to entering into the Merger Agreement with
Gaz Metro, CVPS terminated the Fortis Merger Agreement.  In
accordance with the Fortis Merger Agreement, on July 12, 2011,
CVPS paid FortisUS Inc. $19.5 million (the "Fortis Termination
Payment"), including the termination fee of $17.5 million and
expenses of FortisUS Inc. of $2 million will be recorded to Other
deductions on the condensed consolidated statement of income in
the three month period ended September 30, 2011. The Merger
Agreement with Gaz Metro requires Gaz Metro to reimburse CVPS for
its payment of the Fortis Termination Payment immediately
following the approval of the Merger Agreement by CVPS
shareholders. It also provides that CVPS will be required to
reimburse Gaz Metro for the full amount of the Fortis Termination
Payment if the Merger Agreement is terminated under certain
circumstances.

            Litigation Related to Merger Agreement

On or about June 2, 2011, a lawsuit captioned David Raul v.
Lawrence Reilly, et al., Civil Division Docket No. 377-6-11-RDCV,
was filed in the Superior Court of Vermont, Rutland Unit against
CVPS and members of the CVPS Board of Directors.  The lawsuit also
named as defendants FortisUS Inc. and one of its affiliates.  The
Raul complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of the public stockholders of CVPS, alleges that CVPS's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
Fortis Merger Agreement for a price that is alleged to be unfair,
as the result of a process alleged to be unfair and inadequate,
with material conflicts of interest and so as to benefit
themselves, and including no-solicitation, matching rights and
termination fee provisions alleged to be designed to ensure that
no competing offers would emerge for CVPS.  The Raul complaint
also includes a claim for aiding and abetting against CVPS and the
Fortis entities.  The Raul complaint seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief against the proposed transaction with Fortis as
well as other equitable relief, damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.  On June 23, 2011, following the announcement of an offer
received from Gaz Metro, David Raul filed an amended class action
complaint repeating his earlier allegations and claims but also
referring to this development and claiming that the CVPS Board
should terminate the Fortis Merger Agreement and negotiate a new
deal with Gaz Metro.

On or about June 17, 2011 and June 20, 2011, two additional
complaints (Civil Division Docket Nos. 417-6-11-RDCV and 425-6-11-
RDCV, respectively) were filed in the Superior Court of Vermont,
Rutland Unit, containing claims and allegations similar to those
in the original Raul complaint and seeking similar relief on
behalf of the same putative class.  The parties have agreed to
consolidate these three Superior Court lawsuits for all purposes
into a single proceeding, and have filed a stipulated motion
requesting such consolidation.

On July 13, 2011, a lawsuit captioned Howard Davis v. Central
Vermont Public Service, et al., Case No. 5:11-CV-181 was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Vermont
against CVPS and members of the CVPS Board of Directors.  The
lawsuit also named as defendants Gaz Metro Limited Partnership and
one of its affiliates.  The Davis complaint, which purports to be
brought on behalf of a class consisting of the public stockholders
of CVPS, alleges that CVPS's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, allegedly failing to undertake an
adequate sales process prior to the Fortis Merger Agreement,
entering into the Merger Agreement with Gaz Metro at an unfair
price and pursuant to an unfair process, engaging in self-dealing,
and by including various "deal protection devices" in the Merger
Agreement.  The Davis complaint also includes a claim for aiding
and abetting against CVPS and the Gaz Metro entities.  The Davis
complaint seeks injunctive relief and other equitable relief
against the proposed transaction with Gaz Metro, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 22, 2011, one of the plaintiffs in the state case filed an
amended complaint in the Vermont Superior Court, Rutland Unit,
which added Gaz Metro Limited Partnership and one of its
affiliates as defendants in addition to the defendants named in
the original complaint.  The amended complaint contains claims and
allegations similar to those in the Davis complaint and seeks
similar relief.


CHINA EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
China Education Alliance, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a consolidated securities class action suit in California,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

The Company is presently involved in two putative class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The first action, Apicella v. China
Education Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS)(JCx), was
filed on December 2, 2010; the second action, Clemens v. China
Education Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09987 (JFW)(AGRx), was
filed on December 28, 2010.  On March 2, 2011, both actions were
consolidated in In re China Education Alliance, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS) (JCx)(C.D. Cal.).  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and the
other defendants are liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 for allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions in the Company's public
filings during 2008 and 2009.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint
also asserts claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the individual defendants.  Additionally, the
Company has reason to believe that another derivative lawsuit may
be commenced against the individuals named as defendants in the
securities class action lawsuit, although the timing of such
potential lawsuit is uncertain.  If the Company was to be
subsequently involved in more litigation proceedings, and/or it
was unable to settle this lawsuit or any other similar lawsuits on
terms favorable to it and/or if adverse judgments were to be
levied against it, the Company's profitability could be severely
impacted.  Also, this class action suit against the Company could
result in substantial costs, potential liabilities and the
diversion of management's attention and resources and result in a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.


CHINA NATURAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
China Natural Gas, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities lawsuit commenced by Maxwell Vandevelde in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, according to
the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On August 26, 2010, plaintiff Maxwell Vandevelde filed a putative
class action against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, captioned Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:10CV00728, United States District Court for the
District of Delaware).  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated U.S. federal securities laws for failing to disclose
material facts regarding its financial well-being.  The lawsuit
seeks unspecified monetary damages.  On June 29, 2011, after
reviewing the competing motions filed by Richard Crippa ("Crippa")
and Robert Skeway ("Skeway") for appointment as lead plaintiff and
approval of selection of lead counsel, the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware denied without prejudice both
motions and ordered Crippa and Skeway to submit supplemental
briefs on or before July 12, 2011.

The Company says it intends to defend this case vigorously.  The
Company cannot provide at this time any assurance that the outcome
of this lawsuit will not be materially adverse to its financial
condition, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or
business prospects.




CIGNA INSURANCE: ABA Therapy Suit Gets Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Mantese Honigman Rossman and Williamson, P.C. disclosed that in a
case filed by families covered by CIGNA Insurance -- the 4th
largest insurer in the country -- a federal judge in Philadelphia
entered an Order Aug. 15 granting class action status to the case.
This means that the case will now be brought on behalf of all
persons who filed a claim with CIGNA for ABA therapy for a child
having autism spectrum disorder, but no longer have CIGNA
insurance, where such claim was denied on the ground that such
therapy was allegedly "experimental."

The ruling was made by Honorable Juan R. Sanchez in the case of
Churchill v CIGNA, No. 10-6911 (ED PA).  The Court's Memorandum
Opinion explained that class action status on behalf of all
similarly situated families was appropriate given CIGNA's national
policy of denying ABA therapy on the ground that it is
"experimental."

The families' attorneys, Gerard Mantese and John Conway, explained
that numerous authorities have long found that ABA is a
scientifically valid treatment for children with autism, including
the United States Surgeon General, the National Institute of
Mental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a study
commissioned for both the Medicare and Medicaid systems.
Moreover, 26 states mandate insurance coverage for ABA therapy.
Studies show that providing ABA therapy to children with autism
allows them to achieve their maximum potential and greater
independence in their adult lives.

Contact information for the families' attorneys are:

          Gerard Mantese, Esq.
          Mantese Honigman Rossman and Williamson, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver
          RoadTroy, MI 48083
          Office: 248-457-9200
          Cell: 248-515-6419
          E-mail: Gmantese@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq.
          John J. Conway, P.C.
          26622 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Office: 313-961-6525
          Cell: 313-574-2148
          E-mail: John@johnjconway.com


CON-WAY INC: EWA Continues to Defend WARN Class Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. continues to defend itself in a
class action complaint related to employee layoffs, according to
Con-way, Inc.'s August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In February 2002, a lawsuit was filed against Emery Worldwide
Airlines, Inc. ("EWA") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") in connection with
employee layoffs and ultimate terminations due to the August 2001
grounding of EWA's airline operations and the shutdown of the
airline operations in December 2001.  The court subsequently
certified the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of affected
employees laid off between August 11 and August 15, 2001.  The
WARN Act generally requires employers to give 60-days notice, or
60-days pay and benefits in lieu of notice, of any shutdown of
operations or mass layoff at a site of employment.  The lawsuit
was tried in early January 2009, and on September 28, 2009, the
court issued its decision in favor of EWA.  The Plaintiffs
appealed the judgment and the District Court's decision was
affirmed on February 16, 2011.  Plaintiffs' petitions for
rehearing of the appellate court's decision were denied by orders
dated March 4, 2011 and March 9, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed a
petition with the Supreme Court on June 7, 2011, arguing that the
lower courts were wrong in ruling that there is no right to a jury
trial in a WARN Act case.  Plaintiffs contend that there is a
split in the circuit courts on the issue and that the Supreme
Court should review the case to resolve that split.  Con-way filed
its opposition to the petition on July 14, 2011.

Con-way Inc. -- http://www.con-way.com/-- and its consolidated
subsidiaries provide transportation, logistics and supply-chain
management services for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial
and retail customers. Con-way's business units operate in regional
and transcontinental less-than-truckload and full-truckload
freight transportation, contract logistics and supply-chain
management, multimodal freight brokerage, and trailer
manufacturing.


CRANE CO: Continues to Defend Homeowners' Class Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit filed by New Jersey homeowners, according to the Company's
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Pursuant to recently enacted regulations in New Jersey, the
Company performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of
approximately 40 homes in a residential area surrounding a former
manufacturing facility in Roseland, New Jersey, to determine if
any contaminants (volatile organic compound vapors from
groundwater) from the facility were present in those homes.  The
Company installed vapor mitigation equipment in three homes where
contaminants were found.  On April 15, 2011, those three
homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes, filed separate
suits against the Company seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for their lost property value and nuisance.  In
addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose home tested
negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a class action
suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 142 other
homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the nature
of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to the
facility.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate
the amount of a loss and therefore, no loss amount has been
accrued for the claims because among other things, the extent of
the environmental impact, consideration of other factors affecting
value and determination of the claimants actual proximity to the
contamination have not yet advanced to the stage where a
reasonable estimate can be made.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest 10-Q
filing with the SEC.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


DENDREON CORP: Oct. 3 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP reminded investors
on August 12 that it filed a class-action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington on
behalf of shareholders of common stock of Dendreon Corp.  The firm
also reminded investors who wish to serve as lead plaintiff that
they must move the court by October 3, 2011.

Dendreon lost more than 60 percent of its market value on
August 4, 2011, after withdrawing its market guidance for 2011.

On August 10, 2011, Hans Bishop, Chief Operating Officer for
Dendreon, participated in the Canaccord Growth Conference.  During
that conference, Bishop failed to address Dendreon's reasons for
withdrawing earnings guidance for the entire fiscal year of 2011.
Bishop also failed to offer any insight into Dendreon's expected
revenues for the remaining fiscal year.  Instead, Bishop
reinforced the notion that Provenge, Dendreon's only revenue-
generating product, is a viable product and that they have the
pipeline in place to produce sufficient product for existing
demand.  At the same time, Mr. Bishop ominously reported that
Dendreon will reduce its production force "consistent with volume
expectation."

After the FDA approved Provenge, Dendreon hit a peak value of
$55.43 on May 3, 2010.  On August 12, 2011, Dendreon closed at
$10.37, down over 80 percent from its peak.  The August 3, 2011,
announcement that Dendreon would withdraw its earnings guidance
shocked analysts and investors alike, prompting several analysts
to question their management's credibility.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Dendreon between January 7, 2011, and
August 3, 2011.  The case, Ems v. Dendreon, et al., was assigned
number 2:11-cv-01294.

Investors who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must move the Court
by October 3, 2011.  If you wish to discuss serving as a lead
plaintiff or have any questions concerning this litigation, this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel at:

          Peter Borkon, Esq.
          Hagens Berman
          Telephone: 206-623-7292
          E-mail: dndn@hbsslaw.com

You can also learn more about the case at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/dendreon

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of his or her choice, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

                      About Hagens Berman

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


DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold Incorporated continues to defend itself against a
securities class action complaint in Ohio, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against the Company, certain current and former officers, and
the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-1461).  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between
June 30, 2005 and January 15, 2008 and fees and expenses related
to the lawsuit.  The complaint generally relates to the matters
set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June 2010,
finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the
investigation of the Company conducted by the Division of
Enforcement of the SEC.

Management is unable to determine the financial statement impact,
if any, of the putative federal securities class action, the
Company relates in its SEC filing.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing.

Diebold, Incorporated -- http://www.diebold.com/-- is a services
company providing integrated technology solutions that enable its
customers to maximize their self-service and security
capabilities.  Diebold's primary customers include financial
institutions, as well as government agencies, commercial
enterprises and various retail outlets.  Headquartered in Canton,
Ohio, Diebold employs more than 16,000 employees, with
representation in more than 90 countries worldwide.


DIEBOLD INC: Court Okays Settlement in Labor & Wage Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A California court approved in May 2011 a settlement resolving a
labor and wage class action complaint against Diebold
Incorporated, the Company disclosed in its August 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On August 28, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, alleging that a class of all California technicians
employed by the Company who were scheduled to be on standby were:
(a) not paid for all hours that they worked; (b) not paid overtime
compensation at the correct rate of pay; (c) not properly paid for
missed meal and rest breaks; and (d) not given correct paycheck
stubs (Francisco v. Diebold, Incorporated, Case No. CV 1889 WQH
WMC).  The complaint seeks additional overtime and other
compensation under the California Labor Code, various civil
penalties and attorneys' fees and expenses, and a request for an
injunction for future compliance with the California Labor Code
provisions that were alleged to have been violated.  A mediation
was held in the first quarter of 2011, which resulted in a
tentative settlement (subject to agreement on final settlement
terms and court approval) which was not material to the
consolidated financial statements.  In May 2011, the court
approved the settlement agreement.

Diebold, Incorporated -- http://www.diebold.com/-- is a services
company providing integrated technology solutions that enable its
customers to maximize their self-service and security
capabilities.  Diebold's primary customers include financial
institutions, as well as government agencies, commercial
enterprises and various retail outlets.  Headquartered in Canton,
Ohio, Diebold employs more than 16,000 employees, with
representation in more than 90 countries worldwide.


DUKE ENERGY: To Make Payments Under ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Payments will be made in accordance with the settlement agreement
in the class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South
Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA).  These allegations arise out of the conversion of the Duke
Energy Company Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy
Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  The case also raises some Plan
administration issues, alleging errors in the application of Plan
provisions (i.e., the calculation of interest rate credits in 1997
and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum distributions).  Six
causes of action were alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to
various alleged ERISA violations, to allegations of breach of
fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs sought a broad array of remedies,
including a retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement
Cash Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants' and
beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and reformed plan.  Duke
Energy filed its answer in March 2006.  A portion of this
contingent liability was assigned to Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra
Energy) in connection with the spin-off in January 2007.  A
hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add an
additional age discrimination claim, defendant's motion to dismiss
and the respective motions for summary judgment was held in
December 2007.

On June 2, 2008, the court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs'
motion to add the additional claim and dismissing a number of
plaintiffs' claims, including the claims for ERISA age
discrimination. Subsequently, plaintiffs notified Duke Energy that
they were withdrawing their ADEA claim.  On September 4, 2009, the
court issued its order certifying classes for three of the
remaining claims but not certifying their claims as to plaintiffs'
fiduciary duty claims.  At an unsuccessful mediation in September
2008, Plaintiffs quantified their claims as being in excess of
$150 million.  After mediation on September 21, 2010, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject
to execution of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the
class members and approval of the settlement by the Court.  In the
third quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision related to
the settlement agreement.  At a hearing on May 16, 2011, the court
issued its final confirmation order and payments will be made in
accordance with the settlement agreement.


DYNEGY INC: To Appeal $1.6MM Award of Legal Fees in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. and Dynegy Holdings Inc. intend to appeal an award of
$1.6 million attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection
with a consolidated class action lawsuit in Texas, according to
the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In connection with the merger agreement with an affiliate of The
Blackstone Group L.P. (as amended, the "Blackstone Merger
Agreement") and the merger agreement with an affiliate of Icahn
Enterprises L.P. (as amended, the "Icahn Merger Agreement" and,
together with the Blackstone Merger Agreement, the "Merger
Agreements"), numerous stockholder lawsuits were filed in the
District Courts of Harris County, Texas, the Southern District of
Texas, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The
cases in these three jurisdictions were ultimately consolidated
into one action in each jurisdiction (the "Consolidated Texas
State Court Action," the "Consolidated Texas Federal Action," and
the "Consolidated Delaware Chancery Court Action").  One
stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in a District Court in
Harris County, Texas.

On November 7, 2010, during the pendency of the Blackstone
transaction, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the full and final settlement of the
Texas state stockholder class actions and the Delaware actions.
The memorandum of understanding and settlement were expressly
subject to and conditioned upon the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Blackstone Merger Agreement.
Accordingly, when the Blackstone Merger Agreement was terminated,
the settlement became null and void.  Thereafter, the motion by
the plaintiff in the stockholder derivative action to nonsuit all
defendants without prejudice was granted on December 14, 2010.

Following the termination of the Icahn Merger Agreement and upon
Dynegy's insistence, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Texas
Federal Action and Consolidated Delaware Chancery Court Action
moved to dismiss their claims without prejudice.  The courts
dismissed the cases on March 1, 2011, and March 16, 2011,
respectively.  On March 28, 2011, plaintiff's counsel in the
Consolidated Texas State Court Action filed a motion seeking
attorneys' fees and expenses.  In July 2011, the Court granted the
motion and awarded approximately $1.6 million in fees and
expenses.  Dynegy intends to appeal the decision.


EI DUPONT: Reassesses Liability in Medical Monitoring Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company continues to periodically
assess its liability in funding a medical monitoring program,
which is part of a settlement resolving a class action lawsuit in
West Virginia, the Company disclosed in its August 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In September 2006, a West Virginia state court certified a class
action captioned Perrine v DuPont, against DuPont that sought
relief including the provision of remediation services and
property value diminution damages for 7,000 residential properties
in the vicinity of a closed zinc smelter in Spelter, West
Virginia.  The action also sought medical monitoring for an
undetermined number of residents in the class area.  In November
2010, plaintiffs and DuPont reached an agreement to settle the
matter for $70 million, which the company paid in the first
quarter 2011.  In addition, the agreement requires DuPont to fund
a medical monitoring program.  The initial set-up costs associated
with the program were included in the $70 million.  The company
will reassess its liability related to funding the medical
monitoring program as eligible members of the class elect to
participate and enroll in the program, as those costs cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time.  Enrollment in the program is
expected to be completed in the third quarter 2011.  As of
June 30, 2011, the company does not have any accruals related to
this matter.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, also known as DuPont --
http://www.dupont.com/-- is a science-based products and services
company.  Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating
sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life
for people everywhere.  Operating in more than 90 countries,
DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for
markets including agriculture and food; building and construction;
communications; and transportation.


EL PASO NATURAL GAS: Continues to Defend Royalty Underpayment Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Natural Gas Company continues to defend itself from a
class action complaint relating to royalty underpayments,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

The Company is a named defendant, along with Burlington Resources,
Inc., now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company, in a class
action lawsuit styled Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural
Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P., filed in
October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma
asserting royalty underpayment claims related to specified shallow
wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.  The Plaintiffs assert
that royalties were underpaid starting in the 1980s when the
purchase price of gas was lowered below the Natural Gas Policy Act
maximum lawful prices.  The Plaintiffs have not alleged an amount
of damages against any defendant.  The Company believes its
actions in the 1980s were proper in light of a declining market.
The Company also contends that it is entitled to an indemnity from
Burlington under its 1992 separation agreement for all claims
related to royalty payments, which Burlington denies.  The
Plaintiffs assert that royalties were further underpaid by
Burlington as a result of post-production cost deductions taken
starting in the late 1990s.  The Company asserts that it has no
liability for the post-production claims as they pertain to
periods after its separation from Burlington.  The action was
transferred to Washita County District Court in 2004.  A tentative
settlement reached in November 2005 was rejected by the court in
June 2007.  A class certification hearing occurred in April 2009.
The court certified a Texas and Oklahoma class of royalty owners
and stayed the claims pertaining to New Mexico wells.  The class
certification was upheld by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, but a
petition for review has been filed with the Oklahoma Supreme
Court.  The Plaintiffs have proceeded with discovery of the post-
production claims against Burlington.

The Company relates that its costs and legal exposure related to
the lawsuit are not currently determinable.

El Paso Natural Gas Company's primary business consists of the
interstate transportation and storage of natural gas.  The Company
conducts its business activities through its natural gas pipeline
systems and a storage facility.  The Company is based in Houston.


ENCORE ENERGY: Defends Vanguard-Related Suits in Texas & Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Energy Partners LP continues to defend itself against
consolidated class action lawsuits filed in Texas and Delaware
over its proposed merger with Vanguard Natural Resources LLC,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Encore Energy Partners LP (together with its subsidiaries, "ENP")
is engaged in the acquisition, exploitation, and development of
oil and natural gas reserves from onshore fields in the United
States.  Encore Energy Partners GP LLC (the "General Partner" or
"ENP GP"), a Delaware limited liability company which is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC, (together
with its subsidiaries, "Vanguard" or "VNR"), a publicly traded
Delaware limited liability company, serves as ENP's general
partner and Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC ("OLLC"), a
Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of
ENP, owns and operates ENP's properties.

On December 31, 2010, Denbury Resources Inc. (together with its
subsidiaries, "Denbury"), a publicly traded Delaware corporation,
sold its ownership interests in ENP and the General Partner to
Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC ("VNG"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Vanguard, for $300.0 million in cash and approximately 3.14
million Vanguard common units (the "Vanguard Acquisition").
Denbury sold the entity which owns 100 percent of the General
Partner and approximately 20.9 million ENP common units, or
approximately 46.1 percent of ENP's outstanding common units.  On
July 11, 2011, Vanguard and ENP announced the execution of a
definitive agreement that would result in a merger whereby ENP
would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of VNG through a unit for
unit exchange.

On March 29, 2011, John O'Neal, a purported unitholder of ENP
filed a class action complaint in the 125th Judicial District of
Harris County, Texas on behalf of unitholders of ENP.  Similar
actions were filed on April 4, 2011 by Jerry P. Morgan and on
April 5, 2011 by Herbert F. Rower in other Harris County district
courts.  The O'Neal, Morgan, and Rower actions were consolidated
on June 5, 2011 as John O'Neal v. Encore Energy Partners, L.P., et
al., Case Number 2011-19340, which is pending in the 125th
Judicial District Court of Harris County.  On July 13, 2011,
plaintiffs in the consolidated O'Neal action filed an amended
putative class action complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims
against ENP, ENP GP, Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas
Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E. Jackson, David C. Baggett, Martin
G. White, VNG, Vanguard Acquisition Company, LLC, and Vanguard.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting the merger from going
forward and compensatory damages if the merger is consummated.
The defendants named in the Texas lawsuits intend to defend
vigorously against them.

On April 5, 2011, Stephen Bushansky, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the
unitholders of ENP.  Another purported unitholder of ENP, William
Allen, filed a similar action in the same court on April 14, 2011.
The Bushansky and Allen actions have been consolidated under the
caption In re: Encore Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 6347-VCP.  On June 21, 2011, those plaintiffs jointly
filed a consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants
ENP, ENP GP, Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas Pence, W.
Timothy Hauss, and Vanguard. That putative class action complaint
alleges, among other things, that defendants breached contractual
duties owed to ENP's unitholders under the applicable partnership
agreement by proposing and recommending the proposed merger.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting the proposed merger from
going forward and compensatory damages if the proposed merger is
consummated.  In response, Vanguard has filed a motion to dismiss
and it intends to defend vigorously against this lawsuit.

Vanguard and ENP cannot predict the outcome of these or any other
lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this
filing, nor can Vanguard and ENP predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. Vanguard,
ENP and the other defendants named in these lawsuits intend to
defend vigorously against these and any other actions.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Class Suits Over Southern Union Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., is facing class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed merger with Southern Union Company,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On July 19, 2011, the Company entered into a Second Amended and
Restated Plan of Merger with Sigma Acquisition Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
("Merger Sub"), and Southern Union Company, a Delaware
corporation.  The Second Amended SUG Merger Agreement modifies
certain terms of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of
Merger entered into by the Company, Merger Sub and SUG on July 4,
2011.  Under the terms of the Second Amended SUG Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will merge with and into SUG, with SUG continuing as
the surviving entity and becoming the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary (the "SUG Merger") subject to certain conditions to
close.  Pursuant to the Second Amended SUG Merger Agreement, the
Company would acquire all of the outstanding shares of SUG in a
transaction valued at $9.4 billion, including $5.7 billion in cash
and ETE Common Units and $3.7 billion of existing SUG
indebtedness.

In connection with the SUG Merger, purported stockholders of
Southern Union have filed several stockholder class action
lawsuits against ETE, Southern Union, and the Southern Union Board
in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas and in the Delaware
Courts of Chancery.  Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to
enjoin the SUG Merger.  If a final settlement is not reached, or
if a dismissal is not obtained, these lawsuits could prevent or
delay completion of the SUG Merger and result in substantial costs
to ETE and Southern Union, including any costs associated with the
indemnification of directors.  Additional lawsuits may be filed
against ETE and/or Southern Union related to the SUG Merger.  The
defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains
unresolved at the time the SUG Merger is completed may adversely
affect the combined company's business, financial condition or
results of operations.


ENTERGY CORP: Certification Hearing in Texas Suit Set This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing in the purported class action
complaint filed by Texas retail customers has been scheduled for
August 2011, according to Entergy Corporation's August 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in August
2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Chambers
County, Texas, by Texas residents on behalf of a purported
class apparently of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc., who were billed and paid for electric power from
January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include
Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy
Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States,
Inc. was not a named defendant, but is alleged to be a co-
conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc., to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its
interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price gouging
accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated
utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants
while rejecting and/or reselling to off-system utilities less
expensive power offered and/or purchased from off-system suppliers
and/or generated by the Entergy system.  In particular, plaintiffs
allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate
the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from
affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-
system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were
charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for
power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.
The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report calculating damages
in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present
value, under various scenarios.  The Entergy defendants have
tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions,
methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs' expert reports.

Entergy Corporation -- http://www.entergy.com/-- is an integrated
energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and
retail distribution operations.  Entergy owns and operates power
plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating
capacity.  Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility
customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.  Entergy
has annual revenues of more than $11 billion and approximately
15,000 employees.


GENON ENERGY: Nevada Court Dismisses Claims in 4 Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
dismissed all claims in four of the five antitrust lawsuits
against GenOn Energy, Inc., according to the Company's August 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company is a party to five lawsuits, several of which are
class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas,
Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin.  These lawsuits were filed in the
aftermath of the California energy crisis and the resulting
investigations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and
relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in
violation of antitrust and similar laws.  The lawsuits seek treble
or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses.  The lawsuits
also name a number of unaffiliated energy companies as parties.
On July 18, 2011, the judge in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada handling four of the five cases granted
the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims
against the Company in those cases.  The fifth case is pending in
the State of Nevada Supreme Court on plaintiff's appeal of the
dismissal of all its claims by the Eighth Judicial District Court
for Clark County, Nevada.  The Company says it has agreed to
indemnify CenterPoint Energy, Inc., against certain losses
relating to these lawsuits.


HANSEN MEDICAL: Still Awaits Decision in Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss an amended complaint in a consolidated
securities lawsuit, according to the Company's August 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement that it
would restate certain of its financial statements, a securities
class action lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2009, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
naming the Company and certain of its officers, Curry v. Hansen
Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094.  The complaint asserts
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of Hansen stock between May 1, 2008, and October 18, 2009,
inclusive, and alleges, among other things, that defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to make
disclosures regarding the Company's financial results and
compliance with GAAP while improperly recognizing revenue; that
these misstatements and/or nondisclosures resulted in
overstatement of Company revenue and financial results and/or
artificially inflated the Company's stock price; and that
following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement, the price
of the Company's stock declined.  On November 4, 2009, and
November 13, 2009, substantively identical complaints were filed
in the Northern District of California by other purported Hansen
stockholders asserting the same claims on behalf of the same
putative class of Hansen stockholders, Livingstone v. Hansen
Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05212 and Prenter v. Hansen
Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-05367.  All three complaints
seek certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys fees.  On December 22, 2009,
two purported Hansen stockholders, Mina and Nader Farr, filed a
joint application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and for
consolidation of the three actions.

On February 25, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Mina and
Nader Farr's application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and
consolidating the three securities class actions.  On July 15,
2010, the Court entered an order granting lead plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.  Lead plaintiffs'
second amended complaint, in addition to alleging that
shareholders suffered damages as a result of the decline in the
Company's stock price following the October 19, 2009 announcement,
also alleges that shareholders suffered additional damages as the
result of share price declines on July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009,
January 8, 2009, July 6, 2009, and August 4, 2009, all of which
lead plaintiffs allege were caused by the disclosure of what they
claim was previously misrepresented information.  The hearing on
defendants' motion to dismiss was held on March 4, 2011.  The
Court took the matter under submission.  The Company and the named
officers intend to defend themselves vigorously against these
actions.


HARBIN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Harbin Electric, Inc., continues to defend itself against several
shareholder class actions filed in the states of Nevada and New
York over the proposed buyout of the Company by Tianfu Yang and
his affiliates, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Eleven shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company or certain officers and the members of its Board of
Directors, in connection with the October 10, 2010 non-binding
proposal made by the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Mr. Tianfu Yang, and Baring Private Equity Asia Group
Limited to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's
Common Stock not currently owned by Mr. Yang and his affiliates
for $24.00 per share in cash. Six actions were filed in Nevada
state court (Carson City, Clark County, or Washoe County); two
actions were filed in Nevada federal district court; and three
actions were filed in New York state court. All of the actions
assert claims against the Company and/or members of the Board for
allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Proposal.

On or about October 19, 2010, the Company became aware that the
first of the shareholder class actions had been filed against the
Company and its Board members in connection with the Proposal.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the proposed buyout
price and the process of evaluating the Proposal are unfair and
inadequate. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, to enjoin
defendants from consummating the Proposal and to direct defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is
in the best interests of the Company's shareholders.

   1. Kay Hurewitz v. Harbin Electric, Inc. et al., No. 10-OC-
      00489-1B ("Hurewitz"), filed in the First Judicial District
      Court of the State of Nevada in and for Carson City on
      October 13, 2010. The complaint named the Company and Board
      members Tianfu Yang, Ching Chuen Chan, Boyd Plowman, David
      Gatton, Yunyue Ye, and Lanxiang Gao as defendants. This
      action has now been transferred to Clark County and
      consolidated with the cases there.

   2. Bertrand Sellier v. Harbin Electric, Inc. et al., No. 3:10-
      CV-00645 ("Bertrand"), filed in the United States District
      Court for the District of Nevada on October 13, 2010. The
      complaint named the Company and Board members Tianfu Yang,
      Ching Chuen Chan, Boyd Plowman, David Gatton, Yunyue Ye, and
      Lanxiang Gao as defendants. The plaintiff filed a notice of
      voluntary dismissal of his action without prejudice and the
      action has been dismissed.

   3. Norfolk County Retirement System v. Harbin Electric, Inc.
      and Tianfu Yang ("Norfolk"), No. 10-35327, filed in the
      Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County on
      October 15, 2010. The complaint named the Company and Tianfu
      Yang as defendants.

   4. Luis Necuze v. Harbin Electric, Inc. et al., No. A-10-627425
      ("Necuze"), filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court for
      the State of Nevada in and for Clark County on October 15,
      2010. The complaint named the Company, Board members Tianfu
      Yang, Ching Chuen Chan, Boyd Plowman, David Gatton, Yunyue
      Ye, and Lanxiang Gao, and Baring Private Equity Asia Group,
      Ltd. as defendants. This action has been voluntarily
      dismissed as moot because the plaintiff no longer is a
      stockholder.

   5. Jack M. Ebner v. Harbin Electric, Inc. et al., No. A-11-
      644021-C ("Ebner"), filed in the Eighth Judicial District
      Court of Clark County, Nevada on June 27, 2011.  The
      complaint named the Company and Board members Tianfu Yang,
      Lanxiang Gao, Ching Chuen Chan, Boyd Plowman, Yunyue Ye, and
      David Gatton as defendants. This action has been
      consolidated with the related actions pending in Clark
      County.

   6. Jacqueline Elliott v. Harbin Electric, Inc. et al., No.
      A-10-627656-C ("Elliott"), filed in the Eighth Judicial
      District Court for the State of Nevada in and for Clark
      County on October 19, 2010. The complaint named the Company
      and Board members Tianfu Yang, Ching Chuen Chan, Boyd
      Plowman, David Gatton, Yunyue Ye, and Lanxiang Gao as
      defendants.

   7. George Yun v. Harbin Electric, Inc. et al., No. 10-39805
      ("Yun"), filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
      York, Suffolk County) on October 22, 2010. The complaint
      named the Company and Board members Tianfu Yang, Ching Chuen
      Chan, Boyd Plowman, David Gatton, Yunyue Ye, and Lanxiang
      Gao as defendants. All of the defendants other than the
      Company and Mr. Yang have been voluntarily dismissed by
      Plaintiff.

   8. Randolph Fisher v. Harbin Electric, Inc. et al., No. 10-OC-
      00498-1B ("Fisher"), filed in the First Judicial District
      Court for the State of Nevada in and for Carson City on
      October 22, 2010. The complaint named the Company and Board
      members Tianfu Yang, Ching Chuen Chan, Boyd Plowman, David
      Gatton, Yunyue Ye, and Lanxiang Gao as defendants. This
      action has now been transferred to Clark County and
      consolidated with the cases there.

   9. Gerald Gould v. Tianfu Yang, No. 10-40004 ("Gould"), filed
      in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Suffolk County
      on October 25, 2010. The complaint named Tianfu Yang as a
      defendant.

  10. Mark Rosen v. Harbin Electric, Inc. et al., No. 11-OC-00036-
      1B ("Rosen"), filed in the Second Judicial District Court
      for the State of Nevada in and for Washoe County on
      October 28, 2010. The complaint named the Company, Board
      members Tianfu Yang, Ching Chuen Chan, Boyd Plowman, David
      Gatton, Yunyue Ye, and Lanxiang Gao, and Baring Private
      Equity Asia Group, Ltd. as defendants. Plaintiff voluntarily
      dismissed the Company from this action and moved to transfer
      the action to the Eighth Judicial District Court of the
      State of Nevada in and for Carson City, which motion was
      granted. This action has now been transferred to Clark
      County and consolidated with the cases there.

  11. Patrick Sweeney v. Harbin Electric, Inc. et al., No. 3:10-
      CV-00685 ("Sweeney"), filed in the United States District
      Court for the District of Nevada on November 11, 2010. The
      complaint named the Company and Board members Tianfu Yang,
      Ching Chuen Chan, Boyd Plowman, David Gatton, Yunyue Ye, and
      Lanxiang Gao as defendants. Defendants? motion to dismiss
      the action has been granted, the case dismissed, and the
      action closed.

                The Nevada State Court Litigation

The Company moved to dismiss, transfer, or stay Plaintiffs'
actions and to consolidate them before the Nevada Business Court.
The Company's motions to transfer the Carson City actions to Clark
County were granted, and the actions have been consolidated with
the related actions pending before the Clark County Business
Court. The consolidated action is captioned, In re Harbin
Electric, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-11-627656-C (the
"Nevada Action").

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement and the filing
of the Preliminary Merger Proxy, on July 20, 2011, Plaintiffs in
the Nevada Action filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint.  Plaintiffs assert claims against the Company's Board
for alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties to the Company?s
shareholders. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
Board has failed to maximize the value of Harbin to its
shareholders and that the Preliminary Merger Proxy fails to
disclose material information.  Plaintiffs seek, among other
relief, to enjoin defendants from consummating the Proposal until
the Company implements a process to obtain the most favorable
terms for Harbin's shareholders, and to rescind the Merger
Agreement and the Proposal to the extent already implemented.

On August 1, 2011, Plaintiffs in the Nevada Action filed a motion
for preliminary injunction against the Company and the Board.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Company and the Board from
soliciting proxy votes and from conducting any shareholder meeting
to approve the Merger Agreement.  The parties are engaged in
expedited discovery.  A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction is set for September 19, 2011.

                The Nevada Federal Court Litigation

Both of the actions pending in Nevada federal district court have
been dismissed.

                The New York State Court Litigation

The New York actions (Yun, Gould and Norfolk) were consolidated
under the caption, In re Harbin Shareholders Litigation, Index No.
35327/10. Plaintiffs' counsel thereafter filed a consolidated
amended complaint naming only the Company and Tianfu Yang as
defendants. The Company and Mr. Yang have moved to dismiss or, in
the alternative, to stay the New York action in deference to the
litigation proceeding in the Nevada Business Court. Those motions
have not yet been decided by the Court. The Company has reviewed
the allegations contained in the complaints and believes they are
without merit.  The Company intends to defend the litigation
vigorously.


HILLENBRAND INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Certification Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillenbrand, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on appeals from the
denial of class certification filed by the Funeral Consumers
Alliance, Inc., according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In 2005, the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. (FCA) and a number
of individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against the Company and its former parent
company, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., now Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc.
(Hill-Rom), and three national funeral home businesses (the FCA
Action).  A similar purported antitrust class action lawsuit was
later filed by Pioneer Valley Casket Co. and several so-called
"independent casket distributors" on behalf of casket sellers who
were unaffiliated with any licensed funeral home (the Pioneer
Valley Action).  Class certification hearings in the FCA Action
and the Pioneer Valley Action were held before a Magistrate Judge
in early December 2006.  On November 24, 2008, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification in both cases be denied.  On March 26, 2009, the
District Judge adopted the memoranda and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge and denied class certification in both cases.  On
April 9, 2009, the plaintiffs in the FCA case filed a petition
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for
leave to file an appeal of the Court's order denying class
certification.  On June 19, 2009, a three-judge panel of the Fifth
Circuit denied the FCA plaintiffs' petition.  On July 9, 2009, the
FCA plaintiffs filed a request for reconsideration of the denial
of their petition.  On July 29, 2009, a three-judge panel of the
Fifth Circuit denied the FCA plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration and their alternative motion for leave to file a
petition for rehearing en banc (by all the judges sitting on the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals).

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs did not appeal the District Court's
order denying class certification and, on April 29, 2009, pursuant
to a stipulation among the parties, the District Court dismissed
the Pioneer Valley Action with prejudice (i.e., Pioneer Valley
cannot appeal or otherwise reinstitute the case).  Neither the
Company nor Hill-Rom provided any payment or consideration for the
plaintiffs to dismiss this case, other than agreeing to bear their
own costs rather than pursuing plaintiffs for costs.

Plaintiffs in the FCA Action have generally sought monetary
damages on behalf of a class, trebling of any such damages that
may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs in the FCA Action filed a
report indicating that they were seeking damages ranging from
approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion before
trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers they seek
to represent, based on approximately one million casket purchases
by the purported class members.

Despite the ruling denying class certification, the FCA plaintiffs
continued to pursue their individual injunctive and damages
claims.  Their individual damages claims are limited to the
alleged overcharges on the plaintiffs' individual casket purchases
(the complaint currently alleges a total of eight casket purchases
by the individual plaintiffs), which would be trebled, plus
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

In June 2010, co-defendant Stewart Enterprises, Inc. announced a
settlement with the plaintiffs.  Shortly thereafter, the remaining
defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  On September 24, 2010, the District Court granted
the motion and ordered full dismissal of the lawsuit, concluding
that "plaintiffs shall take nothing by their suit."

Plaintiffs have appealed both the Court's final judgment of
dismissal entered on September 24, 2010, and the Court's order
denying class certification entered on March 26, 2009 to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On February 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief
with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The defendants'
opposition brief was filed with the Court on April 27, 2011.  All
appellate briefs have now been submitted.  The Company is
currently awaiting either notification from the Court of Appeals
that it wants to hear oral argument on the briefs before making
its ruling, or if no argument is requested by the Court of
Appeals, then its ruling as to whether or not the District Court's
decisions should be reversed or affirmed.

If plaintiffs succeed in overturning the judgment, reversing the
District Court order denying class certification, and a class is
subsequently certified in the FCA Action filed against Hill-Rom
and Batesville, and if the plaintiffs prevail at a trial of the
class action, the damages awarded to the plaintiffs, which would
be trebled as a matter of law, could have a significant material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition, and cash flow.  In antitrust actions such as the FCA
Action, the plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against
any or all of the co-defendants, who have no statutory
contribution rights against each other.  The Company and Hill-Rom
have entered into a judgment sharing agreement that apportions the
costs and any potential liabilities associated with this
litigation between us and Hill-Rom.

Because Batesville continues to adhere to its long-standing policy
of selling Batesville caskets only to licensed funeral directors
operating licensed funeral homes, a policy that it continues to
believe is appropriate and lawful, if the case goes to trial, the
plaintiffs are likely to claim additional alleged damages for the
period between the time they served their expert reports and the
time of trial.  At this point, it is not possible to estimate the
amount of any additional alleged damage claims they may make.  The
defendants are vigorously contesting both liability and the
plaintiffs' damages theories.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company had incurred approximately $28.8
million in cumulative legal and related costs associated with the
FCA matter since its inception.


INSMED INC: Agrees to Resolve Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insmed Incorporated has reached an agreement on a proposed
settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced in connection with
its merger with Transave LLC, according to the Company's
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On February 24, 2011, an action was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against the Company, its subsidiary
Transave, LLC, Transave, its directors and the former directors of
Transave, captioned Mackinson et al. v. Insmed Incorporated et
al., C.A. No. 6216, as a purported class action seeking a quasi-
appraisal remedy for alleged violations of Delaware's appraisal
statute and the fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with
the merger consummated pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of December 1, 2010, by and among Insmed
Incorporated, River Acquisition Co., Transave, LLC, Transave and
TVM V Life Science Ventures GmbH & Co. KG, in its capacity as
stockholders' agent.  The parties have reached agreement on a
proposed settlement subject to Court approval and the mailing of a
notice of pendency of class action, proposed settlement and
settlement hearing to former Transave stockholders.   As part of
the proposed settlement, the Company has agreed, subject to Court
approval and the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement,
to pay plaintiff's legal fees and expenses.

From time to time, the Company is a party to various lawsuits,
claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary
course of its business.  While the outcomes of these matters are
uncertain, management does not expect that the ultimate costs to
resolve these matters will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or cash flows


INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
International Bancshares Corporation continues to defend itself
against a class action complaint relating to the collection of
overdraft fees, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In October 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class-action lawsuits, including one filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and one
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida where similar lawsuits against a number of
other banks are currently pending in a multi-district proceeding
known as "In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation."  The
lawsuits challenge the manner in which IBC assesses and collects
overdraft fees on ATM and debit transactions and IBC's policies
related to posting order.  The Texas lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice on January 12, 2011, when the parties stipulated to
arbitrate the matter.  The Florida case is in early stages, with
no responsive pleadings or motions having been filed.  No class
has been certified in the case.  At this state of the lawsuits,
the Company cannot determine the probability of a material adverse
result or reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures, if
any.  The Company intends to defend the action vigorously.

Headquartered in Laredo, Texas, with 275 facilities and more than
440 ATMs, International Bancshares Corporation provides banking
services for commercial, consumer and international customers of
South, Central and Southeast Texas and the State of Oklahoma.  The
Company is an independent commercial bank holding companies
headquartered in Texas.  The Company, through its bank
subsidiaries, is in the business of gathering funds from various
sources and investing those funds in order to earn a return.  The
Company either directly or through a bank subsidiary owns two
insurance agencies, a liquidating subsidiary, a broker/dealer and
a 50% interest in an investment banking unit that owns a
broker/dealer.  The Company's primary earnings come from the
spread between the interest earned on interest-bearing assets and
the interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities.  In addition,
the Company generates income from fees on products offered to
commercial, consumer and international customers.


LIVE NATION: Continues to Defend Suit Over Concert Ticket Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a coordinated lawsuit over concert ticket prices,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Malinda
Heerwagen in June 2002 in U.S. District Court.  The plaintiff, on
behalf of a putative class consisting of certain concert ticket
purchasers, alleged that anti-competitive practices for concert
promotion services by the Company nationwide caused artificially
high ticket prices.  In August 2003, the District Court ruled in
the Company's favor, denying the plaintiff's class certification
motion. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.  In
January 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the plaintiff
then dismissed her action that same month.  Subsequently, twenty-
two putative class actions were filed by different named
plaintiffs in various U.S. District Courts throughout the country,
making claims substantially similar to those made in the Heerwagen
action, except that the geographic markets alleged are regional,
statewide or more local in nature, and the members of the putative
classes are limited to individuals who purchased tickets to
concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory, punitive and treble
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and costs of lawsuit,
including attorneys' fees.  The Company has filed its answers in
some of these actions and has denied liability.

In April 2006, granting the Company's motion, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  In June 2007, the District
Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and also that month the Court entered an order to
stay all proceedings pending the Court's ruling on class
certification.  In October 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion and certified classes in the Chicago, New England, New
York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional
markets.  In November 2007, the Court extended its stay of all
proceedings pending further developments in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In February 2008, the Company
filed with the District Court a Motion for Reconsideration of its
October 2007 class certification order.  In October 2010, the
District Court denied the Company's Motion for Reconsideration and
lifted the stay of all proceedings.  In February 2011, the Company
filed with the District Court a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment Regarding Statute of Limitations.  In April 2011, the
District Court granted the Company's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

While it is reasonably possible that a loss related to this matter
could be incurred by the Company in a future period, the Company
does not believe that a loss is probable of occurring at this
time.  Considerable uncertainty remains regarding the validity of
the claims and damages asserted against the Company.  As a result,
the Company is currently unable to estimate the possible loss or
range of loss for this matter.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend all claims in all of the actions.


LIVE NATION: Still Awaits Settlement Okay in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., is still awaiting court approval
of a settlement in the consolidated lawsuit against its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

From February through June 2009, eleven putative class action
lawsuits asserting causes of action under various state consumer
protection laws were filed against Ticketmaster and TicketsNow in
U.S. District Courts in California, New Jersey, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania and North Carolina.  The lawsuits allege that
Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully deceived consumers by,
among other things, selling large quantities of tickets to
TicketsNow's ticket brokers, either prior to or at the time that
tickets for an event go on sale, thereby forcing consumers to
purchase tickets at significantly marked-up prices on
TicketsNow.com instead of Ticketmaster.com.  The plaintiffs
further claim violation of the consumer protection laws by
Ticketmaster's alleged "redirecting" of consumers from
Ticketmaster.com to TicketsNow.com, thereby engaging in false
advertising and an unfair business practice by deceiving consumers
into inadvertently purchasing tickets from TicketsNow for amounts
greater than face value.  The plaintiffs claim that Ticketmaster
has been unjustly enriched by this conduct and seek compensatory
damages, a refund to every class member of the difference between
tickets' face value and the amount paid to TicketsNow, an
injunction preventing Ticketmaster from engaging in further unfair
business practices with TicketsNow and attorneys' fees and costs.
In July 2009, all of the cases were consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint in
September 2009, to which Ticketmaster filed its answer the
following month.  In July 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment.

In April 2011, the parties filed a Stipulation wherein they stated
that they have agreed on all material terms of a proposed
settlement.  As of June 30, 2011, the Company has accrued $2.1
million, its best estimate of the probable costs associated with
this settlement.  This liability includes an estimated redemption
rate.  Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption
rate and the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the
final settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.

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


LIVE NATION: Trial Set to Begin Oct. 2011 in Ticketmaster Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled to begin in October 2011 in the lawsuit against
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s subsidiary, Ticketmaster,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its Web site that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful.  The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets.  In August 2005, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's Web site
disclosures in respect of its ticket order-processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law.  On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order-
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period.  In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiff later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009.  The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiff filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed.  In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees.  The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's Web site from 1999 to
present.  The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high.  In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order.  In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification
order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for
Writ of Mandate.  In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the
plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior
Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion
to certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims.  In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster.  In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding term sheet
that provided for the settlement of the litigation and the
resolution of all claims set forth therein.  In April 2011, the
parties entered into a long-form agreement memorializing their
settlement.  Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not
acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with
the matter, but agreed to the settlement in order to eliminate the
uncertainties and expense of further protracted litigation.

On June 3, 2011, after a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, the Court declined to
approve the settlement reached by the parties in its current form
and, as a result, litigation continues in this matter.  On
September 2, 2011, the Court is scheduled to hear Ticketmaster's
Motion to Decertify the Class, its Motion for Summary Judgment and
the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication.  Trial is
scheduled to begin in October of 2011.  As of June 30, 2011, the
Company has accrued $21.2 million, its best estimate of the
probable costs associated with this matter.  This estimate is
based on the probable costs associated with the settlement which,
while it is of no force or effect following the Court's decision
on June 3, 2011, continues to provide the best estimate of the
probable costs associated with this matter.  While it is
reasonably possible that an additional loss related to this matter
could be incurred by the Company in a future period, the Company
does not believe that an additional loss is probable of occurring
at this time.  Considerable uncertainty remains regarding the
validity of the claims and damages asserted against the Company
and/or the potential for any settlement.  As a result, the Company
is currently unable to estimate any additional possible loss or
range of loss for this matter.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend this action.


LIVE NATION: Units Continue to Defend Suits in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against consumer class action lawsuits pending in
Canada, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in various provinces of Canada against TNow
Entertainment Group, Inc., Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd.
and Premium Inventory, Inc.  All of the cases allege essentially
the same set of facts and causes of action.  Each plaintiff
purports to represent a class consisting of all persons who
purchased a ticket from Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or
TicketsNow from February 2007 to present and alleges that
Ticketmaster conspired to divert a large number of tickets for
resale through the TicketsNow Web site at prices higher than face
value.  The plaintiffs characterize these actions as being in
violation of Ontario's Ticket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act
of Manitoba, the Amusement Act of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer
Protection Act.  The Ontario case contains the additional
allegation that Ticketmaster's and TicketsNow's service fees run
afoul of anti-scalping laws.  Each lawsuit seeks compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of the class.

While it is reasonably possible that a loss related to this matter
could be incurred by the Company in a future period, the Company
does not believe that a loss is probable of occurring at this
time.  Considerable uncertainty remains regarding the validity of
the claims and damages asserted against the Company.  As a result,
the Company is currently unable to estimate the possible loss or
range of loss for this matter.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend all claims in all of the actions.


MAINSTREAM INDUSTRIES: May Face Class Action Over Toxic Leak
------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kirkwood and Matthew Kelly, writing for The Sydney Morning
Herald, reports that lawyers working with the environmental
activist Erin Brockovich are considering class action over a toxic
leak from the Orica plant on Kooragang Island, north of Newcastle.

Clean-up crews and trucks from Hunter's Mainstream Industries were
out in force on Aug. 14 as residents remained concerned about the
potential health impacts of the chromium cloud that was blown over
Stockton on Aug. 8.

The Herald was told by health officials yesterday that as much as
10 kilograms of the potentially carcinogenic hexavalent chromium
-- chromium six -- material was accidentally released into the
atmosphere in the half-hour or so before the problem was noticed.

Workcover NSW is investigating the incident and the part of the
Orica plant involved in the chromium release has been shut by
state government environmental inspectors.

The company did not inform the Office of Environment and Heritage
until 16 hours later, on Aug.9.

The NSW Environment Minister, Robyn Parker, has since announced a
"full and independent" review into the incident that affected 70
homes and closed a childcare centre.

An environmental claims lawyer, Rebecca Jancauskas of Shine
Lawyers, confirmed on Aug. 14 the firm was speaking to three
affected families in relation to the potential class action.

In addition to compensation for the health impacts of exposure to
the chemical, the action could also seek damages for "stigma and
blight" and a potential drop in property values as a result.

Ms. Brockovich, who campaigned about the dangers of hexavalent
chromium in the US, was informed about the Stockton incident on
the weekend.  The NSW Department of Health said that tests have
found that "very low" levels of cancerous chemicals leaked from
the plant and that there is no health risk to the residents.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself in several remaining
class action lawsuits relating to the purchase or use of Vioxx,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Individual and putative class actions have been filed against Old
Merck in state and federal courts alleging personal injury and/or
economic loss with respect to the purchase or use of Vioxx.  All
such actions filed in federal court are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before District
Judge Eldon E. Fallon.  A number of such actions filed in state
court are coordinated in separate coordinated proceedings in state
courts in California and Texas.  All these actions and the "Other
Lawsuits" are collectively referred to as the "Vioxx Product
Liability Lawsuits."

Of the plaintiff groups in the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits,
the vast majority were dismissed as a result of the Vioxx
Settlement Program.  As of June 30, 2011, approximately 30
plaintiff groups who were otherwise eligible for the Settlement
Program did not participate and their claims remain pending
against Old Merck.  In addition, the claims of approximately 100
plaintiff groups who were not eligible for the Settlement Program
remain pending against Old Merck, a number of which are subject to
various motions to dismiss for failure to comply with court-
ordered deadlines.

There are no U.S. Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits currently
scheduled for trial in 2011.  Old Merck has previously disclosed
the outcomes of several Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits that were
tried prior to 2010.  Of the cases that went to trial, there are
two unresolved post-trial appeals: Ernst v. Merck and Garza v.
Merck.  Merck has previously disclosed the details associated with
these cases and the grounds for Merck's appeals.

There are still pending in various U.S. courts putative class
actions purportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or
users of Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss --
referred to as the "Other Lawsuits."  In the Vioxx MDL proceeding,
approximately 30 such class actions remain.  In June 2010, Old
Merck moved to strike the class claims or for judgment on the
pleadings regarding the master complaint, and briefing on that
motion was completed in September 2010.  The Vioxx MDL court heard
oral argument on Old Merck's motion in October 2010, and took it
under advisement.

In June 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of Missouri
plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating
to Vioxx.  Trial is scheduled to begin on May 21, 2012.  In
addition, in Indiana, plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a
class of Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the
Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana.  In April 2010, a
Kentucky state court denied Old Merck's motion for summary
judgment and certified a class of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking
reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx.  The
Kentucky Court of Appeals denied Old Merck's petition for a writ
of mandamus, and the Kentucky Supreme Court has affirmed that
ruling.  The trial court entered an amended class certification
order on January 27, 2011, and Merck has appealed that ruling to
the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Vioxx Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to await a court ruling on its motion
to dismiss a fifth amended securities class action complaint
related to the product Vioxx, according to the Company's August 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under
federal and state securities laws have been filed against Old
Merck and various current and former officers and directors -- the
"Vioxx Securities Lawsuits."  The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits have
been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in a nationwide
MDL (the "Shareholder MDL"), and have been consolidated for all
purposes.  In June 2010, Old Merck moved to dismiss the Fifth
Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated securities
action.  Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on
July 12, 2011.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits.  By stipulation, defendants are not required
to respond to these complaints until the resolution of any motions
to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Trial Conference in Vioxx ERISA Suits Set for Nov. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial conference in Vioxx-related ERISA class action complaints
against Merck & Co., Inc., has been set for November 15, 2011,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Various putative class actions have been filed in federal court
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or ERISA against
Old Merck and certain current and former officers and directors
relating to the product, Vioxx.  The Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits were
consolidated in the Shareholder Multi-District Litigation before
Judge Chesler.  Fact discovery in the Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits closed
in September 2010 and expert discovery closed on May 20, 2011.  On
June 20, 2011, Old Merck filed a motion for summary judgment, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment; those
motions will be fully briefed on August 12, 2011.  As previously
disclosed, in February 2009, the court denied the motion for class
certification as to one count, and granted the motion as to the
remaining counts in Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Vioxx
ERISA Lawsuits.  On June 21, 2011, plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion for class certification on the count that the court had
previously ruled could not be decided on a class-wide basis; Old
Merck filed an opposition to that renewed motion on July 1, 2011,
and plaintiffs filed a reply on July 14, 2011.  The motion is
awaiting a decision by the court.  Under the scheduling order, a
final pre-trial order is due on November 1, 2011, and a final pre-
trial conference is scheduled for November 15, 2011.  No trial
date has been set.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities
class action complaint relating to the drug product, Vytorin,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In April 2008, an Old Merck shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging that Old Merck violated the federal
securities laws.  The suit has since been withdrawn and re-filed
in the District of New Jersey and has been consolidated with
another federal securities lawsuit under the caption In re Merck &
Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities Litigation.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed in October 2008, and names as defendants Old
Merck; Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Old Merck delayed
releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinical trial
regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Old Merck made false
and misleading statements about expected earnings, knowing that
once the results of the Vytorin study were released, sales of
Vytorin would decline and Old Merck's earnings would suffer.  In
December 2008, Old Merck and the other defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim for which relief can be granted.  In September 2009, the
court issued an opinion and order denying the defendants' motion
to dismiss this lawsuit and, in October 2009, Old Merck and the
other defendants filed an answer to the amended consolidated
complaint.  There is a similar consolidated, putative class action
securities lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by
a Schering-Plough shareholder against Schering-Plough and its
former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fred
Hassan, under the caption In re Schering-Plough
Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation. The amended
consolidated complaint was filed in September 2008 and names as
defendants Schering-Plough; Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals,
LLC; certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors; and underwriters who participated in an August 2007
public offering of Schering-Plough's common and preferred stock.
In December 2008, Schering-Plough and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.  In
September 2009, the court issued an opinion and order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  The defendants filed
an answer to the consolidated amended complaint in November 2009.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin ERISA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself against an ERISA
class action complaint relating to the drug product, Vytorin,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In April 2008, a member of an Old Merck ERISA plan filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Old Merck and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors alleging they
breached their fiduciary duties under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. Since that time, there have been other
similar ERISA lawsuits filed against Old Merck in the District of
New Jersey, and all of those lawsuits have been consolidated under
the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin ERISA Litigation.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed in February 2009, and
names as defendants Old Merck and various current and former
members of the Company's Board of Directors.  The plaintiffs
allege that the ERISA plans' investment in Old Merck stock was
imprudent because Old Merck's earnings are dependent on the
commercial success of its cholesterol drug Vytorin and that
defendants knew or should have known that the results of a
scientific study would cause the medical community to turn to less
expensive drugs for cholesterol management.  In April 2009, Old
Merck and the other defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the
grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which
relief can be granted.  In September 2009, the court issued an
opinion and order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  In November 2009, the plaintiffs moved to strike certain
of the defendants' affirmative defenses.  That motion was denied
in part and granted in part in June 2010, and an amended answer
was filed in July 2010.

There is a similar consolidated, putative class action ERISA
lawsuit currently pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by
a member of a Schering-Plough ERISA plan against Schering-Plough
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
alleging they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, and
under the caption In re Schering-Plough Corp. ENHANCE ERISA
Litigation.  The consolidated amended complaint was filed in
October 2009 and names as defendants Schering-Plough, various
current and former members of Schering-Plough's Board of Directors
and current and former members of committees of Schering-Plough's
Board of Directors.  In November 2009, the Company and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief can
be granted.  The plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss
was filed in December 2009, and the motion was fully briefed in
January 2010.  That motion was denied in June 2010.  In September
2010, defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint in the
matter.

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets a range of products to improve human and animal health.


MOTRICITY INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of
those who purchased securities of Motricity, Inc. between June 18,
2010, and August 11, 2011.

The lawsuit alleges that Motricity and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with Motricity's IPO and events
thereafter.  On June 18, 2010, Motricity announced the pricing of
its 6 million share IPO at $10 per share.

It is alleged that defendants failed to disclose negative trends
in Motricity's business, and misrepresented or failed to disclose
the negative impact of the growing smartphone market on the
Company's business, causing Motricity stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On May 3, 2011, Motricity issued a press release announcing its
first quarter 2011 financial results.  The Company reported a net
loss of ($6.1) million, and revenue of $32.2 million.  On this
news, Motricity's stock dropped $1.82 per share, closing at $10.99
on May 4, 2011.  On August 9, 2011, Motricity issued its second
quarter 2011 financial results, reporting a net loss of ($4.3)
million, and revenue of $34.6 million, well short of expectations.
On this news, Motricity's stock plummeted, opening at $2.26 per
share on August 10, 2011, a decline of 50%.

If you purchased Motricity securities during the Class Period you
may, no later than October 11, 2011, request that the court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead
plaintiff is a class member that represents other class members in
directing the litigation.  Your share in any recovery will not be
affected by serving as a lead plaintiff, however, lead plaintiffs
make important decisions that could affect the overall recovery
for class members.  You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to
recover.  You may retain Milberg LLP, or other attorneys, for this
action, but do not need to retain counsel to recover.  If this
action is certified as a class action, class members will be
automatically represented by court-appointed counsel.  The
complaint in this action was not filed by Milberg.

Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com-- is a law firm that has
represented individual and institutional investors for over four
decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United
States.  If you wish to discuss this matter with us, please
contact the following attorneys:

          Jeff Westerman, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081
          E-mail: contactus@milberg.com

               - and -

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119


NELNET INC: Unit Awaits Ruling on Plea for Stay Pending Rehearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc., is awaiting
a court ruling on its motion for a stay in the lawsuit Bais Yaakov
of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, a
subsidiary of the Company, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  The complaint alleges that
Peterson's sent six advertising faxes to the named plaintiff in
2008-2009 that were not the result of express invitation or
permission granted by the plaintiff and did not include certain
opt out language.  The complaint also alleges that such faxes
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per violation, trebled
for willful violations for each of the six faxes.  The complaint
further alleges that Peterson's had sent putative class members
more than 10,000 faxes that violated the TCPA, amounting to more
than $5 million in statutory penalty damages and more than $15
million if trebled for willful violations.  The complaint seeks to
establish a class action for two different classes of plaintiffs:
Class A, to whom Peterson's sent unsolicited fax advertisements
containing opt out notices similar to those contained in the faxes
received by the named plaintiff; and Class B, to whom Peterson's
sent fax advertisements containing opt out notices similar to
those contained in the faxes received by the named plaintiff.  As
of August 9, 2011, the District Court has not established or
recognized any class.

On February 16, 2011, Peterson's filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the District Court on April 15,
2011, shortly after a similar motion to dismiss that had been
granted in an unrelated case involving alleged TCPA violations
related to faxes was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit (the ?Appeals Court?), which has jurisdiction over
the District Court.  On April 29, 2011, Peterson's filed an answer
to the complaint, but also filed a motion for reconsideration of
the motion to dismiss.  On May 17, 2011, the Appeals Court granted
a petition for rehearing of the motion to dismiss in the unrelated
TCPA fax case, and on May 31, 2011 Peterson's filed a motion for
stay pending the outcome of that rehearing.  The motion for
reconsideration and the motion for stay are pending before the
District Court.

Peterson's intends to continue to contest the suit vigorously.
Due to the preliminary stage of this matter and the uncertainty
and risks inherent in class determination and the overall
litigation process, the Company believes that a meaningful
estimate of a reasonably possible loss, if any, or range of
reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot currently be made.


OLD NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Checking Account Practices Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit challenging the bank's checking account practices,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action
lawsuit, much like many other banks, challenging Old National
Bank's checking account practices.  The plaintiff seeks damages
and other relief, including restitution.  Old National believes it
has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the plaintiff,
and has filed a motion to dismiss that is pending with the Court.
At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management
of Old National to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss.


ORIENT EXPRESS: Unit Defends Wage and Hour Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Orient-Express Hotels Ltd.'s restaurant, '21' Club, continues to
defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit pending in New
York, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

OEH currently owns and operates the stand-alone restaurant '21'
Club in New York, New York.  '21' Club is a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit brought by private banqueting
service staff seeking to recover alleged retained gratuities and
overtime wages pursuant to New York State and U.S. federal wage
and hour laws.

OEH says it will continue to defend this matter vigorously.  OEH
has made its best estimate of loss based on available information
and its understanding of the facts and circumstances at the
present time, and has accrued $1,000,000 in the three months ended
June 30, 2011.  The process of estimating losses involves a
considerable degree of judgment by management and the ultimate
amount could vary materially.


PNC FINANCIAL: CBNV Suit Plaintiffs Seek to File Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of lawsuits against Community Bank of Northern Virginia
are seeking to file a joint amended class action complaint,
according to PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.'s August 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In May 2011, in the lawsuits pending in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption
In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Mortgage Lending
Practices Litigation (MDL No. 1674), the plaintiffs collectively
filed a motion seeking to file a joint amended consolidated class
action complaint covering all of the class action lawsuits pending
in this proceeding. The proposed amended complaint names the
Community Bank of Northern Virginia (CBNV), a predecessor to PNC
Bank, another bank, and purchasers of loans originated by CBNV and
the other bank (including the Residential Funding Company, LLC) as
defendants. The proposed amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that a group of persons and entities collectively
characterized as the "Shumway/Bapst Organization" referred
prospective second residential mortgage loan borrowers to CBNV and
the other bank, that CBNV and the other bank charged these
borrowers improper title and loan fees at loan closings, that the
disclosures provided to the borrowers at loan closings were
inaccurate, and that CBNV and the other bank paid some of the loan
fees to the Shumway/Bapst Organization as purported "kickbacks"
for the referrals. The proposed amended complaint asserts claims
for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the
Truth in Lending Act, as amended by the Home Owners Equity
Protection Act (HOEPA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The proposed amended complaint seeks to certify a class of all
persons nationwide who obtained a second or subordinate,
residential, federally related, non-purchase money, HOEPA
qualifying mortgage loan from CBNV or the other bank that was
secured by residential real property used by the class member as a
principal dwelling. The plaintiffs allege that there are
approximately 50,000 members of this class. They seek, among other
things, unspecified damages (including tripled damages under RICO
and RESPA), rescission of loans, declaratory and injunctive
relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.


PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss Lawsuit in Orange County
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit against PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc., in Orange County, California, voluntarily
dismissed their complaint without prejudice, according to the
Company's August 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In February 2011, a lawsuit (National Organization of Assistance
for Homeowners of California, et al. v. America's Servicing
Company, et al., (Case No. 30-2011-00447677-CU-OR-CXC)) was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California for Orange County
against PNC and numerous other financial institutions and mortgage
servicing organizations. In July 2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. The lawsuit had been
brought as a class action by individual plaintiffs, who alleged
that they have obtained loans secured by deeds of trust on
California real estate, and by a non-profit organization which
purported, along with the individual plaintiffs, to represent a
class of similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs had
contended, among other things, that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment in connection with
the mortgage loan origination process, engaged in wrongful
foreclosure practices, caused notices of default to be issued
against the plaintiffs in a manner not authorized by California
law, made inaccurate credit disclosures regarding the plaintiffs,
and disclosed the plaintiffs' private information without their
authorization. The plaintiffs had alleged violations, among other
things, of various provisions of California statutory law, the
right to privacy provisions of the California Constitution, the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act.
The plaintiffs had sought, among other things, unspecified actual
and punitive damages, statutory civil penalties, restitution,
injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.


PRUDENTIAL FOX: Settles Class Action Over Administrative Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Camilli, writing for phillyBurbs.com, reports that a
second class-action lawsuit that alleged consumers were charged
phony fees during real estate closings has been settled for
$270,000.

Superior Court Judge Evan Crook approved the settlement on Aug. 12
in the suit filed by Jamie Baraldi of Medford and Jovany Blasini
of Evesham against Prudential Fox & Roach.  The statewide class-
action suit could include as many as 4,000 potential claimants,
said Joseph Osefchen, attorney for the class.

Those who filed claims would likely receive about two-thirds of
the $175 or $275 they were charged by Prudential at closings over
the past six years, Mr. Osefchen said.

The lawsuit alleged that the administration fee charged by
Prudential was a "junk fee" for which the company performed no
separate, identifiable service beyond what they already do to earn
their share of the commission.  The suit alleged that such fees
violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey
Truth in Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

A similar class-action suit filed against Weichert South Jersey
Realty was settled last month for $525,000 and could include as
many as 8,000 potential claimants who were charged between $160
and $250 in alleged phony fees.  A third suit, which makes the
same allegations, is pending in federal court against Keller
Williams, Mr. Osefchen said.

Neither Prudential nor Weichert admitted any wrongdoing in their
settlements.

Under the Prudential settlement, the class includes all persons
whom the company charged the "administration fee" related to the
purchase of residential property between Feb. 25, 2005, and
Dec. 31, 2009.  The deadline for submission of claims is Oct. 5;
forms are available online at http://www.pfrclasssettlement.com

Mr. Osefchen said his office has already received inquiries from
about 200 potential class members seeking information.

The Weichert class includes "all persons or entities who sold
residential real estate in New Jersey between Feb. 25, 2005, and
April 1, 2011, who in connection with that sale were charged an
administrative fee by Weichert, sometimes known as Weichert
Realtors . . . where the sale involved a federally related
mortgage loan."

Those who want to pursue a claim against Weichert have until
Sept. 2 to file forms, which can be accessed at
http://www.adminfeeclassaction.com


PUBLIC STORAGE: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage is defending itself against a class action lawsuit
filed in California over its proposed merger with some limited
partners, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On June 30, 2011, the Company entered into merger agreements to
acquire all of the units of limited partnership interest and
general partnership interests it does not currently own in five
limited partnerships that are consolidated in its condensed
consolidated financial statements as of and for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2011.  The aggregate consideration, which
will be paid in the form of Public Storage Common Shares or, at
the option of each individual unitholder, cash, totals
approximately $154.3 million.  These mergers have been approved by
Public Storage and the Hughes Family, who together have a majority
of the limited partnership units outstanding and therefore can
approve the mergers without the vote of the other limited
partners.  A limited partner in four of the relevant limited
partnerships has brought a putative class action lawsuit in
California state court alleging, among other things, that the
mergers provide for insufficient consideration for the relevant
units of limited partnership interest.  The limited partner seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the mergers.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it
intends to defend it vigorously.  While there can be no assurance,
and the transactions are subject to certain customary closing
conditions, as well as the pending litigation, these transactions
are currently scheduled to close in late August 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Engle Progeny Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. disclosed in its August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011, that there are 6,631 pending Engle
progeny cases.

In 2000, a jury in Engle rendered a punitive damages verdict in
favor of the "Florida class" of approximately $145 billion against
all defendants.  In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court, among
other things, affirmed an appellate court's reversal of the
punitive damages award, decertified the class going forward,
preserved several class-wide findings from the trial, including
that nicotine is addictive and cigarettes are defectively
designed, and authorized class members to avail themselves of
these findings in individual lawsuits under certain conditions.
After subsequent motions were resolved, the Florida Supreme Court
issued its mandate on January 11, 2007, thus beginning a one-year
period in which former class members were permitted to file
individual lawsuits.  In October 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court
denied the defendants' petition for writ of certiorari.

Individual Engle Progeny cases are pending in both federal and
state court in Florida.  As of June 30, 2011, 3,289 cases were
pending in federal court, and 3,342 cases were pending in state
court.  These cases include approximately 7,963 plaintiffs.  The
number of cases will likely change due to individual plaintiffs
being severed from multi-plaintiff cases and multi-plaintiff
federal cases being dismissed or consolidated.  In addition, as of
June 30, 2011, the Company's subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, was aware of 29 additional cases that had been filed but
not served (with 302 plaintiffs).  While there has been activity
in several cases pending in federal court, only one has been
scheduled for trial -- Burr v. Philip Morris, USA.  Fifty trials
have occurred in Florida state court since 2009, and numerous
state court trials are scheduled for the remainder of 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Brown" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A court tentatively granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend
complaint and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss a lawsuit
against a subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc., according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case
filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993, through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.
The action was brought against major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of
profits and other equitable relief under Sections 17200 et seq.
and 17500 et seq of the California Business and Professions Code.
Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition.  The court,
however, refused to certify the class under the California Legal
Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law claims.  In March
2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to decertify the
class, and in September 2006, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the order decertifying the class.  In November 2006, the
plaintiffs' petition for review with the California Supreme Court
was granted, and in May 2009, the court reversed the decision of
the trial court, and the California Court of Appeal that
decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.  In March 2010, the trial court found that
the plaintiffs' "lights" claims were not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and denied the defendants'
second motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiffs filed a tenth
amended complaint in September 2010.  RJR Tobacco and B&W filed
their answers to the complaint, and discovery is underway.

Subsequently, on February 24, 2011, the court found that the named
class representatives were not adequate, were not typical, and
lacked standing.  The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was
denied.  The court tentatively granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend the complaint by adding new class representatives and denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in "Sateriale" Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing is underway in the appeal from the dismissal of a lawsuit
against a subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc., according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege
that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue
redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the
plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise
and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to
exchange for Camel Cash.  The plaintiffs allege unfair business
practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory
estoppel.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages,
costs and expenses.  In January 2010, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint in February 2010.  The class definition changed
to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and
tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from
October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel
Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31,
2007.  The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a
proposed California subclass, consisting of all California
residents meeting the same criteria.  In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction
over subject matter and, alternatively, for failure to state a
claim was granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint was granted with leave to
amend.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR
Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss it in September 2010.  In
December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss
with prejudice.  Final judgment was entered by the court and the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2011.  Briefing is
underway.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery Still Ongoing in "VanDyke" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit pending in New Mexico against
Reynolds American Inc. and its subsidiary, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
against Reynolds American Inc. and its subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all
New Mexico residents who from July 1, 2004, to the date of
judgment, purchased, not for resale, the defendants' cigarettes
labeled as "lights" or "ultra-lights."  The plaintiffs allege
fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach
of implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness for a
particular purpose, violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices
Act, unjust enrichment, negligence and gross negligence.  The
plaintiffs seek a variety of damages, including actual,
compensatory and consequential damages to the plaintiff and the
class but not damages for personal injury or health-care claims.
Discovery is underway.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed
in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a
judge certified a class in December 2001.  In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case.  The plaintiffs appealed
this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005.
There is currently no activity in the case.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Lights" Suits vs. Units Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in
Missouri.  In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge
in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.  In April 2007,
the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and
the following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip
Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp.  In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.  A nominal
trial date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not
proceed at that time.  There is currently no activity in the case.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand,
which was granted in March 2006.  In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc.  A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time.  There is
currently no activity in the case.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit vs. Units Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiaries, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., seeking to recover $1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified
amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages.
The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.  The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.  In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral
Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North American and
Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong
World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to
all defendants.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiff Allowed to Amend ERISA Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
granted plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint in the lawsuit
against a Reynolds American Inc. subsidiary alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to
the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR
Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension
Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA.  The actions about
which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by
RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group
Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby
separating NGH's tobacco business and food business.  As part of
the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities
had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate
tobacco and food businesses.  The plaintiff contends that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the
RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the
companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings
Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR
401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off.  The
plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999
Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR
401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion
for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds
after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such
discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty.  In his complaint, the
plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003.  In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.  In
April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part,
dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee
and the RJR Pension Investment Committee.  The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007.  The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008.  The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached.  In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class.  A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached.  The district court overruled
the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the
class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010.  During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial.  On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Ruling in "Cleary" Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. is still awaiting a court decision in the
appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., a case filed in June 1998, and
pending in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification in December 2001, in an
action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including the Company's subsidiaries, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.  The case was
brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been injured by
(1) the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which
defendants concealed material facts regarding the addictive nature
of nicotine, (2) the defendants' alleged acts of targeting their
advertising and marketing to minors, and (3) the defendants'
claimed breach of the public right to defendants' compliance with
the laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to minors.
The plaintiffs requested that the defendants be required to
disgorge all profits unjustly received through their sale of
cigarettes to plaintiffs and the class, which in no event will be
greater than $75,000 per each class member, inclusive of punitive
damages, interest and costs.  In March 2006, the court dismissed
count V, public nuisance, and count VI, unjust enrichment.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in March 2009, to add a
claim of unjust enrichment and, to include in the class,
individuals who smoked "light" cigarettes.  RJR Tobacco and B&W
answered the amended complaint in March 2009.  In July 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an additional motion for class certification.  In
September 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the pleadings concerning the "lights" claims
as to all defendants other than Philip Morris.  In February 2010,
the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of
all three putative classes.  However, the court ruled that the
plaintiffs may reinstate the class dealing with the conspiracy to
conceal the addictive nature of nicotine if they identify a new
class representative.  In April 2010, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to file a fourth amended complaint and withdraw
the motion to reinstate count I by identifying a new plaintiff.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourth
amended complaint, which was granted in June 2010.  The court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, and in August 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Oral argument occurred on
April 7, 2011.  A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" and "Dahl" Suits Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in April 2003,
and pending in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a judge
dismissed the case in May 2005, ruling the "lights" claims are
preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
In July 2005, the plaintiffs appealed to the Minnesota Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Judicial District.  During the pendency of
the appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  In February 2007, the Eighth
Circuit remanded the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which
in December 2007, reversed the judgment and remanded the case to
the District Court.  In January 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court
issued an order vacating the February 2008 order that granted RJR
Tobacco's petition for review.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs in
this case and in Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed a
motion to consolidate for discovery and trial.  In October 2009,
the court companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the
motion to consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as
discovery progresses.  In February 2010, a stipulation and order
was entered to stay proceedings in this case, and in Thompson
until completion of all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria
Group, Inc.  There is currently no activity in the case.

In Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in
February 2005 in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, RJR
Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  In October 2007, the U.S. District Court
remanded the case to state district court.  In May 2009, the court
entered an agreed scheduling order that bifurcates merits and
class certification discovery.  The parties are engaged in class
certification discovery.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs in this
case and in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. filed a motion to
consolidate for discovery and trial.  In October 2009, the court
companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the motion to
consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as discovery
progresses.  In February 2010, a stipulation and order was entered
to stay proceedings in this case and in Dahl until completion of
all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc.  There is
currently no activity in the case.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Turner" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class in November 2001.  In June 2003, Reynolds American Inc.'s
subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, filed a motion to stay
the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the Price v. Philip
Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in July 2003.  In October
2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied RJR
Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request.  In November
2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for
a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in Price.  On
October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the court's denial of its
emergency stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to
the circuit court.  There is currently no activity in the case.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Unit Continues to Defend 6 Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc. continues to defend itself
against six putative class action lawsuits pending in Canada,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

These six putative Canadian class actions were filed against
various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, and one of its affiliates, in courts in the
provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and
Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively
pursuing only the action pending in Saskatchewan at this time:

   * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for
     Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian
     tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of
     its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of
     all individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who
     have suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic
     obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or
     cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
     designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by
     the defendants.

   * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants.

   * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, and their dependents and family
     members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by
     the defendants.

   * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period of
     January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as set
     by the court.

   * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
     and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
     respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of
     25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
     marketed, or distributed by the defendants.

   * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007,
     and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart
     disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
     designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed
     by the defendants.

In each of these six cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; the right to waive torts and claim
disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the defendants
received from the sale of tobacco products to putative class
members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act and
other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems just.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these six actions to Japan Tobacco Inc. (JTI), which
bought the international tobacco business of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc. and RJR Tobacco.  Subject to a reservation of
rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current
or former affiliates in these actions.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Units Continue to Defend Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against antitrust lawsuits, according to the Company's
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including the Company's subsidiaries, R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.,
in federal and state courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers
combined and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation
of antitrust statutes and various state unfair business practices
statutes.  In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to
certify the lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons
who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more
of the defendants.  As of June 30, 2011, all of the federal and
state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been
dismissed, except for one state court case pending in Kansas.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Units Still Await Ruling in "Smith" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiaries are still awaiting a court
decision on their motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit Smith
v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., according to the Company's August 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiaries, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and the parent
companies of the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages.  The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or
maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States.  The
parties are currently engaged in discovery.  In November 2010, RJR
Tobacco and B&W filed a motion for summary judgment.  A decision
is pending.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: U.S. Supreme Court Denies "Scott" Suit Petition
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied in June 2011 defendants' petition
for writ of certiorari in the lawsuit Scott v. American Tobacco
Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s August 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On November 5, 1998, in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case
filed in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial
court certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of
Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996, in
an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including the Company's subsidiaries, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., seeking to recover
an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.  In
July 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants
on the plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring and found that
cigarettes were not defectively designed.  However, the jury also
made certain findings against the defendants on claims relating to
fraud, conspiracy, marketing to minors and smoking cessation.
Notwithstanding these findings, this portion of the trial did not
determine liability as to any class member or class
representative.  What primarily remained in the case was a class-
wide claim that the defendants pay for a program to help people
stop smoking.

In May 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591
million on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program. In
September 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond, pursuant
to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million
collectively for MSA signatories, and noticed their appeal.  RJR
Tobacco posted $25 million (the portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W)
towards the bond.  In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of
Appeals upheld the class certification and found the defendants
responsible for funding smoking cessation for eligible class
members.  The appellate court also ruled, however, that the
defendants were not liable for any post-1988 claims, rejected the
award of prejudgment interest, struck eight of the 12 components
of the smoking cessation program and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  In particular, the appellate court ruled that no
class member, who began smoking after September 1, 1988, could
receive any relief, and that only those smokers, whose claims
accrued on or before September 1, 1988, would be eligible for the
smoking cessation program.  The plaintiffs have expressly
represented to the trial court that none of their claims accrued
before 1988 and that the class claims did not accrue until around
1996, when the case was filed.  The defendants' application for
writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied in
January 2008.  The defendants' petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in June 2008.  In July
2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment in the case,
finding that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for
funding the cost of a court-supervised smoking cessation program
and ordered the defendants to deposit approximately $263 million
together with interest from June 30, 2004, into a trust for the
funding of the program.  The court also stated that it would
favorably consider a motion to return to defendants a portion of
unused funds at the close of each program year in the event the
monies allocated for the preceding program year were not fully
expended because of a reduction in class size or underutilization
by the remaining plaintiffs.

In December 2008, the trial court judge signed an order granting
the defendants an appeal from the amended judgment.  In April
2010, the court of appeals amended but largely affirmed the trial
court's July 2008 judgment and ordered the defendants to deposit
with the court $242 million with judicial interest from July 21,
2008, until paid.  The defendants' motion for rehearing was
denied.  In September 2010, the defendants' application for writ
of certiorari or review and their emergency motion to stay
execution of judgment with the Louisiana Supreme Court were
denied.  In September 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the
defendant's motion to stay the judgment pending applicants' timely
filing, and the Court's disposition, of a petition for writ of
certiorari.  The defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2010.  The court
denied the petition on June 27, 2011.  RJR Tobacco accrued $139
million, the portions of the judgment allocated to RJR Tobacco and
B&W, in the second quarter of 2011.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit vs. Units Remain Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) class action against
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds American Inc.'s
subsidiaries R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., on
behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves
cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from
cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who
allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure.  The
plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages.  In October 2004, the trial court stayed
this case pending the outcome of the appeal in Scott v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc.

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


ROSETTA STONE: Continues to Defend Salaried Managers' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosetta Stone Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by salaried managers in California, according
to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On or about April 28, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda for damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the matter of Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rosetta Stone Ltd. and DOES 1 to 50. The complaint alleges that
plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated who are or were
employed as salaried managers by the Company in its retail
locations in California are due unpaid wages and other relief for
its violations of state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs moved to
amend their complaint to include a nationwide class on January 21,
2011. On March 16, 2011, the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland
Division. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
However, the Company cannot predict the timing and the ultimate
outcome of this matter or estimate the range of possible loss with
certainty at this time. Even if the plaintiffs are unsuccessful in
their claims against it, the Company will incur legal fees and
other costs in the defense of these claims.


ROSETTA STONE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
On or about March 24, 2011, a purported securities class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased Rosetta Stone
Inc.'s publicly traded securities between February 25, 2010 and
February 28, 2011 against the Company and certain of the Company's
present and former officers in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging violations of
federal securities law in connection with various public
statements and alleged material omissions made by the Company.
The complaint names as defendants Rosetta Stone Inc., Tom P.H.
Adams, President and Chief Executive Officer, Brian D. Helman,
former Chief Financial Officer, and Matthew C. Sysak, Vice
President and Controller. The Company intends to vigorously defend
this matter. However, the Company cannot predict the timing and
ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible
loss with certainty at this time. Even if the plaintiffs are
unsuccessful in their claims against it, the Company will incur
legal fees and other costs in the defense of these claims.

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


SAN DIEGO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Program
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims the
San Diego City Employees' Retirement System underestimated by $180
million how much it needed to put into its pension plan.

A copy of the Complaint in Baidya, et al. v. San Diego City
Employees' Retirement System, et al., Case No. 37-2011-00096237
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/15/SanDiego.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Conger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. CONGER
          P.O. Box 9374
          16236 San Dieguito Road, Suite 4-14
          Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
          Telephone: (858) 759-0200
          E-mail: congermike@aol.com


SHELL: Accepts Full Liability for Two Oil Spills in Nigeria
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Maritime Executive reports that an oil giant faces a bill of
hundreds of millions of dollars following class action suit
brought on behalf of communities in Bodo, Ogoniland.

Shell faces a bill of hundreds of millions of dollars after
accepting full liability for two massive oil spills that
devastated a Nigerian community of 69,000 people and may take at
least 20 years to clean up.

Experts who studied video footage of the spills at Bodo in
Ogoniland say they could together be as large as the 1989 Exxon
Valdez disaster in Alaska, when 10 million gallons of oil
destroyed the remote coastline.

Until now, Shell has claimed that less than 40,000 gallons were
spilt in Nigeria.

Papers seen by the Guardian show that following a class action
suit in London over the past four months, the company has accepted
responsibility for the 2008 double rupture of the Bodo-Bonny
trans-Niger pipeline that pumps 120,000 barrels of oil a day
though the community.

Ogoniland is a small region of the Niger delta which threw out
Shell in 1994 for its pollution but then saw eight of its leaders,
including the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa, executed by the government.

The crude oil that gushed unchecked from the two Bodo spills,
which occurred within months of each other, in 2008 has clearly
devastated the 20 sq. km. network of creeks and inlets on which
Bodo and as many as 30 other smaller settlements depend for food,
water and fuel.

No attempt has been made to clean up the oil, which has collected
on the creek sides, washes in and out on the tides and has seeped
deep into the water table and farmland.

According to the communities in Bodo, in two years the company has
only offered GBP3,500 together with 50 bags of rice, 50 bags of
beans and a few cartons of sugar, tomatoes and groundnut oil.  The
offers were rejected as "insulting, provocative and beggarly" by
the chiefs of Bodo, but later accepted on legal advice.

Shell's acceptance of full liability for the spills follows a
class action suit bought on behalf of communities by London law
firm Leigh Day and Co, which represented the Ivory Coast community
that suffered health damage following the dumping of toxic waste
by a ship leased to multinational oil company Trafigura in 2006.

Many other impoverished communities in the delta are now expected
to seek damages for oil pollution against Shell in the British
courts.  On average, there are three oil spills a day by Shell and
other companies working in the delta. Shell consistently blames
the spills on local youths who, they argue, sabotage their network
of pipelines.

"The news that Shell has accepted liability in Britain will be
greeted with joy in the delta.  The British courts may now be
inundated with legitimate complaints," said Patrick Naagbartonm,
coordinator for the Centre of Environment and Human Rights in Port
Harcourt.

Later this week, the company will be heavily implicated by the UN
for the environmental disaster in the Niger delta which has seen
more than 7,000 oil spills in the low lying swamps and farmland
since 1989.  Shell first discovered oil in the Niger delta in
1956.  According to Amnesty International, more than 13 million
barrels of oil have been spilt in the delta, twice as much as by
BP in last year's Gulf of Mexico spill.

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report, funded by Shell, will
be presented to President Goodluck Jonathan today and is expected
to be released tomorrow in London.

UNEP's report, the first peer-reviewed scientific study of more
than 60 spills, is expected to say that oil pollution in Ogoniland
is much worse than previously believed, having sunk deep into the
water table.  Many spills have not been cleared up since 1970 and
the effects on the local economy, health and development have been
severe.  The report will not apportion blame for individual
spills.

International oil spill assessment experts who have seen the Bodo
spill believe that it could cost the company more than $100
million to clean up properly and restore the devastated mangrove
forests that used to line the creeks and rivers but which have
been killed by the oil.

Proceedings against Royal Dutch Shell and Shell petroleum
development company (SPDC) Nigeria began in the high court on
April 6, 2011.  Last week, Shell Nigeria said: "SPDC accepts
responsibility under the Oil Pipelines Act for the two oil spills
both of which were due to equipment failure.  SPDC acknowledges
that it is liable to pay compensation -- to those who are entitled
to receive such compensation."


SOUTHERN STAR: Price Litigations I and II Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action, Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, District Court, Stevens
County, Kansas, or Price Litigation I, filed May 28, 1999, the
named plaintiffs, or Plaintiffs, have sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Corp.  Asserting theories of civil
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment,
their Fourth Amended Class Action Petition alleges that the
defendants have under measured the volume of, and therefore have
underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured
for Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages,
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the
right to plead for punitive damages.  On August 22, 2003, an
answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central.  Despite a
denial by the Court on April 10, 2003 of their original motion for
class certification, the Plaintiffs continued to seek the
certification of a class.  The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class
certification for a second time was fully briefed and the Court
heard oral argument on the motion on April 1, 2005.  On
September 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' most recent
motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to
reconsider that ruling on October 2, 2009.  The defendants,
including Central, filed a response in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on January 18, 2010.  The
Plaintiffs filed a reply, and oral argument, which was presented
before a different judge, was heard on February 10, 2010.  By
order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier denial of class
certification.  The Plaintiffs did not file for interlocutory
review of the March 31, 2010 order; however, it is unknown at this
time whether the Plaintiffs intend to proceed with the merits of
their claims, absent class certification or plan to move to
dismiss the lawsuit.

In the putative class action, Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23, District Court, Stevens
County, Kansas, or Price Litigation II, filed May 12, 2003, the
named Plaintiffs from Case No. 99 C 30 have sued the same
defendants, including Southern Star Central Corp.  Asserting
substantially identical legal and/or equitable theories, as in
Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the defendants have
under measured the British thermal units, or Btu, content of, and
therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained
from or measured for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages.  On
November 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.  The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification,
along with Plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price
Litigation I, was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument
on this motion on April 1, 2005.  On September 18, 2009, the Court
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on October 2,
2009.  The defendants, including Central, filed a response in
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on
January 18, 2010.  The Plaintiffs filed a reply, and oral
argument, which was presented before a different judge, was heard
on February 10, 2010.  By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court
denied the Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the
earlier denial of class certification.  The Plaintiffs did not
file for interlocutory review of the March 31, 2010, order;
however, it is unknown at this time whether the Plaintiffs intend
to proceed with the merits of their claims, absent class
certification or plan to move to dismiss the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


SPRINT COMMS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class Counsel in Moore v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., No.
02-PWG -1338-S, and Moore v. Williams Communications, LLC, No. 02-
PWG-1447-S, announced that preliminary approval of a Proposed
Settlement was granted by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.  The lawsuit involves fiber-optic
cable and related telecommunications equipment that has been
installed in railroad Rights of Way.  Persons who own or owned
land next to or under railroad Rights of Way in Alabama may be
eligible to receive benefits.

Sprint, Qwest, and WilTel Communications, the Defendants, are
telecommunications companies.  Beginning in the mid-1980s, the
companies or their predecessors buried fiber-optic cable and
installed related telecommunications equipment within railroad
Rights of Way in Alabama.  A railroad Right of Way is a strip of
land on which a railroad company builds and operates a railroad.
The Defendants entered into agreements with the railroads that own
and occupy the Rights of Way, and under those agreements paid the
railroads for the rights to install the fiber-optic cable and
related telecommunications equipment within the Rights of Way.

Plaintiffs allege that, before installing the fiber optic cable
and related telecommunications equipment, the Defendants also were
required to obtain consent from those landowners who owned the
land under the Rights of Way.  The Defendants contend that the
railroads had the right to allow them to use the Rights of Way
without the need for further permission from the adjoining
landowners and deny any wrongdoing.

Class Members include current or previous owners of land next to
or under a railroad Right of Way, at any time since the cable was
installed, in the following counties: Autauga, Baldwin, Butler,
Chambers, Chilton, Conecuh, Elmore, Escambia, Jackson, Jefferson,
Lee, Lowndes, Macon, Mobile, Montgomery, and Shelby.  Class
members can find out when fiber-optic cable was installed in a
particular Right of Way by visiting
http://www.AlabamaFiberSettlement.comor calling 1-866-458-3181.
Class members will have an opportunity to claim cash benefits if
the Court approves the Proposed Settlement.

The Proposed Settlement will provide cash payments to qualifying
class members based on various factors that include:

   -- the length of the Right of Way where the cable is installed,
   -- the length of time they owned the property,
   -- how the railroad got its property rights, and
   -- how many people co-own the property.

The Proposed Settlement will also provide the Defendants with a
permanent Telecommunications Easement, which gives them the right
to use the railroad Rights of Way for their fiber-optic cable and
related telecommunications equipment, if they don't already have
that right.

For more information regarding the Class Action visit
http://www.AlabamaFiberSettlement.comor call 1-866-458-3181.


STATE OF IOWA: Discrimination Case Set to Go to Trial Next Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Eckhoff, writing for DesMoinesRegister.com, reports that the
first wave of discrimination cases alleging years' worth of racial
bias in hiring decisions by the state of Iowa is expected to go to
court next month -- unless state lawyers can persuade a judge to
halt the process.

An estimated 6,000 African-Americans who sought to work for Iowa
since 2003 could benefit in some way if the case goes to trial.

Lawyers spent roughly two hours on Aug. 12 debating whether a
recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a class-action sexual
discrimination case against Wal-Mart makes it impossible to move
forward with a class-action lawsuit brought by Iowa blacks.

The local case -- Pippen vs. State of Iowa -- has 32 named
plaintiffs and spans 52 volumes in its Polk County court file.
Originally filed by 14 plaintiffs in 2007, the case has been
amended three times to become a class-action covering every
African-American who sought employment with the state since 2003.
Documents allege that since 2003, Iowa has essentially fostered
discrimination by failing to monitor or adapt a system of multiple
policies set up to prevent it.

"The laws are good.  The rules are good," attorney Mike Carroll,
one of several plaintiffs' lawyers in the case, told Judge Robert
Blink on Aug. 12.  "They're not following them."

Plaintiffs allege that African-Americans were statistically less
likely to survive an initial round of applicant screening, less
likely to be interviewed for a state government job, and less
likely to get hired.  If hired, they likely were paid less,
plaintiffs said.

But Deputy Iowa Attorney General Jeffrey Thompson argued on
Aug. 12 that the lawsuit is fatally flawed because it doesn't
point to any specific policy or test that was biased.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower judge's
decision to certify a nationwide class-action filed on behalf of
1.6 million Wal-Mart employees because justices found no common
link between the women or proof of an over-arching policy of
discrimination.

Mr. Thompson argued on Aug. 12 that the law requires specificity
-- pointing to a specific practice, for example, that's racially
biased -- to protect employers from being held liable for every
statistical anomaly that might explain why jobs aren't filled by
the exact proportional mix of races.

But plaintiffs' attorney Thomas Newkirk argued that the Wal-Mart
case is different from the Iowa one because of its scope and Wal-
Mart's vastly decentralized hiring practices.  Iowa's system of
policies are interlinked and need to be looked at as a whole, he
argued.

Wal-Mart "had no guidelines, no structure," Mr. Newkirk said.
"Iowa has said exactly the opposite."

The Pippen case, if Judge Blink allows it to move forward, is
scheduled to go in front of a jury on Sept. 12.  Lawyers say the
trial, focused largely on the statistical disparities, is expected
to run three weeks and involve hundreds of witnesses.

Mr. Newkirk declined on Aug. 12 to say what the case is expected
to be worth to class members.

Another class-action lawsuit, involving many of the same witnesses
but more specific discrimination claims, is on track for trial in
December, he said.

Judge Blink promised to rule "as soon as possible" but urged the
lawyers to continue preparations for trial.


STEVEN J. BAUM: Settlement Conferences Sought in Mortgage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
putative class action is targeting one of New York state's most
ubiquitous firms representing lenders in foreclosure actions,
claiming the firm's alleged failure to file particular court
papers is depriving homeowners of the chance to participate in
mortgage modification conferences.

In a lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York, MFY Legal
Services claims that Steven J. Baum P.C., an Amherst-based firm
representing banks in a large share of New York state foreclosure
actions, engaged in "unfair and unconscionable debt collection and
deceptive practices" by failing to file the specialized Request
for Judicial Intervention that triggers settlement conferences.

The conferences are meant to bring lenders and homeowners together
to negotiate a mortgage modification before the action can
proceed.

In Cole v. Baum, 11-cv-3779, MFY alleges that "Defendant Baum's
unlawful conduct has caused serious damage to Plaintiffs and the
Class by prolonging the amount of time that Plaintiffs' and Class
members' mortgage loans remain delinquent, which has caused their
loan balances to swell due to unnecessary delinquent interest
accruals and needless foreclosure, and delinquency related fees
being assessed against their loan accounts."

The Aug. 3 complaint coincided with the release of an MFY Legal
Services study faulting the Baum firm and others that handle
foreclosure matters for lenders for not filing the documents that
trigger settlement conferences.

MFY tracked foreclosures filed in Brooklyn and Queens in both
November 2010 and March 2011.  Of 922 foreclosure actions filed in
those two months, the study said 805 actions, or 87 percent,
lacked the request for judicial intervention as of June 2011.

According to the study, out of 159 cases handled by the Baum firm,
requests for judicial intervention were filed in 10 cases.

Steven J. Baum denied the suit's allegations of deceptive
practices and said he had not yet had a chance to verify MFY's
purported data.

But he noted in a statement that the lack of requests for judicial
intervention filed actually indicates that the firms are not the
problem, but illustrates the need to re-examine the court system's
filing requirements.

Mr. Baum's statement refers to requirements that the proof of
service of the summons and complaint be filed at the same time as
the request for judicial intervention, and an attorney affirmation
vouching for the accuracy of the underlying documents.  Those
requirements, he said, are time consuming and require thorough
review.

Previously, only two documents, the proof of service and the
request for judicial intervention, had to be filed at the same
time under Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts
Sec. 202.12-a(b)(1).

In the wake of the "robo-signing" scandal last year, Chief
Administrative Judge Ann Pfau in October added the affirmation
requirement, in which lenders' attorneys must confirm they have
performed due diligence by ensuring accuracy of the documents with
a representative of the foreclosing institution.

The number of foreclosure actions have dropped in the wake of the
affirmation requirement.  According to Office of Court
Administration statistics, from January to July 2010, there were
24,169 residential foreclosure filings.  From January to July
2011, there have been 4,834 filings.  OCA foreclosure data is only
counted from the filing of the request for judicial intervention.

The MFY suit claims foreclosure firms are "overwhelmingly
reluctant" to sign affirmations, explaining the "standstill" in
request for judicial intervention filings.

Under CPLR 3408(a), the settlement conference is to be scheduled
by the court within 60 days of proof of service.

Meanwhile, lenders are coping with increased scrutiny and
regulations that often vary from state to state.  For example, 16
of the nation's top mortgage servicers are adjusting to consent
order requirements under a settlement with the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision and the
Federal Reserve System.  Among those requirements are the
establishment of a certification process for the law firms that
the lenders use.

                      Need for Conferences

Elizabeth Lynch, a staff attorney with MFY Legal Services, said
that without the settlement conferences, homeowners could not
avail themselves of help from local housing counselors or court
oversight to counter delays from lenders.

"We basically have nobody to turn to," she said, adding that
accumulating fees could make it more difficult for homeowners to
obtain modifications in the future.

Ms. Lynch said that while the affirmation had originally been
implemented to protect homeowners by assuring accurate papers and
a fair process, the requirement is backfiring.

The delay in filing further harms homeowners, she said, adding, "I
think in a way, it makes a mockery of the due diligence
affirmation."

The suit seeks to recoup late fees, delinquent interest and other
foreclosure-related expenses for homeowners who have not yet
proceeded to settlement conference, she said.

Mr. Baum said in his statement that he found it ironic that MFY
"seeks to speed up the foreclosure process when the October 2010
message from the Office of Court Administration concerning
Affirmations was clear: foreclosure counsel should take its time
and make sure all is in order before coming to court."

In an interview, Mr. Baum added, "If the plaintiffs want these
settlement conferences to be triggered faster, the answer is to
have the OCA amend their current rules to allow for the
affirmation to be filed at a later time and that later time could
be at the settlement conference.  That would allow at least 60
days to have the affirmation completed."

The Baum firm has appeared in 67,000 settlement conference
appearances since they were first mandated in 2008, according to
Mr. Baum.

The OCA said courts oversaw more than 62,000 settlement
conferences in the January to July 2010 period.  In the comparable
2011 time period, there were just over 50,000 conferences.

A November 2010 OCA study showed that while conferences were
labor-intensive, averaging about six to eight appearances per
case, they were ensuring fewer default judgments and more
settlements.

MFY is handling the case with the law firm of Harwood Feffer.


SUPPORT.COM INC: Appeal From Settlement Order Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In November 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Support.com, Inc., two of its former officers and certain
underwriters in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Similar complaints have been filed against
55 underwriters and more than 300 other companies and other
individual officers and directors of those companies; the
consolidated case is In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The lawsuit, which
sought unspecified damages, fees and costs, alleged that the
Company's registration statement and prospectus dated July 18,
2000, for the issuance and initial public offering of 4,250,000
shares of its common stock contained material misrepresentations
and/or omissions related to alleged inflated commissions received
by the underwriters of the offering.  On April 1, 2009, all
parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
that would resolve all claims and dismiss the case against the
Company and its former officers, without any payment by the
Company or its former officers.  On October 5, 2009, the court
issued an order approving the settlement.  Certain other parties
have appealed the settlement and the appeal is pending.

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


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Still to Sign Stipulation of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc., and plaintiffs have yet to enter
into a stipulation of settlement despite reaching a memorandum of
understanding in a class action lawsuit over the Company's plan
to acquire Abington Bancorp, 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 March 17, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
against the directors of Abington and Susquehanna -- RSD Capital
vs. Robert W. White, et al., C.A. No. 2011-06590. The lawsuit in
Montgomery County alleged that the named Abington directors, in
approving the Merger Agreement, tortiously interfered with a
contractual relationship between Abington and its shareholders and
interfered with a prospective economic advantage of the Abington
shareholders. The Complaint also purported to allege that
Susquehanna also tortiously interfered with the same contract and
alleged prospective economic advantage. Plaintiffs in the
Montgomery County lawsuit, among other things, requested an
unspecified amount of monetary damages as well as a temporary
restraining order with respect to consummation of the merger. The
defendants filed Preliminary Objection seeking the dismissal of
the complaint. On April 13, 2011, the court sustained defendants'
Preliminary Objections to the complaint, and entered an order
dismissing the action against all defendants with prejudice. The
period for Plaintiff to appeal the court's order has not yet
expired.

On March 25, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
separate plaintiffs in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania, against Abington, Abington's directors
(other than Jack J. Sandoski) and Susquehanna, Exum, et al. vs.
Robert W. White, et al., C.A. No. 110302814. These Plaintiffs had
previously made a demand on Abington's Board of Directors to
initiate suit on behalf of Abington and the demand was denied by a
committee of Abington's Board of Directors. The lawsuit in
Philadelphia County, which was also brought as a shareholders'
derivative suit on behalf of Abington, alleged, among other
things, that the Abington Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with its approval of the Merger
Agreement in that the consideration offered to Abington's
shareholders in the Merger was alleged to be inadequate and the
process used to negotiate the Merger Agreement was alleged to be
unfair, and that such breaches of fiduciary duty were exacerbated
by preclusive transaction protection devices. The lawsuit also
alleged that the disclosure provided in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus of Susquehanna and Abington, dated March 18,
2011 and included in the registration statement on Form S-4 filed
by Susquehanna with the Securities and Exchange Commission, failed
to provide required material information necessary for Abington's
shareholders to make a fully informed decision concerning the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. The
Philadelphia County complaint also alleged that Susquehanna aided
and abetted the Abington Board of Directors in breaching its
fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in Philadelphia County requested,
among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2011, the Plaintiffs in the Philadelphia County
lawsuit filed a Stipulation of Dismissal to dismiss Susquehanna
from the action. On April 25, 2011, solely to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without
admitting any of the allegations in the Complaint, Abington and
the other named defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia County
lawsuit. Susquehanna was also a party to the MOU. Under the terms
of the MOU, Abington, the other named defendants, Susquehanna and
the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuit subject to court
approval. If the court approves the settlement contemplated in the
memorandum, the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. In
connection with the settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $250,000 subject to
court approval, and Abington has agreed not to oppose plaintiffs'
application. The amount of the fee award to class counsel will
ultimately be determined by the Court. This payment will not
affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid in the
merger. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it is
anticipated that it will resolve and release all claims in all
actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith.

The Company says that there can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter in to a stipulation of settlement or that
the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.


TD AMERITRADE: Still Awaits Final Okay of Accountholders Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is still awaiting final court
approval of a settlement in the consolidated class action lawsuit
over an alleged breach on its systems, according to the Company's
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A purported class action, captioned Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.,
was filed on May 31, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  The complaint alleges that
there was a breach in TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s systems, which allowed
access to e-mail addresses and other personal information of
account holders, and that as a result, account holders received
unsolicited e-mail from spammers promoting certain stocks and have
been subjected to an increased risk of identity theft.  The
complaint requests unspecified damages and injunctive and other
equitable relief.  A second lawsuit, captioned Zigler v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc., was filed on September 26, 2007, in the same
jurisdiction on behalf of a purported nationwide class of account
holders.  The factual allegations of the complaint and the relief
sought are substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit.
The cases were consolidated under the caption In re TD Ameritrade
Accountholders Litigation and a consolidated complaint was filed.
The Company hired an independent consultant to investigate whether
identity theft occurred as a result of the breach.  The consultant
conducted four investigations from August 2007 to June 2008 and
reported that it found no evidence of identity theft.

On December 20, 2010, TD Ameritrade, Inc. received preliminary
Court approval of a proposed class settlement agreement between TD
Ameritrade, Inc. and plaintiffs Richard Holober and Brad Zigler.
Under the proposed settlement, the Company will pay no less than
$2.5 million in settlement benefits.  Total compensation to be
paid to all eligible members of the settlement class will not
exceed $6.5 million, inclusive of any award of attorneys' fees and
costs.  In addition, the settlement agreement provides that the
Company will retain an independent information technology security
consultant to assess whether the Company has met certain
information technology security standards.  The proposed
settlement is subject to final approval by the Court.  A hearing
on final approval of the proposed settlement was held on April 19,
2011.  The Court has not yet ruled on the matter.

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


TD AMERITRADE: Still Awaits Order on Pleas to Dismiss "Ross" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is still awaiting a court
decision on defendants' motions to dismiss the class action
lawsuit Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al., according
to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

Clients of the Company's primary introducing broker-dealer, TD
Ameritrade, Inc., continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund
(now known as "Yield Plus Fund -- In Liquidation"), which is being
liquidated.  The Company estimates that TD Ameritrade, Inc.
clients' current positions held in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund
amount to approximately 79% of the fund.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund.  The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund.  On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary
damages and equitable relief.  On January 19, 2010, the defendants
submitted motions to dismiss the complaint.  The motions are
pending.

The Company estimates that its clients' current aggregate
shortfall, based on the original par value of their holdings in
the Yield Plus Fund, less the value of fund distributions to date
and the value of payments under the Company's SEC settlement, is
approximately $37 million. This amount does not take into account
any assets remaining in the fund that may become available for
future distributions.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome or the timing
of the ultimate resolution of the Ross lawsuit, or the potential
loss, if any, that may result from the unresolved matter.
However, management believes the outcome of pending proceedings is
not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

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


TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated
class suit alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2,
2011.

On September 9, 2010, the Company was one of eight containerboard
producers named as defendants in a class action complaint that
alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America
(N.D. Ill.).  The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning
in August 2005, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase
prices of containerboard products.  The alleged class is all
persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any
defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period August 2005 to November 2010.  The complaint seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class.  Four similar
complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois.  The Company strongly disputes the
allegations made against it and intends to defend vigorously
against this litigation.  However, because this action is in its
preliminary stages, the Company is unable to predict an outcome or
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.  There were no
significant changes to the status of this litigation in first six
months 2011.


TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Defends Two Class Action Suits in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland, Inc. is defending itself in two class action
lawsuits in Delaware alleging breach of fiduciary duty, according
to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2,
2011.

Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed by stockholders
against the Company and the members of the Company's board of
directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery, styled Raul vs. Doyle
R. Simons, et al., Case No. 6690 (filed July 22, 2011); and Kahn
v. Temple-Inland, Inc., et al., Case No. 6702 (filed July 25,
2011).  The Shareholder Actions allege, among other things, that
the members of the Company's board of directors have breached
their fiduciary duties by refusing to negotiate with IP regarding
its proposed acquisition, failing to solicit alternative offers,
and adopting the Rights Plan.  The Raul Action also purports to
assert claims derivatively on behalf of the company.  The
complaints variously seek an order declaring that the Company's
board of directors breached its fiduciary duties; enjoining the
company from initiating further defensive measures; and awarding
costs and attorneys' fees, and in the Kahn action, compensatory
damages.  The Company and its directors believe that the claims
made by the stockholder plaintiffs are without merit and intend to
defend them vigorously.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
its and other defendants' joint motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit pending in Puerto Rico, according to the Corporation's
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
(Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating
in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.  The Corporation
and two of its subsidiaries, Triple-S Salud, Inc. ("TSS") and
Triple-C, Inc. ("TCI"), were included as defendants.  This
litigation purports to be a class action filed on behalf of Puerto
Rico dentists who are similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render.  The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150 million.  In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.
There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits.  The Corporation says it
intends to vigorously defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Corporation,
opposed.  Following months of jurisdictional proceedings in the
federal court system, the federal district court in Puerto Rico
decided to retain jurisdiction on February 8, 2011.  The
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the case on the merits,
because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.  The parties have fully briefed the merits of the
joint motion and are awaiting the court's resolution.


UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Appeals vs. Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Online, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs'
motion to dismiss appeals from approval of a settlement in the
consolidated lawsuit involving its subsidiary, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In April 2001 and in May 2001, lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company's subsidiary, NetZero, Inc., certain officers
and directors of NetZero and the underwriters of NetZero's initial
public offering, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., BancBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.  A consolidated
amended complaint was filed in April 2002.  The complaint alleges
that the prospectus through which NetZero conducted its initial
public offering in September 1999 was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that
(i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which the underwriters allocated to those investors material
portions of the restricted number of NetZero shares issued in
connection with the offering; and (ii) the underwriters had
entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriters
agreed to allocate NetZero shares to those customers in the
offering in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional NetZero shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.  Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages.
The case against NetZero was coordinated with approximately 300
other lawsuits filed against more than 300 issuers that conducted
their initial public offerings between 1998 and 2000, their
underwriters and an unspecified number of their individual
corporate officers and directors.  The parties in the
approximately 300 coordinated class actions, including NetZero,
the underwriter defendants in the NetZero class action, and the
plaintiff class in the NetZero action, have reached an agreement
in principle under which the insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make a settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including NetZero.  On October 5, 2009, the district
court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement
and certifying the settlement class.  Two individuals have
appealed the October 5, 2009 order and plaintiffs have filed a
motion to dismiss the appeals.  The appellate court has not ruled
on either the appeals or the motions to dismiss.

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


UNITED ONLINE: Court to Hear Consolidated Suit Deal on Dec. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court scheduled for December 15, 2011, a
hearing to determine final approval of a settlement agreement in
the consolidated lawsuit against United Online, Inc., and its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On October 30, 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class
action complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as
Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online,
Inc. in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  On
December 19, 2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action
complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media
Corporation and United Online, Inc. in Superior Court of
Washington, Kings County, alleging causes of action for violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment and violation of
California Civil Code section 1694, dealing with dating services
contracts. In both actions, the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive
relief and damages.  On April 30, 2009, the United States District
Court of the Western District of Washington consolidated the
Michaels and the Vasquez actions and designated the Michaels
action as the lead case.  On March 12, 2010, the parties entered
into a comprehensive class action settlement agreement.  On
December 16, 2010, the court conducted a final approval hearing on
the settlement.  On February 22, 2011, the court issued an order
formally denying final approval of the settlement.  On March 24,
2011, the parties entered into a revised settlement agreement, and
on March 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the revised settlement.

On July 8, 2011, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the revised settlement agreement, establishing a
schedule for providing notice to class members and setting
December 15, 2011, as the date for the hearing to determine the
final approval of the settlement.  On July 27, 2011, the court
entered an order approving a revised individual notice to the
settlement class and, thereafter, the parties entered into a
revised settlement agreement effective as of August 1, 2011, that
included the revised notice and minor court-approved changes.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Reaches Agreement With ERISA Class Suit Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide, Inc. and plaintiffs of a consolidated class action
lawsuit alleging ERISA violations have reached a settlement in
principle, according to the Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Four class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"),
based on similar allegations and causes of action. On November 17,
2009, Eva L. Hanna and Shelley F. Whitson, former participants in
the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement Plan, filed a class
action complaint on behalf of certain persons participating in the
plan (or plans that merged with the plan) from April 6, 2009 to
the present; on December 7, 2009, Daniel J. Cambra, a participant
in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement Savings Plan, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of certain persons participating
in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan) from October 25,
2007 to the present; on January 15, 2010, Patrick M. Couch, a
participant in one of the merged 401(k) plans, filed a class
action complaint on behalf of certain persons participating in the
plan (or plans that merged with the plan) from March 23, 2006 to
the present; and on April 21, 2010, Tawana Franklin, a participant
in YRC Worldwide 401(k) Plan, filed a class action complaint on
behalf of certain persons participating in the plan (or plans that
merged with the plan) from October 25, 2007 to the present.

In general, the complaints allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing participants
Company common stock as part of their matching contributions and
by not removing the stock fund as an investment option in the
plans in light of the Company's financial condition. Although some
Company matching contributions were made in Company common stock,
participants were not permitted to invest their own contributions
in the Company stock fund. The complaints allege that the
defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the plans and
assets of the plans; imprudently invested in Company common stock;
failed to monitor fiduciaries and provide them with accurate
information; breached the duty to properly appoint, monitor, and
inform the Benefits Administrative Committee; misrepresented and
failed to disclose adverse financial information; breached the
duty to avoid conflict of interest; and are subject to co-
fiduciary liability. Each of the complaints seeks, among other
things, an order compelling defendants to make good to the plan
all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty,
attorneys' fees, and other injunctive and equitable relief. Based
on the four separate complaints previously filed, the Company
believes the allegations are without merit.

On March 3, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating three
of the four cases and, on April 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint asserts the
same claims as the previously-filed complaints but names as
defendants certain former officers of the Company in addition to
those current officers and directors that have already been named.
The fourth case (Franklin) was consolidated with the first three
cases on May 12, 2010. On April 6, 2011, the court certified a
class consisting of all 401(k) Plan participants or beneficiaries
who held YRCW stock in their accounts between October 25, 2007 and
the present.

An agreement in principle has been reached with plaintiffs'
counsel to settle this litigation. The agreed to settlement will
be paid entirely by the Company's insurer. The parties are working
together to prepare the settlement agreement and the initial
papers for filing with the Court. Because the case was certified
as a class action, the Court must approve the settlement after
providing notice to members of the class and an opportunity to be
object. However, because this is a "mandatory class," class
members cannot "opt out" of the settlement. The Company has every
reason to believe the Court will approve the settlement. If
approved, the settlement will be binding on all class members and
will provide a complete release of claims as to all of the named
defendants. The named defendants and their immediate family
members are excluded from the class and will not share in the
settlement.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Still Awaits Ruling on Co-Lead Plaintiffs Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on a stipulation
requesting appointment of co-lead plaintiffs in a securities class
action lawsuit pending in Kansas, according to the Company's
August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
the Company and certain of its officers failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's true financial
condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading because they misrepresented and overstated the
financial condition of the Company and caused shares of the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels
throughout the Class Period. Bryant Holdings LLC seeks to recover
damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
during the Class Period. The Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims. On
April 8, 2011, an individual (Stan Better) and a group of
investors (including Bryant Holdings LLC) filed competing motions
seeking to be named the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On May 6,
2011, the parties attempting to be named lead plaintiff filed a
stipulation requesting that the Court appoint them as co-lead
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The parties have agreed that the
Company will not be required to file an answer or other responsive
pleading until such time as the Court has named the lead plaintiff
and the lead plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. The
ultimate outcome of this case is not determinable. Therefore, the
Company has not recorded any liability for this matter.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities lawsuit
against Zimmer Holdings, Inc., remains pending, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On August 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
et al., naming the Company and two of its executive officers as
defendants.  The complaint related to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
January 29, 2008, and July 22, 2008.  The complaint alleged that
the defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly
failing to disclose developments relating to the Company's
orthopaedic surgical products manufacturing operations in Dover,
Ohio, and the Durom Cup.  The plaintiff sought unspecified damages
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  On
December 24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint that alleged the same claims and related to the same
time period.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on February 23, 2009.  On December 1, 2009,
the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, without
prejudice.  On January 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the consolidated complaint.  On January 28, 2011,
the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
consolidated complaint and dismissed the case.  On February 25,
2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  The Company believes this
lawsuit is without merit, and it and the individual defendants
intend to defend it vigorously.

                           Dewald Case

On November 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Dewald v. Zimmer
Holdings, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and employees as defendants.  The
complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Company's
U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs (plans)
between October 5, 2007, and the date of filing and whose accounts
included investments in the Company's common stock.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing to offer Zimmer
stock as an investment option in the plans when the stock
purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that defendants
failed to provide plan participants with complete and accurate
information sufficient to advise them of the risks of investing
their retirement savings in Zimmer stock.  The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive and
equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  On
January 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is
October 5, 2007, through September 2, 2008.  The defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 23, 2009.  The
motion to dismiss is pending with the court.  On June 12, 2009,
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an
order transferring the Dewald case to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union
719 Pension Fund case.  The Company believes this lawsuit is
without merit, and it and the individual defendants intend to
defend it vigorously.

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


* Northwestern Oklahoma State Univ. Benefits From Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Alva Review/Courier reports that beginning next fall,
Northwestern Oklahoma State University students will receive
scholarship support from the newly established Rule of Law
Education Fund.  The fund, totaling $500,000, was endowed by order
of the Honorable Gerald H. Riffe, associate district judge for the
District Court of Beaver County, as part of a class action cy pres
distribution in which Northwestern is a beneficiary.

The fund's purpose is to advance the Rule of Law in Oklahoma
through the promotion of leadership, citizenship and education of
Oklahoma's youth.  The Rule of Law, the cornerstone of society, is
a legal-political regime that guarantees government accountability
and protection of rights of individuals through equal access to a
transparent and independent judicial system.

The judicial system has numerous safeguards and procedural devices
to ensure this equal access and protection -- one of those devices
is the class action.

In 1976, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, the longest
serving justice in U.S. history, said, "In our society that is
growing in complexity there are bound to be innumerable people who
would go begging for justice without the class action.  The class
action is one of the few legal remedies the small claimant has
against those who command the status quo.  I would strengthen his
hand with the view of creating a system of law that dispenses
justice to the lowly as well as to those liberally endowed with
power and wealth."

The Rule of Law Education Fund was made possible through the joint
efforts of attorneys Douglas E. Burns and Terry L. Stowers of
Burns & Stowers, P.C., Allan DeVore of the DeVore Law Firm, and R.
Jamie Kee of Trippet, Kee, Trippet & Parsons, as well as the class
representative, Lobo Exploration Company.

The Rule of Law Education Fund Scholarship will provide financial
assistance to full-time Northwestern undergraduate students who
are residents of the state of Oklahoma.  Both incoming freshmen
and continuing students with a minimum 2.5 cumulative grade point
average are eligible.

Selection by the Northwestern Oklahoma State University
Scholarship Committee will be based on financial need.  The
scholarship may be applied toward university-related expenses,
such as tuition, fees, room, board and books.


                            *********

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  * * *