CAR_Public/110822.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 22, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 165

                             Headlines

99 CENTS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Compel in "Niemiller" Suit
99 CENTS: Nov. 18 Class Cert. Hearing Set in "Palencia" Suit
99 CENTS: Class Certification Hearing on Oct. 31 in "Bright" Suit
99 CENTS: Continues to Defend Going Private-Related Suits
99 CENTS: Court Strikes Portions of Consolidated Complaint

99 CENTS: Status Conference Set Today in "Allen" Suit
99 CENTS: Status Conference Set for Sept. 30 in "Reed" Suit
ACCELRYS INC: Court Approves $0.3-Mil. Merger-Related Suit Deal
ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces "Stone" Lawsuit in California
ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces "Betts" Lawsuit in Florida

ADVANCE AMERICA: Discovery in "Johnson" Suit Ongoing
ADVANCE AMERICA: Discovery in "King" Lawsuit Ongoing
AIS SERVICES: Accused of Making Illegal Collections in Illinois
ALLIED HEALTHCARE: Being Sold for an Unfair Price, Suit Claims
ALLIED HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Merger With Saga Unit

ALPHA NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss "Massey" Suit Still Pending
ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Delaware Suit
AMERICAN DENTAL: Continues to Defend Opt-Out Action in Mass.
APPLE INC: South Korean iPhone Users File Class Action
ARCH COAL: Unit's Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 14

AT&T INC: Continues to Defend "Stoffels" Suit
AT&T INC: Appeal on Dismissal of NSA Intelligence Suits Pending
AT&T INC: Unit Continues to Defend "MBA Surety" Suit in Missouri
AT&T: BellSouth Field Managers' Class Action Can Proceed
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Face ATM MDL in Florida

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed IOLTA Fees
BIOVAIL CORP: Wellbutrin XL Suit Wins Class Certification
BLOOMBERG LP: Judge Tosses Discrimination Class Action
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeal From Settlement Order Remains Pending
COWEN GROUP: Participated in Mediation in NYSE Securities Suit

DEER CONSUMER: Awaits Selection of Lead Plaintiff in "Rose" Suit
DISH NETWORK: Appeal in Channel Bundling Suit Remains Pending
DUNCAN ENERGY: Davis and Weilersbacher File Joint Suit in Texas
DUNCAN ENERGY: Faces Another Merger-Related Suit in Texas
DUNCAN ENERGY: Still Defends Merger-Related Suit in Delaware

EMDEON INC: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Blackstone Merger
FIRST BANK: Removes Class Action to Federal Court
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Unit Continues to Face "McGrogan" Suit
FPIC INSURANCE: Signs MOU to Settle TDC Merger-Related Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Impala Class Action

HECKMANN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Objections to Magistrate's Report
IQT SOLUTIONS: Sacked Workers File Class Action
JDA SOFTWARE: Insurer Paid Attorneys' Fees in Shareholder Suit
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Accused of Issuing Misleading Statements
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Nevada Suit

LORAL SPACE: Securities Suit vs. Old Loral Concluded
MEDIVATION INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Claims in BofA Securities Class Actions Dismissed
MERRILL LYNCH: Illinois Funeral Directors' Suit Still Pending
MERRILL LYNCH: Lehman Brothers Litigation Still Pending

MERRILL LYNCH: Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation Still Pending
MILLER ENERGY: Barrett Johnston Files Securities Class Action
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Recapitalization Suits
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Says
MYLIFE.COM: Class Action Over E-mail Solicitations Can Proceed

NOVATEL WIRELESS: Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
OLIVE GARDEN: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis A Scare
OPTIONSXPRESS: Inks Deal to Settle "Schwab Merger" Claims
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Most Claims in "Peluso" Suit Dismissed
ORECK CORP: Number of People Signing Up for Class Action Grows

PHIL&TEDS USA: Recalls 54,000 Table-Top Clip-on Chairs
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Opposes Filing of Third Amended Complaint
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Still Defends Securities Suit in Maryland
PROSHARES TRUST: Continues to Defend Consolidated New York Suit
QC HOLDINGS: Strikes Deal to Settle Class Action Arbitration

QC HOLDINGS: Class Action Lawsuit in North Carolina Still Pending
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: 10th Circuit Affirms Retiree Suit Dismissal
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Still Negotiating State-Wide Settlements
RALCORP HOLDINGS: Units Continue to Defend Suits in California
RENAL ADVANTAGE: Accused of Violating Calif. Overtime Pay Laws

ROVI CORP: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Burke" Suit
ROVI CORP: Still Defends Sonic Acquisition-Related Suits
STATE BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Grossman" Suit in New York
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Ruling in Consolidated "Ham" Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Suit Remains Stayed in California

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Two Suits Over Orientation Payment
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Petition for Review in "Garza" Suit Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sanders" Suit Remains Stayed in California
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Writ of Mandamus Bid Denied in "Sheer" Suit
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Awaits Decision in "Comdata" Suit

TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Suits
UNITED STATES: LEED Suit v. Green Building Council Dismissed
URS CORP: Contractor Immunity Not Available at Trial, Court Says
VALERO ENERGY: Continues to Defend Fuel Temperature Litigation
VANGUARD NATURAL: "O'Neal" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint

VANGUARD NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Delaware Suit
VITACOST.COM INC: Plea to Dismiss "Miyahira" Suit Still Pending
YKK CORP: Class Action Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy Can Proceed
YONGYE INT'L: Defends Class Suits in New York
YOUTUBE: Music Publishers' 2007 Class Action Settled

* PUBLISHERS: Freelance Writers' Class Action Settlement Tossed




                             *********

99 CENTS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Compel in "Niemiller" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores is awaiting a final ruling on its petition to
compel arbitration of the individual claims in the gender
discrimination lawsuit commenced by Linda Niemiller, according to
the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2,
2011.

Plaintiff, a former assistant manager for the Company, filed an
action captioned Linda Niemiller v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, in March
2011.  She asserts claims on behalf of herself, and a putative
class of all others allegedly similarly situated, under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California
Business and Professions Code based on allegations that the
Company has a pattern or practice of denying and/or failing to
promote women to the position of Store Manager and failing to
provide them with compensation equal to that of men doing equal
work.  She also asserts an individual claim for retaliation based
on the allegation that the Company failed to promote her in
retaliation for her having opposed and objected to discrimination
based on gender.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all
allegedly similarly situated current, past and future women as to
whom the Company has denied hiring and promotion to the position
of Store Manager and equal compensation in the State of California
on the basis of gender.  She seeks to recover back pay, front pay,
general and special damages, punitive damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, an order assigning herself and members of the
putative class to those jobs they purportedly would have held but
for the Company's  allegedly discriminatory practices, an
adjustment of the wage rates, benefits, and seniority rights for
herself and members of the putative class to that level which they
purportedly would be enjoying but for the Company's alleged
discriminatory practices, pre-judgment interest and attorney's
fees and costs.

In filing her claims in state court, Plaintiff violated an
Arbitration Agreement that she had entered into with the Company
whereby she agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of her
employment relationship with the Company.  Accordingly, the
Company filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration of her Individual
Claims and to Stay Proceedings (the "Petition") on June 24, 2011.
Plaintiff opposed the Petition on July 6, 2011, and a hearing on
the Petition was held on July 19, 2011.  At the hearing, the judge
issued a tentative ruling granting the Company's Petition.
Ultimately, however, the judge deferred ruling on the issue
because Plaintiff requested that the Court consider new law that
had come down since the date the Petition was filed before ruling
on the Petition.  A further hearing on the Company's Petition was
held on August 5, 2011, but the judge has not yet issued a final
ruling.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
the amount of potential loss, if any, the Company could face as a
result of such lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Nov. 18 Class Cert. Hearing Set in "Palencia" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative hearing date on motions regarding class certification
has been set for November 18, 2011, in the class action lawsuit
commenced by 99 Cents Only Stores' former assistant manager, Luis
Palencia, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 2, 2011.

The Plaintiff, a former assistant manager for the Company, who was
employed with the Company from June 12, 2009, through September 9,
2009, filed the action captioned Luis Palencia v. 99 Cents Only
Stores, Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento, in June 2010, asserting claims on behalf of himself
and all others allegedly similarly situated under the California
Labor Code for alleged unpaid overtime due to "off the clock"
work, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal and
rest periods, failure to provide proper wage statements, failure
to pay wages timely during employment and upon termination and
failure to reimburse business expenses.  Mr. Palencia also asserts
a derivative claim for unfair competition under the California
Business and Professions Code.  Mr. Palencia seeks to represent
three sub-classes: (i) an "unpaid wages subclass" of all non-
exempt or hourly paid employees who worked for the Company in
California within four years prior to the filing of the complaint
until the date of certification, (ii) a "non-compliant wage
statement subclass" of all non-exempt or hourly paid employees of
the Company who worked in California and received a wage statement
within one year prior to the filing of the complaint until the
date of certification, and (iii) an "unreimbursed business
expenses subclass" of all employees of the Company who paid for
business-related expenses, including expenses for travel, mileage
or cell phones in California within four years prior to the filing
of the complaint until the date of certification.  Plaintiff seeks
to recover alleged unpaid wages, interest, attorney's fees and
costs, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties and
liquidated damages.  He also seeks to recover civil penalties as
an "aggrieved employee" under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.  The Court has set a case management conference for
August 19, 2011, and a tentative date of November 18, 2011, for a
hearing on motions regarding class certification.  No trial date
has been set.  The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of
this lawsuit or the amount of potential loss, if any, the Company
could face as a result of such lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Class Certification Hearing on Oct. 31 in "Bright" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has set a hearing for October 31, 2011, to
consider class certification in the lawsuit commenced by Eugina
Bright, according to 99 Cents Only Stores' August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

Plaintiff in a putative class action complaint captioned Eugina
Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, filed the case against the
Company on June 12, 2009, alleging a single violation of Section
1198 of the California Labor Code, which makes it unlawful to
violate provisions of an Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
She brings her claim pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004, Section 2699 of the California Labor Code, which allows
aggrieved employees to bring civil actions to enforce the Labor
Code.  Plaintiff asserts that the Company failed to provide seats
for its cashiers behind checkout counters.  This claim is based on
Section 14 of Wage Order 7-2001, which applies to employees in the
retail industry.  Section 14 provides in part: "All working
employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of
the work reasonably permits the use of seats."  Plaintiff seeks
civil penalties of $100 to $200 per violation, per each pay period
for each affected employee, and attorney's fees.

On October 15, 2009, the Superior Court sustained the Company's
demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend.  On
November 23, 2009, pursuant to the sustaining of the demurrer, the
action was dismissed and judgment entered for the Company.  Ms.
Bright appealed the Court's ruling in December 2009.  On
November 12, 2010, the Court of Appeal issued a published opinion
reversing the trial court's ruling.  The Company's Petition for
Review with the California Supreme Court was denied on February
16, 2011, and remittitur issued on March 1, 2011.  The Company has
answered the complaint, denying all material allegations, and
discovery will commence shortly.  The Court has set a class
certification hearing date of October 31, 2011, and a trial date
of January 23, 2012.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
the amount of potential loss, if any, the Company could face as a
result of such lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Continues to Defend Going Private-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores continues to defend itself against lawsuits
relating to a going private proposal, according to the Company's
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

Following the announcement by the Company of the receipt of a
going private proposal, seven complaints were filed related to the
proposal, all in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (the
"Actions").  The Actions are:  Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority v. David Gold, et al. (filed March 14,
2011, amended March 23, 2011);  John Chevedden v. 99 Cents Only
Stores, et al. (filed March 16, 2011); Rana Fong v. 99 Cents Only
Stores, et al. (filed March 17, 2011);  Norfolk County Retirement
Board v. Jeff Gold, et al. (filed March 22, 2011);  Tammy Newman
v. 99 Cents Only Stores, et al. (filed March 25, 2011);  Key West
Police and Fire Pension Fund v. Eric G. Flamholtz, et al. (filed
April 5, 2011); and Allen Mitchell v. 99 Cents Only Stores, et al.
(filed April 11, 2011).  The plaintiffs in the Actions claim to be
shareholders of the Company and propose to represent a class of
all of the Company's public shareholders.  The Actions name the
Company, various of its officers and directors and Leonard Green &
Partners L.P. (and in one instance certain entities affiliated
with Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.) as defendants.  The Actions
assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs seek to enjoin a going
private transaction and, in the alternative, seek unspecified
damages in the event such a transaction is consummated.

Pursuant to stipulation, at the initial status conference the
court ordered the Actions consolidated and stayed.  Plaintiffs
have indicated that they will file a consolidated amended
complaint when the Company responds to the proposal and may seek
to lift the stay at that point.  The Company says it cannot
predict the outcome of these lawsuits or the amount of potential
loss, if any, the Company could face as a result of such lawsuits.


99 CENTS: Court Strikes Portions of Consolidated Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
A court granted 99 Cents Only Stores' motion to strike portions of
the amended complaint in the consolidated lawsuit alleging
violations of California consumer laws, according to the Company's
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

Phillip Kavis, Debra Major, Barbara Maines, and Susan Jonas v. 99
Cents Only Stores, David Gold, Jeff Gold, Howard Gold, and Eric
Schiffer, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles; and Leonard Morales and Steven Calabro v. 99 Cents Only
Stores, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.  In these now consolidated actions, Plaintiffs filed
putative class action complaints against the Company in July 2010,
claiming violations of California's Unfair Competition Law
(California Business & Professions Code Section 17200), False
Advertising Law (California Business & Professions Code Section
17500), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code
Section 1770), as well as intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, arising out of the
Company's September 2008 change in its pricing policy.  Plaintiffs
seek actual damages, restitution, including disgorgement of all
profits and unjust enrichment allegedly obtained by the Company,
statutory damages and civil penalties, equitable and injunctive
relief, exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and their attorney's fees and costs.

The Company filed a demurrer to all of the causes of action in
this complaint as well as a motion to strike certain portions of
it.  In response to these motions, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  The Company filed a demurrer and
motion to strike directed toward portions of the amended
complaint, and these motions were heard on April 27, 2011.  The
court has now granted these motions, and in doing so, the court
eliminated several of the plaintiffs' causes of action without
leave to amend and also struck the plaintiffs' main claims for
monetary relief.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits
or of any action or lawsuit that may be brought against it by
governmental entities.


99 CENTS: Status Conference Set Today in "Allen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
A status conference has been set for today, August 22, 2011, in
the lawsuit commenced by 99 Cents Only Stores' former store
manager, Thomas Allen, according to the Company's August 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

Plaintiff, a former store manager for the Company, filed the
action, captioned Thomas Allen v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on
March 18, 2011.  He asserts claims on behalf of himself and all
others allegedly similarly situated under the California Labor
Code for alleged failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, failure to pay wages timely upon termination,
and failure to provide accurate wage statements.  Mr. Allen also
asserted a derivative claim for unfair competition under the
California Business and Professions Code.  Mr. Allen seeks to
represent a class of all employees who were employed by the
Company as salaried managers in 99 Cents Only retail stores from
March 18, 2007, through the date of trial or settlement.
Plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory
penalties, interest, attorney's fees and costs, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief and restitution.  Discovery and
pleadings have been stayed as the parties are working toward
resolving a dispute regarding the application of a binding
arbitration agreement.  No class certification or trial date has
been set.  The court has set a status conference for August 22,
2011.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
the amount of potential loss, if any, the Company could face as a
result of such lawsuit.


99 CENTS: Status Conference Set for Sept. 30 in "Reed" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A status conference has been set for September 30, 2011, in the
lawsuit commenced by 99 Cents Only Stores' former store manager,
Sheridan Reed, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

Plaintiff, a former store manager for the Company, filed the
action Sheridan Reed v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, in April 2010.  He
originally asserted claims on behalf of himself and all others
allegedly similarly situated under the California Labor Code for
alleged failure to pay overtime at the proper rate, failure to pay
vested vacation wages, failure to pay wages timely upon
termination of employment and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.  Mr. Reed also asserted a derivative claim for unfair
competition under the California Business and Professions Code.
In September 2010, Mr. Reed amended his complaint to seek civil
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Mr. Reed seeks to represent four sub-classes: (i) all non-exempt
or hourly current or former employees who worked for the Company
in California within four years prior to the filing of the
complaint until the date of certification who were paid bonuses,
commissions or incentive wages, who worked overtime, and for whom
the bonuses, commissions or incentive wages were not included as
part of the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, (ii) all
non-exempt or hourly current or former employees who worked for
the Company in California within four years prior to the filing of
the complaint until the date of certification who earned vacation
wages and were not paid their vested vacation wages at the time of
termination; (iii) all non-exempt or hourly current or former
employees who worked for the Company in California within four
years prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of
certification who were not furnished a proper itemized wage
statement; and (iv) all non-exempt or hourly current or former
employees who worked for the Company in California within four
years prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of
certification who were not paid all wages due upon termination.
Plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory
penalties, interest, attorney's fees and costs, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief and restitution.  He also seeks to
recover civil penalties as an "aggrieved employee" under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.  Discovery has commenced
but no class certification or trial date has been set.  The court
has set a status conference for September 30, 2011.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
the amount of potential loss, if any, the Company could face as a
result of such lawsuit.


ACCELRYS INC: Court Approves $0.3-Mil. Merger-Related Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accelrys, Inc., obtained final court approval of its settlement to
resolve a consolidated merger-related lawsuit for $0.3 million,
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 July 1, 2010, Alto Merger Sub, Inc., the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary ("Merger Sub"), merged with and into Symyx
Technologies, Inc., with Symyx surviving as the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary (the "Merger").

Prior to the completion of the Merger, several lawsuits were filed
against Symyx, the members of the Symyx board of directors and
certain executive officers of Symyx, Accelrys and Merger Sub in
purported class action lawsuits brought by individual Symyx
stockholders challenging the Merger.  The first of such lawsuits
was a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, purportedly on behalf
of the stockholders of Symyx, against Symyx and its directors and
chief financial officer, as well as Accelrys and Merger Sub,
alleging, among other things, that Symyx's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Symyx in connection
with the proposed Merger.  Subsequent to the filing of such
lawsuit, several additional lawsuits were filed, also in Santa
Clara County, each of which was substantially similar to the first
lawsuit.  The lawsuits were ultimately consolidated into a single
action and on May 20, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a single
consolidated complaint (the "Complaint").  The Complaint serves as
the only complaint in the combined litigation going forward (the
"Consolidated Action"), which is pending in the Superior Court for
the County of Santa Clara (the "Court").  The Complaint, like the
previously filed complaints, alleges, among other things, that
Symyx's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of Symyx in connection with the Merger, and was
seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement.

On June 22, 2010, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs, pursuant to which
the defendants and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the
Consolidated Action.  Subject to court approval and further
definitive documentation the MOU resolves the allegations by the
plaintiffs against the defendants made in connection with the
Merger and the Merger Agreement, and provides a release and
settlement by the purported class of Symyx stockholders with
prejudice of all asserted claims against the defendants without
costs to any defendant (other than as expressly provided in the
MOU), in exchange for Symyx's agreement to provide additional
supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus
issued by Accelrys and Symyx in connection with the Merger.
Accelrys and Symyx made the appropriate supplemental disclosures
on June 23, 2010.  On January 28, 2011, the plaintiffs filed the
Unopposed Notice of Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class
Action Settlement and supporting documents.  On February 25, 2011,
the Court signed a preliminary approval order, which granted
preliminary certification of a non-opt out class and set a
settlement hearing for May 6, 2011, to determine whether a final
order and judgment should be granted to settle this matter.  On
July 15, 2011, the Court approved the settlement amount of $0.3
million, which will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier as
all deductibles have been met.

In addition to the class action, the Company is subject to various
claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of the
Company's business.  While any legal proceeding has an element of
uncertainty, management believes that the disposition of such
matters, in the aggregate, will not have a material effect on the
Company's results of operations.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces "Stone" Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. continues to defend
itself from a putative class action complaint, styled Kerri Stone
v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al., in
California, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On July 16, 2008, Kerri Stone filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California in San Diego against
the Company and its California subsidiary.  Defendants removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.  The amended complaint alleges violations of the
California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law and the California
Unfair Competition Law and seeks an order requiring defendants to
disgorge and/or make restitution of all revenue and loan
principal, pay three times the amount of damages the class members
actually incurred, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
and punitive damages.  The complaint also seeks certain injunctive
relief. The Company anticipates that the case will proceed to
trial in late 2011 or early 2012.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces "Betts" Lawsuit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc. continues to defend
itself from a putative class action lawsuit styled Betts and
Reuter v. McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC et al., in
Florida, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

The Company and the Company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance
of Florida, LLC are defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
commenced by former customers, Wendy Betts and Donna Reuter, on
January 11, 2001, and a third named class representative, Tiffany
Kelly, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida.  This
putative class action alleges that McKenzie, by and through the
actions of certain officers, directors, and employees, engaged in
unfair and deceptive trade practices and violated Florida's
criminal usury statute, the Florida Consumer Finance Act, and the
Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
suit seeks unspecified damages, and the named defendants could be
required to refund fees and/or interest collected, refund the
principal amount of cash advances, pay multiple damages, and pay
other monetary penalties.  Ms. Reuter's claim has been held to be
subject to binding arbitration.  However, the trial court has
denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Ms. Kelly's
claims.  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision,
but certified a "Question of Great Public Importance" to the
Florida Supreme Court.  The Florida Supreme Court accepted the
Company's appeal and stayed the appellate court's mandate pending
the outcome of their review of the appellate court's decision.
The Company anticipates a final decision from the Florida Supreme
Court regarding the enforceability of its arbitration clause
sometime in late 2011 or early 2012.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Discovery in "Johnson" Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently ongoing in connection with a putative class
action lawsuit, styled Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love and Bonny
Bleacher v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al.,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

On August 1, 2007, Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love, and Bonny
Bleacher filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
the Company and two of its subsidiaries alleging that they
provided lines of credit to borrowers in Pennsylvania without a
license required under Pennsylvania law and with interest and fees
in excess of the amounts permitted by Pennsylvania law.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that
the monthly participation fee charged to customers with a line of
credit is illegal, an injunction prohibiting the collection of the
monthly participation fee, and payment of damages equal to three
times the monthly participation fees paid by customers since June
2006, which could total approximately $135 million in damages,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.  In January 2008, the trial court
entered an order compelling the purported class representatives to
arbitrate their claims on an individual basis, unless determined
otherwise by the arbiter.  All parties appealed that order.  On
February 28, 2011, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
the trial court's order and remanded the case to the trial court
for further proceedings on the validity of the class action
waivers in the Company's consumer arbitration clause.  The parties
are currently engaged in discovery relative to the enforceability
of the arbitration provisions contained in the Company's consumer
agreements.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Discovery in "King" Lawsuit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently ongoing in connection with a putative class
action lawsuit, styled Raymond King and Sandra Coates v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC, according to
the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On January 18, 2007, Raymond King and Sandra Coates, who were
customers of BankWest Inc., the lending bank for which the Company
previously marketed, processed, and serviced cash advances in
Pennsylvania, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging
various causes of action, including that the Company's
Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal cash advance loans in
Pennsylvania in violation of Pennsylvania's usury law, the
Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act.  The complaint alleges that
BankWest Inc. was not the "true lender" and that the Company's
Pennsylvania subsidiary was the "lender in fact."  The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, and
the trebling of any compensatory damages.  In January 2008, the
trial court entered an order compelling the purported class
representatives to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis,
unless determined otherwise by the arbiter.  All parties appealed
that order and in April 2010, the United States Supreme Court
issued its opinion in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feed, Int'l
Corp.  On February 28, 2011, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case to
the trial court for further proceedings on the validity of the
class action waivers in the Company's consumer arbitration clause.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery relative to the
enforceability of the arbitration provisions contained in the
Company's consumer agreements.


AIS SERVICES: Accused of Making Illegal Collections in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Chubb, individually and on behalf of the class defined
herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Tracy Chubb v.
AIS Services, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-29046 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., August 16, 2011) seeks redress for the defendant's conduct
in taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois Collection
Agency Act.  The lawsuit also alleges that AIS violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

AIS is a limited liability company and is engaged in the business
of purchasing or claiming to purchase charged-off consumer debts
and enforcing the debts against the consumers by filing collection
lawsuits and otherwise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLIED HEALTHCARE: Being Sold for an Unfair Price, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard W. Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alexander Young, Jeffrey Peris, Sophia
Corona, Mark Hanley, Wayne Palladino, Raymond Playford, Ann
Thornburg, Allied Healthcare International Inc., Saga Group
Limited and AHL Acquisition Corp., Case No. 652284/2011 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., August 16, 2011) is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Allied against Allied's Board of Directors for
their breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to
sell the Company to Saga by means of an unfair process and for an
unfair price.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have exacerbated their
breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the Proposed
Transaction with deal protection devices that preclude other
bidders from making a successful competing offer for the Company.

Mr. Phillips is a shareholder of Allied.

Allied is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of New York.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of Allied.  Saga is a corporation organized under the
laws of England and Wales, and is the UK's leading provider of
products and services specifically designed for people aged 50 and
over.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
                  sholleman@zlk.com

               - and -

          LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
          39 East Broadway, Suite 304
          New York, NY 10002
          Telephone: (212) 349-6099
          Facsimile: (212) 349-6599


ALLIED HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Merger With Saga Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louis S. Terranova, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alexander Young, Jeffrey Peris, Sophia
Corona, Mark Hanley, Wayne Palladino, Raymond Playford, Ann
Thornburg, Allied Healthcare International Inc., Saga Group
Limited and AHL Acquisition Corp., Case No. 652287/2011 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., August 16, 2011) alleges that Allied's Board of Directors has
breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed
acquisition of Allied by Saga for grossly inadequate
consideration.

Given Allied's recent strong performance, as well its recent
acquisitions and future growth prospects, the consideration
shareholders are to receive is inadequate and undervalues the
Company, Mr. Terranova argues.

Mr. Terranova  is a shareholder of Allied.

Allied is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of New York and is a leading homecare provider of health
and social care in the United Kingdom and Ireland.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Allied.  Saga is a
corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales and is
the UK's leading provider of products and services specifically
designed for people aged 50 and over.  AHL is a New York
corporation wholly owned by Saga that was created for the purposes
of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com

               - and -

          LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
          39 East Broadway, Suite 304
          New York, NY 10002
          Telephone: (212) 349-6099
          Facsimile: (212) 349-6599


ALPHA NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss "Massey" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint filed
against Alpha Natural Resources Inc.'s subsidiary is pending,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

On April 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010, two consolidated purported
class actions that have been subsequently consolidated into one
case were brought against Massey, now the Company's subsidiary
Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc., in connection with alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on behalf of a class of
former Massey stockholders, that Massey and certain former Massey
directors and officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by
intentionally misleading the market about the safety of Massey's
operations and that Massey's former officers violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons
alleged to have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act.  The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that this
action is a proper class action; certification as class
representatives; an award of compensatory damages in an amount to
be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees.

On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift
the statutory discovery stay imposed by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). On March 3, 2011, the
United States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the
completion of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts
that allegedly gave rise to the action.  The United States
subsequently informed the court that it and the lead plaintiffs
had reached an agreement whereby, if the court decides to lift the
PSLRA discovery stay, the United States and the lead plaintiffs
request that the court limit discovery in certain respects.
Briefing on the lead plaintiffs' motion to partially lift the
PSLRA discovery stay is now complete, and the motion is pending
before the court.

On April 25, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
operative complaint.


ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Delaware Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit filed
against Alpha Natural Resources Inc. in Delaware is pending,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

A number of purported former Massey stockholders have brought
lawsuits derivatively, purportedly on behalf of Massey, which is
now the Company's subsidiary, Alpha Appalachia, in West Virginia
and Delaware state courts, in connection with the April 5, 2010
explosion at UBB and related claims. Certain of these former
stockholders have also initiated contempt proceedings in West
Virginia state court in connection with alleged violations of the
settlement of a previous derivative lawsuit. In addition, these
and other purported former Massey stockholders have asserted class
action claims allegedly arising out of the acquisition of Massey
by Alpha in Delaware and West Virginia state courts and Virginia
federal court.

                     Delaware Chancery Court

In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation, a
number of purported former Massey stockholders (the "Delaware
Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain
former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's employees,
allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at
UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying allegedly excessive
and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his retirement package.  The
Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported class of
former Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the acquisition of
Massey by Alpha.  The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best
price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for
the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the
possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop"
provision and a termination fee.  In addition, the Delaware
Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the acquisition to
eliminate the liability that defendants faced on the Delaware
Plaintiffs' derivative claims.  Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs
allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all material
information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an informed
vote on the acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company as defendants along
with Mountain Merger Sub, Inc., the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary created for purposes of effecting the Acquisition,
which, at the effective time of the Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey.  The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that the Company
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former Massey directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to orchestrate the
acquisition for the purpose of eliminating the former Massey
directors' potential liability on the derivative claims.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action.  The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Acquisition. The court denied their motion for
a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011.

Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey,
certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and
Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Acquisition. Silverman v. Phillips, et al.,
filed on February 7, 2011, and Goe v. Massey Energy Company, et
al., filed on February 14, 2011, assert allegations that are
nearly identical to those made by the Delaware Plaintiffs in In re
Massey.  Silverman and Goe were consolidated for all purposes with
In re Massey on February 9, 2011 and February 24, 2011,
respectively.

On June 1, 2011, pursuant to the terms of the previously announced
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of January 28, 2011 (the
"Merger Agreement"), the Company completed its acquisition (the
"Acquisition") of Massey Energy Company, a Delaware corporation
("Massey"). Massey, together with its affiliates, was a major U.S.
coal producer operating mines and associated processing and
loading facilities in Central Appalachia.

On June 10, 2011, Alpha Appalachia and the former Massey director
and officer defendants moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Merger Sub moved to dismiss the
purported class action claim against the Company for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

                   West Virginia State Court

In a case filed on April 15, 2010 in West Virginia state court, a
number of purported former Massey stockholders (the "West Virginia
Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain
former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's employees,
allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at
UBB. The West Virginia Plaintiffs seek an award against each
defendant and in favor of Massey for the amount of damages
sustained by Massey as a result of defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and an award to the West Virginia Plaintiffs of the
costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On May 2, 2011, the West Virginia Plaintiffs moved for leave to
amend their complaint to add Alpha and Merger Sub as additional
defendants and to add claims allegedly arising out of the then-
proposed Acquisition. In their proposed amended complaint, the
West Virginia Plaintiffs allege that certain former Massey
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the
highest price reasonably available for Massey and by failing to
disclose material information to Massey's then-stockholders in
connection with the stockholder vote on the acquisition. The West
Virginia Plaintiffs also allege that Massey, Merger Sub and the
Company aided and abetted the former Massey directors' breaches of
fiduciary duty. The West Virginia Plaintiffs further allege that
certain former Massey directors wasted corporate assets by failing
to maintain sufficient internal controls over Massey's safety and
environmental reporting; failing to properly consider the
interests of Massey and its stockholders, including the value of
the derivative claims asserted by the West Virginia Plaintiffs in
the acquisition; failing to conduct proper supervision; paying
undeserved incentive compensation to certain Massey executive
directors, particularly Defendant Blankenship during Massey's
alleged years of noncompliance with safety regulations and more
recently as part of Blankenship's retirement package; incurring
millions of dollars in fines due to safety and environmental
violations; and incurring potentially hundreds of millions of
dollars of legal liability and/or legal costs to defend
defendants' allegedly unlawful actions. Finally, the West Virginia
Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint alleges that certain former
Massey directors were unjustly enriched by their compensation as
directors. The court has not ruled on the motion to amend.
On May 25, 2011, the West Virginia Plaintiffs also filed a
petition with the West Virginia Supreme Court for a preliminary
injunction against the consummation of the Acquisition, which was
denied on May 31, 2011.

On June 23, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the West
Virginia Plaintiffs' original complaint on the grounds that
plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right
to pursue those claims.

        U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Virginia

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, purported former Massey stockholder Benjamin Mostaed
("Mostaed") alleges in a suit filed on February 2, 2011, and
amended thereafter, purportedly on behalf of a class of former
Massey stockholders, that Massey, Alpha and certain former Massey
directors violated Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 thereunder by filing a false and misleading preliminary
proxy statement in connection with the then-proposed acquisition
of Massey by Alpha; that Massey and certain former Massey
directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of
their control over persons alleged to have committed violations of
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act; that certain former Massey
directors violated their fiduciary duties by causing Massey to
enter into the Merger Agreement with Alpha pursuant to an unfair
process that resulted in an unfair offer with preclusive deal
protection devices that allegedly inhibited superior proposals;
and that Massey and Alpha aided and abetted the former Massey
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Mostaed sought an
injunction preventing the consummation of the acquisition of
Massey by Alpha; rescission of the Merger Agreement; and an award
of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees. On June 24, 2011, Mostaed informed
the court that, aside from a motion for an award of attorneys'
fees, he did not intend to prosecute the action further and would
voluntarily dismiss his claims.

On February 4, 2011, William D. Perkins ("Perkins"), another
purported former Massey stockholder, filed a suit in the Eastern
District of Virginia similar to Mostaed's, which was consolidated
with Mostaed's on June 3, 2011. On July 13, 2011, Mostaed and
Perkins moved for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
expenses and incentive awards, contending that voluntary remedial
measures implemented by defendants and sought by Mostaed (i.e.,
additional disclosure) had mooted Mostaed's claims. Mostaed and
Perkins seek an award of $900 in attorneys' fees and expenses and
an incentive award to each of them in the amount of $2. Defendants
have opposed that motion.


AMERICAN DENTAL: Continues to Defend Opt-Out Action in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
American Dental Partners, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a lawsuit known as the Opt-Out Action, 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 or about February 22 and 23, 2010, Special Situations Fund III
L.P., Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., and Special Situations
Fund III Q.P., L.P. excluded themselves from the class action
settlement resolving consolidated actions entitled "In re American
Dental Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation," civil action number
1:08-CV-10119-RGS, and filed an opt-out complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against
the Company and certain of its executive officers, entitled
"Special Situations Fund III, L.P. et al. v. American Dental
Partners, Inc. et al.," civil action number 1:10-CV-10331,
referred to as the Opt-Out Action.

The Opt-Out Action complaint (i) asserts that the plaintiffs
purchased over 500,000 shares of the Company's common stock during
the period of February 25, 2004, through December 13, 2007; (ii)
alleges that the Company and certain of the Company's executive
officers violated the federal securities laws, in particular,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly material
misrepresentations and failing to disclose allegedly material
facts concerning the lawsuit by Park Dental Group against the
Company's subsidiary, PDHC, Ltd., entitled PDG, P.A. v. PDHC,
Ltd., Civ. A. Nos. 27-CV-06-2500 and 27-CV-07-13030, filed in the
Fourth Judicial District of Hennepin County, Minnesota, on
February 3, 2006, and conduct at issue in that action during the
period of February 25, 2004, through December 13, 2007, which had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's common stock; (iii) asserts control person claims under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the executive
officers named as defendants; and (iv) claims that certain of the
alleged misrepresentations also violated Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
costs and attorneys' fees and any other relief the Court deems
proper.  The Company says it is unable to provide a range of
potential damages with respect to this action.

On June 11, 2010, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Action.  On March 31, 2011, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) claims, but granted the motion to dismiss
with respect to the Section 18 claim.  The Company says it intends
to defend itself vigorously with respect to this matter.


APPLE INC: South Korean iPhone Users File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Agence France Presse reports that more than 20,000 South Korean
iPhone users filed a class action lawsuit on Aug. 17 against US
technology giant Apple for alleged privacy violations over the
collection of location data, a law firm said.

The suit came after lawyer Kim Hyung-Suk was awarded KRW1 million
($933) in compensation in June, the first such payout by Apple's
Korean unit, following an interim order by a court in the
southeastern city of Changwon.

Mr. Kim has since led online preparations for a class action suit
against Apple and its South Korean unit.

"The suit accuses Apple of breaching articles 10 and 17 of the
constitution that ensure pursuit of happiness and protection of
privacy, and the South Korean law on protection of location data,"
a spokesman for Mr. Kim's firm Miraelaw told AFP.

The suit involves 26,691 people demanding KRW1 million each, he
said.

"We . . . electronically filed a suit seeking compensation from
Apple and its South Korean unit for emotional damage caused by
illegal location tracking by Apple's iPhone," the law firm added
in a statement.

A separate suit involving another 921 people will be filed soon,
after they submit the necessary paperwork, it said.

Apple Korea spokesman Steve Park declined to comment.

In his earlier suit, the lawyer claimed his privacy was breached
by Apple because it collected location information without his
consent.

The court in Changwon issued a compensation order via an expedited
process that did not involve extensive deliberations on the merits
of the complaint.

Users who bought iPhones before May 1 have joined the class action
suit.

Apple in May released updated software for iPhones to fix "bugs"
that resulted in location data being unencrypted and stored for up
to a year.  South Korea has about three million iPhone users.

The Korea Communications Commission said in early August it would
fine Apple Korea up to three million won over the disputed
feature.

The move followed a probe launched by the regulator in April to
check if the collection of location data from iPhone users
violated privacy rules.

The regulator's decision "cleared a lot of doubts" on whether the
popular smartphone's location-tracking feature was against the
law, Miraelaw said.

But it will take a long while to hold the first hearings on the
case given the time needed for the court and Apple's US
headquarters to review related documents, a court official told
Yonhap news agency.

Separately, Dean Wilson, writing for The Inquirer, reports that
the class action trial is expected to begin in October or
November.


ARCH COAL: Unit's Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
scheduled a settlement fairness hearing on November 14, 2011, in
connection with the settlement agreement in the lawsuit against
a subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc., 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 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust ("Saratoga") filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia against International Coal Group, Inc.,
which the Company acquired on June 15, 2011, and certain of its
officers and directors seeking unspecified damages.  The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based
on alleged false and misleading statements in the registration
statements filed in connection with ICG's November 2005
reorganization and December 2005 public offering of common stock.
In addition, the complaint challenges other of ICG's public
statements regarding its operating condition and safety record.
On July 6, 2009, Saratoga filed an amended complaint asserting
essentially the same claims but seeking to add an individual co-
plaintiff.  ICG has filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

In June 2011, ICG agreed to settle this matter for a total of
$1.375 million.  On August 1, 2011, the court issued its order
preliminarily approving settlement and scheduled a settlement
fairness hearing on November 14, 2011.


AT&T INC: Continues to Defend "Stoffels" Suit
---------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. is awaiting a decision on an appeal from a judgment
entered in a purported class action in Texas captioned Stoffels v.
SBC Communications Inc., according to the Company's August 5, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In May 2005, the Company was served with a purported class action
in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Stoffels v. SBC
Communications Inc.), in which the plaintiffs, who are retirees of
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell and Ameritech,
contend that the cash reimbursement formerly paid to retirees
living outside their company's local service area, for telephone
service they purchased from another provider, is a "defined
benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended. In October 2006, the Court
certified two classes. The issue of whether the concession is an
ERISA pension plan was tried before the judge in November 2007. In
May 2008, the court ruled that the concession was an ERISA pension
plan. The Company asked the court to certify this ruling for
interlocutory appeal, and in August 2008, the court denied its
request. In May 2009, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with the trial court. That motion was granted in
January 2011, and a final judgment was entered in the Company's
favor. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals. On June 3, 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals held that a similar cash reimbursement program currently
offered to out-of-region retirees of BellSouth is not a defined
benefit plan. The Court's decision lends significant support to
the Company's belief that an adverse outcome having a material
effect on its financial statements in this case is unlikely, but
it will continue to evaluate the potential impact of this lawsuit
on its financial results as it progresses.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


AT&T INC: Appeal on Dismissal of NSA Intelligence Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of lawsuits, including a class action
captioned Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp., alleging that
telecommunication carriers unlawfully provided assistance to the
National Security Agency in its intelligence activities remains
pending, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Twenty-four lawsuits were filed alleging that the Company and
other telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistance
to the National Security Agency in connection with intelligence
activities that were initiated following the events of
September 11, 2001. In the first filed case, Hepting et al v. AT&T
Corp., AT&T Inc. and Does 1-20, a purported class action filed in
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California,
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants disclosed and are currently
disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call records
concerning communications to which Plaintiffs were a party.
Plaintiffs sought damages, a declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other
federal and California statutes. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. The United States asserted the "state
secrets privilege" and related statutory privileges and also filed
a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint. The Court
denied the motions, and the Company and the United States
appealed. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit remanded the case to the district court without deciding
the issue in light of the passage of the FISA Amendments Act, a
provision of which addresses the allegations in these pending
lawsuits (immunity provision). The immunity provision requires the
pending lawsuits to be dismissed if the Attorney General certifies
to the court either that the alleged assistance was undertaken by
court order, certification, directive or written request or that
the telecom entity did not provide the alleged assistance. In
September 2008, the Attorney General filed his certification and
asked the district court to dismiss all of the lawsuits pending
against the AT&T Inc. telecommunications companies. The court
granted the Government's motion to dismiss and entered final
judgments in July 2009. In addition, a lawsuit seeking to enjoin
the immunity provision's application on grounds that it is
unconstitutional was filed. In March 2009, the Company and the
Government filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit. The court
granted the motion to dismiss and entered final judgment in July
2009. All cases brought against the AT&T entities have been
dismissed. In August 2009, plaintiffs in all cases filed an appeal
with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this appeal remains
pending. Management believes this appeal is without merit and
intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.



AT&T INC: Unit Continues to Defend "MBA Surety" Suit in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of AT&T Corp. continues to defend itself from a purported
class action captioned MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility,
LLC in Missouri, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In October 2010, the Company's wireless subsidiary was served with
a purported class action in Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri
(MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC), in which the
plaintiffs contend that the Company violated the FCC's rules by
collecting Universal Service Fees on certain services not subject
to such fees, including Internet access service provided over
wireless handsets commonly called "smartphones" and wireless data
cards, as well as collecting certain other state and local fees.
Plaintiffs define the class as all persons who from April 1, 2003,
until the present had a contractual relationship with the Company
for Internet access through a smartphone or a wireless data card.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages as well as
injunctive relief. The Company believes that an adverse outcome
having a material effect on its financial statements in this case
is unlikely.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


AT&T: BellSouth Field Managers' Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Field managers for BellSouth Telecommunications received
certification of their collective action on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated employees from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on Aug. 17.

The decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Julie E. Carnes applies
to the company's so-called "First Levels", who worked for the
telecom giant in a 9-state region comprising Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, South
Carolina and Kentucky.  Her ruling means that First Levels in
nearly every state where AT&T and its subsidiaries do business are
now eligible to participate in class actions seeking some $1
billion in unpaid overtime wages.

The Georgia ruling is the third recent favorable class and
collective certification decision achieved by Sanford Wittels &
Heisler for Level One Managers.  It follows two decisions in late
2009 and 2010 that opened the door for class actions against
AT&T's Connecticut subsidiary Southern New England Telephone
Company (SNET) and AT&T's California subsidiary, PacBell.

The SNET case is scheduled for trial on Oct. 3 of this year where
AT&T's operating company has more than $60 million of exposure in
that one case alone.

All three suits allege AT&T and its subsidiaries violated the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state laws by carrying
out a company-wide policy to wrongfully misclassify thousands of
its Level One Managers exempt from overtime wages.

"Judge Carnes' decision gives the green light for aggrieved Level
One Managers working for BellSouth to join their colleagues across
the country to pursue the compensation they deserve for the all
the overtime hours they've been expected to work for free," said
Steven L. Wittels, Co-Lead Class Counsel.

AT&T, the eighth largest of the Fortune 500, has revenues of over
$100 billion a year and employs 294,600 workers worldwide.  First
Level "Managers" are ground troops in the multi-billion dollar
operation, who perform primarily clerical duties and relay
information between company management and its technicians in the
field.  AT&T and its operating subsidiaries require these
employees to work upwards of 60 hours a week, but claim that these
workers do not deserve overtime pay.

"AT&T consistently violates federal and state laws in compensating
its First Levels," said co-Lead Counsel Janette Wipper.  "Although
their job title includes the term "manager," these individuals
manage nothing and have no management responsibilities.  The
company uses this job title merely as a means to extract from
these employees more hours of work, without providing them any
additional compensation."

Jeremy Heisler, Co-Lead Counsel in the New York office, emphasizes
that "the ruling is significant because the Court certified a
collective action encompassing all 9 states where AT&T operates
its business through BellSouth.  This means that workers from the
entire region can now join the suit."

The three class action complaints charge that AT&T and its
subsidiaries fail to pay Level One employees overtime wages for
work in excess of 40 hours a week and eight hours a day; fail to
provide these workers with mandatory meal periods and rest breaks;
and fail to keep accurate records of the hours these employees
work.  The suits demand AT&T, PacBell, and BellSouth immediately
stop their unlawful pay practices and pay all Level Ones the
unpaid wages due to them plus all damages permitted by state and
federal wage and hour laws.

Representing the Plaintiffs in these actions are Steven L.
Wittels, Jeremy Heisler, Janette Wipper and Andrew Melzer in
Sanford Wittels & Heisler's New York and San Francisco offices;
David Sanford in the firm's Washington, D.C.; Michael Ram and Karl
Olson of Ram & Olson, Of Counsel to the firm in San Francisco; Ed
Buckley of Buckley & Klein, LLP in Atlanta, Georgia; and Edmond
Clark in Madison, Connecticut.

                  About Sanford Wittels & Heisler

Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a class action law firm with offices
in New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and New Jersey that
specializes in employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer
and complex corporate class action litigation, and has obtained
more than a hundred million dollars in recoveries for individuals
represented in class action cases nationwide.  The firm also
represents individual clients in employment, employment
discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower, public
accommodations, commercial, medical malpractice, mass tort and
personal injury matters.  Individuals with knowledge of AT&T's
wage practices are encouraged to contact Sanford Wittels & Heisler
at: (646) 723-2947, (415) 375-8903, or (202) 742-7448


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Face ATM MDL in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc.'s unit continues to face a purported class
action lawsuit arising from overdraft fees charges and policies
relating to posting order of debit card and ATM transactions,
which lawsuit has been transferred to a pending multi-district
litigation in Florida, according to the Company's August 5, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 18, 2010, the Company's subsidiary BancorpSouth Bank was
named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed by
two Arkansas customers of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Florida.  The lawsuit challenges the
manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies
related to posting order of debit card and ATM transactions.  The
lawsuit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer protection
statute.  The case was transferred to pending multi-district
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  No class has been certified and, at this stage of the
lawsuit, management of the Company cannot determine the
probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company.  Although it
is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial
liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently
of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated
financial position or results of operations.  However, there can
be no assurance that an adverse outcome or settlement would not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
results of operations for a given fiscal period.

BancorpSouth, Inc. is a $13.4 billion-asset financial holding
company.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed IOLTA Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses Bank of America of charging undisclosed fees on IOLTA
accounts, and of doing so after California passed a law requiring
banks to pay the same interest rates on IOLTA accounts as they do
on other accounts.

Bank of America holds about 20 percent of California's lawyer
trust accounts, named plaintiff William Kent says.  He estimates
that the class includes 100,000 to 150,000 members.

The complaint states: "Plaintiff brings this action as a statewide
consumer class action against BOA and Does 1-20.  . . . BOA
enforced an alleged contractual obligation against its customers
whenever they cash checks contrary to the original agreement with
plaintiff and the class.

"IOLTA accounts hold client funds that are too small or are held
for too short a period of time to earn interest that exceeds the
cost of maintaining the funds.  In California, interest on lawyer
trust accounts is distributed among about 100 eligible legal
services programs.  But the grants fluctuate with interest rates
and have shrunk nationwide as the rates have dropped.  Grants
declined in the state from a peak of $22 million in 1990 to about
$14 million in 2008.

"On January 6, 2008, the California Bar Journal published an
article about Bank of America reaching an agreement with the State
Bar in December 2007 to comply immediately with a new state law
that boosts interest on IOLTA accounts.  The California Bar
Journal is sent to all members of the State Bar. Bank of America
is California's largest bank and the holder of approximately 20
percent of the state's lawyer trust accounts."

"The law, AB 1723, authored by Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-
Sacramento, and signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger Oct. 10, took effect
Jan. 1, 2008.  It was expected to double the annual level of
statewide funding -- from the current $14 million to an estimated
$30 million -- for legal services programs for low-income and
needy Californians.  BOA was the first bank in the state to comply
with the new law.  Its agreement with the bar will generate an
estimated $2.25 million in additional funds for legal aid programs
in California.  The State Bar enacted new regulations to implement
the law and a new companion Rule of Court has been submitted to
the California Supreme Court.

"In the 2007 - 2008 time frame, most banks in California paid 1
percent interest or less on IOLTA accounts.  BOA agreed to boost
its rate on those accounts when it signed a contract with the
State Bar in December 2007.

"All California banks must comply with AB 1723, which requires
them to pay the same interest on Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts
('IOLTA') that they pay on similarly situated non-IOLTA accounts.
BOA agreed to exceed this requirement and to do so well in advance
of a March 1, 2008 deadline set by the Legal Services Trust Fund
Commission.  . . .

"In February 2008, the President of the State Bar of California
Jeff Bleich e-mailed all members of the State Bar to advise them
about a new statutory provision regarding the IOLTA accounts.  The
correspondence notified plaintiff and the class that under
California Supreme Court order S158605 effective March 1, 2008,
California attorneys must hold their IOLTA funds in banks that
comply with the legislation.  To assist with compliance, on
January 31, 2008, the State Bar began posting on its Web site the
list of banks in compliance, which included BOA.  The
correspondence went on to state that the State Bar would 'notify
you if your bank is not in compliance.'  The correspondence
concluded that 'Bank of America, in partnership with the State
Bar, is the first bank that has agreed to comply early with the
new law, offering the statutory comparable rates on IOLTA funds
effective January 1, 2008 acting more than two months early, IOLTA
accounts held in Bank of America will produce substantial
additional funds to assist Californians in need.'

"Based upon the law, plaintiff and the class opened accounts with
defendant, and received a 'Deposit Agreement and Disclosures,'
defining the 'rights and obligations for your deposit account
relationship with us [the Bank].'

"Defendant bank violates its own written policies as it relates to
members of the California Bar and unlawfully charges such members
undisclosed fees.  . . .

"This unlawful hidden 'fee' is never explained to the customer at
the time of opening the account, in the agreement or signature
card(s) or schedule of fees and the customer has no reason to
believe that there will be any charge for cashing attorney-client
or other checks by BOA.

"The penalties bear no relation to the cost or damage, if any,
incurred by BOA in connection with their processing of checks.

"This putative class action consists of between 100,000 to 150,000
attorneys and other account holders set forth below.

"BOA has no right, contractual or otherwise, to enforce the
penalty against its customers without their consent or otherwise.
Plaintiff and the class members seek injunctive relief on behalf
of current and former BOA customers who were charged or may be
charged a penalty and monetary relief on behalf of current and
former BOA customers who paid a penalty to BOA; the imposition of
constructive trusts on all monies by which BOA was unjustly
enriched as a result of collecting the penalties set forth above;
and all such other and further relief to which they may be
entitled under the UCL, the CLRA, and common law, including,
without limitation, restitution."

Mr. Kent seeks class certification and damages for breach of
contract, breach of faith, unfair and deceptive trade, and
consumer law violations.

The 29-page lawsuit includes 50 pages of attachments, including
the California Bar Journal article and Bank of America documents.

A copy of the Complaint in Kent v. Bank of America N.A., et al.,
Case No. 30-2011-00499923 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/17/IOLTA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com

               - and -

          Roger R. Carter, Esq.
          Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          2030 Main Street, Thirteenth Floor
          Irvine, CA 92614-7219
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
          E-mail: rcarter@carterlawfirm.net


BIOVAIL CORP: Wellbutrin XL Suit Wins Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that indirect purchasers of the
once-a-day Wellbutrin XL antidepressant won class certification
for a federal lawsuit accusing Biovail, SmithKline Beecham and
other companies of illegally conspiring to prevent generic
versions from entering the American market.

A copy of the Memorandum in In Re: Wellbutrin XL Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-02433 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/16/wellbutrin.pdf


BLOOMBERG LP: Judge Tosses Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
David W. Chen, writing for The New York Times, reports that in a
major victory for Bloomberg L.P., the financial and media services
giant founded by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a federal judge has
dismissed claims that the company engaged in a pattern of
discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers returning
from maternity leave.

Judge Loretta A. Preska of United States District Court in
Manhattan wrote that the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission had relied too much on anecdotes, and not on
statistics, when it accused Bloomberg L.P. of discrimination.

"'J'accuse!' is not enough in court," Judge Preska wrote.
"Evidence is required."

In a strongly worded ruling issued Aug. 17, she said that "the law
does not mandate 'work-life balance,'" and that while Bloomberg
L.P. "explicitly makes all-out dedication its expectation," the
company did not systematically violate the law because it did not
treat women who took maternity leave differently from employees
who took leaves for other reasons.

"A female employee is free to choose to dedicate herself to the
company at any cost, and, so far as this record suggests, she will
rise in this organization accordingly," she wrote.  "The law does
not require companies to ignore or stop valuing ultimate
dedication, however unhealthy that may be for family life."

The case is not necessarily over; the federal government may
appeal, and the 65 women who qualified as claimants in the class-
action lawsuit can still file individual lawsuits accusing
discrimination.  But legal experts said the ruling that the
company did not have a "pattern or practice of discrimination"
stripped the individual plaintiffs of their most powerful
argument.

The lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P., replete with charges that
managers had made crass and sexist comments in a testosterone-
fueled workplace, had threatened the reputation of the company and
its founder.  Mr. Bloomberg earned his billions at the company,
thriving in the aggressive and hypercompetitive Wall Street
culture.  But he had also occasionally been accused of making
insensitive comments about women's appearance and sexual
desirability, and as he moved into a more public role, he sought
to appeal to voters as a modern, inclusive politician.

The class-action lawsuit, which was filed in September 2007,
asserted that the company systematically discriminated against
mothers and pregnant women by reducing their pay, demoting them or
excluding them from important meetings.  The suspected
discrimination was said to have taken place from February 2002 to
March 2009, after Mr. Bloomberg, the majority shareholder of the
company, had been elected mayor and left his day-to-day role at
the company.  But the plaintiffs asserted that "Michael Bloomberg
is responsible for the creation of the systemic, top-down culture
of discrimination."

Mr. Bloomberg was deposed in 2009, compelled to testify for eight
hours over two days.  According to excerpts released this year,
the mayor was testy and sarcastic, but also confident that the
company had acted appropriately.

Judge Preska, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1992, had
telegraphed her skepticism about the case in August 2010, when she
dismissed the statistical experts that the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission had called as witnesses, but accepted the
company's experts.

In the ruling on Aug. 17, the judge cited those Bloomberg experts,
who found that women who went on maternity leave actually received
higher increases in compensation ($5,789 in the year after they
took a leave) than those who took leaves for other reasons
($3,946).  At the same time, she found that the company "did not
reduce the responsibilities of women returning from maternity
leave any more than those of those who took similarly lengthy
leaves."

By contrast, she said the federal government's lack of evidence
was "severely damaging," and she described some of the biased
statements said to have been made by managers at Bloomberg as
hearsay.

"At most, the E.E.O.C. has shown some isolated remarks from a few
individuals over the course of a nearly six-year period in a
company of over 10,000, with over 600 women who took maternity
leave," she wrote.  "Relying on a handful of individuals'
statements does not amount to showing a pattern or practice of
intentional discrimination."

A spokeswoman for the commission, Christine Saah Nazer, issued a
statement declaring, "We regret [Wednes]day's decision, and look
forward to proceeding with the individual claims and will assess
our options."

Stu Loeser, the mayor's press secretary, referred inquiries about
the ruling to the company.  In a statement, Bloomberg L.P. said
the ruling confirmed "what we have known all along: that the
evidence is squarely on our side and that this case is without
merit."

One notable subtext in the ruling was Judge Preska's lengthy
discussion of work-life issues that the case raised.  She quoted
Jack Welch, the former chief executive of General Electric,
saying: "There's no such thing as work-life balance.  There are
work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences."

Declaring that "Mr. Welch's view reflects the free-market
employment system we embrace in the United States, particularly
for competitive, highly paid managerial posts," she continued that
the law "does not require companies to ignore employees' work-
family trade-offs -- and they are trade-offs -- when deciding
about employee pay and promotions."


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeal From Settlement Order Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of the settlement in the
consolidated stockholder lawsuit against Capstone Turbine
Corporation remains pending, 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.

In December 2001, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its then
officers, and the underwriters of its initial public offering.
The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
June 28, 2000, to December 6, 2000.  An amended complaint was
filed on April 19, 2002.  The plaintiffs allege that the
prospectuses for the Company's June 28, 2000 initial public
offering and November 16, 2000 secondary offering were false and
misleading in violation of the applicable securities laws because
the prospectuses failed to disclose the underwriter defendants'
alleged agreement to allocate stock in these offerings to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  Similar complaints have
been filed against hundreds of other issuers that have had initial
public offerings since 1998; the complaints have been consolidated
into an action captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 21 MC 92.  On October 9, 2002, the plaintiffs
dismissed, without prejudice, the claims against the named
officers and directors in the action against the Company, pursuant
to the terms of Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreements
entered into with the plaintiffs (the "Tolling Agreements").
Subsequent addenda to the Tolling Agreements extended the tolling
period through August 27, 2010.  The District Court directed that
the litigation proceed within a number of "focus cases" and on
October 13, 2004, the District Court certified the focus cases as
class actions.  The Company's case is not one of these focus
cases.  The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on
December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's class certification decision.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended complaints against the six focus cases and on September
27, 2007, again moved for class certification.  On November 12,
2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to
dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints.
On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the motions to
dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs
who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial
offering price and those who purchased outside the previously
certified class period.  The motion for class certification was
withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008.  On April 2,
2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement between the
plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval.  The
District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on
June 10, 2009.  The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on
September 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court
entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement and
directing that the Clerk of the District Court close these
actions.  On August 26, 2010, based on the expiration of the
tolling period stated in the Tolling Agreements, the plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Termination of Tolling Agreement and
Recommencement of Litigation against the named officers and
directors.  The plaintiffs stated to the District Court that they
do not intend to take any further action against the named
officers and directors at this time.

Appeals of the opinion granting final approval were filed, and the
appeals filed by one objector were remanded to the district court
to determine standing to appeal.  Because of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation and because the settlement remains
subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the matter is
uncertain.  Management believes that the outcome of this
litigation will not have a material impact on the Company's
business, operating results, cash flows, financial position or
results of operations.


COWEN GROUP: Participated in Mediation in NYSE Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation
participated in non-binding mediation during May 2011 through
early July 2011, according to Cowen Group, Inc.'s August 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The acquisition of LaBranche & Co Inc. ("LaBranche") by the
Company was consummated pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement"), dated as of February 16,
2011, after the market close on June 28, 2011. LaBranche Capital,
LLC (LCAP), which was renamed "Cowen Capital LLC" following
consummation of the acquisition, was a wholly owned subsidiary of
LaBranche and is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

On October 16, 2003, through December 16, 2003, four purported
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York by persons or entities
who purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE listed
companies, including Pirelli v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No.
03 CV 8264, Marcus v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521,
Empire v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935, and
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) v. New
York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 9968.  On March 11,
2004, a fifth action asserting similar claims, Rosenbaum Partners,
LP v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 04 CV 2038, was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York by an individual plaintiff who does not
allege to represent a class.

On May 27, 2004, the court consolidated these lawsuits under the
caption In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, No. CV 8264.
The court named the following lead plaintiffs: CalPERS and Empire
Programs, Inc.

On September 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint
for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, alleging that they represent a class consisting of
all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock
listed on the NYSE from October 17, 1998, to October 15, 2003.
Plaintiffs allege that LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche & Co. LLC,
Mr. LaBranche, other NYSE specialist firms, including Bear Wagner
Specialists LLC, Fleet Specialist, Inc., SIG Specialists, Inc.,
Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Performance Specialist
Group, LLC and Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC, and certain
parents and affiliates of those firms, and the NYSE, violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by failing to disclose alleged improper specialist
trading that was the subject of specialist trading investigations
by the SEC and NYSE, improperly profiting on purchases and/or
sales of NYSE listed securities, and breaching and/or aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.  Section 20(a) control person
claims also are alleged, including against LaBranche & Co Inc.,
LaBranche & Co. LLC and Mr. LaBranche.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified money damages, restitution, forfeiture of fees,
commissions and other compensation, equitable and/or injunctive
relief, including an accounting and the imposition of a
constructive trust and/or asset freeze on trading proceeds, and
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On December 12, 2005, motions to dismiss were granted in part and
denied in part.  The court dismissed plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) claims against all defendants for conduct that
occurred before January 1, 1999, and dismissed plaintiffs' breach
of fiduciary duty claims against all defendants.  The court also
dismissed all claims against the NYSE and certain claims against
certain parents and affiliates of specialists other than LaBranche
& Co. LLC.

On February 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach
of Fiduciary Duty, adding Robert A. Martin as a plaintiff.  This
complaint is otherwise identical to plaintiffs' Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.

On February 23, 2006, LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche & Co. LLC,
Mr. LaBranche and the other defendants in the case filed answers
to plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the
Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty, denying
liability and asserting affirmative defenses.

On February 22, 2007, the court removed Empire Programs, Inc. as
co-lead plaintiff, leaving CalPERS as the sole lead plaintiff.

On June 28, 2007, CalPERS moved for class certification of "all
persons and entities who submitted orders (directly or through
agents) to purchase or sell NYSE-listed securities between
January 1, 1999, and October 15, 2003, which orders were listed on
the specialists' display book and subsequently disadvantaged by
defendants," and for the certification of CalPERS and Market
Street Securities Inc. as class representatives.

On September 18, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reinstated certain of the claims against the NYSE
that previously had been dismissed.

On March 14, 2009, the court granted CalPERS' motion for class
certification.

On April 13, 2009, LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr.
LaBranche and the other specialist firm defendants and their
affiliates filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f), for permission to appeal the class certification
order.  On October 1, 2009, the Second Circuit denied the
petition, and, on October 21, 2009, LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche
& Co. LLC, Mr. LaBranche and the other specialist firm defendants
and their affiliates filed a motion for reconsideration.  On
February 24, 2010, the Second Circuit denied this motion for
reconsideration.

On October 5, 2009, CalPERS and the NYSE informed the court that
they had agreed to settle all claims against the NYSE.

On or about March 31, 2010, CalPERS and the NYSE submitted a
stipulation of settlement to the Court, not involving any money
payment by the NYSE to CalPERS.  On April 2, 2010, the Court
approved this settlement, and, on April 6, 2010, the Court entered
a final judgment dismissing CalPERS's claims against the NYSE with
prejudice.

The parties participated in non-binding mediation during May 2011
through early July 2011.


DEER CONSUMER: Awaits Selection of Lead Plaintiff in "Rose" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deer Consumer Products, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on
motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff in the securities
class action lawsuit commenced by James Rose, 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 April 29, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 31, 2009, and March 21, 2011, James Rose v. Deer Consumer
Products, Inc. et al, was filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The court
has not yet certified the class action status.  The complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the
Section 20(a) control person provisions of the Exchange Act.  The
factual assertions in the complaint, based expressly on the
published statements at issue in the Company's lawsuit against a
certain blogger, Alfred Little, consist primarily of allegations
that the defendants made materially false or misleading public
statements concerning the Company's financial condition in fiscal
years 2010 and 2009 and its acquisition of Winder Electric Group
Ltd. in 2008.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other
relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of the
Company's common stock during the class period.  A consolidated
amended complaint will be filed after the court rules on pending
motions for the appointment of a lead plaintiff.

The Company says it will respond in due course to any amended
consolidated complaint, which it anticipates will largely
reiterate the allegations of the current complaint.  The Company
strongly denies these allegations.  The Company believes this
lawsuit is frivolous and without merit and will contest it
vigorously.  The Company plans to pursue all legal remedies
available to it if the operative complaint is not withdrawn in its
entirety.

The Company maintains directors and officers liability insurance,
which provides the protection of certain insurance coverage for
both the Company and its officers and directors.  The Company can
provide no assurance as to the outcome of these cases.  Regardless
of the outcomes, such litigation may require significant attention
and resources of management.


DISH NETWORK: Appeal in Channel Bundling Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the channel bundling class action
lawsuit remains pending, according to DISH Network Corporation's
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
lawsuit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009,
the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this case.  The
Company, however, cannot predict with any degree of certainty the
outcome of the lawsuit or determine the extent of any potential
liability or damages.


DUNCAN ENERGY: Davis and Weilersbacher File Joint Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merle Davis and Donald Weilersbacher dismissed their individual
state court lawsuits against Duncan Energy Partners L.P., and
filed a joint class action lawsuit in a federal court in Texas,
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 March 7, 2011, Merle Davis, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a petition in the 269th District Court of
Harris County, Texas, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Merle Davis, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Duncan
Energy Partners L.P., W. Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William
A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, DEP Holdings,
LLC, and Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (the "Davis Petition").
The Davis Petition alleges, among other things, that Enterprise
and the named directors of DEP Holdings, LLC ("DEP GP"), the
Company's general partner, have breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposal of Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
("Enterprise ") to acquire the Company's outstanding publicly-held
common units and that the Company and Enterprise aided and abetted
in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 9, 2011, Donald Weilersbacher, a purported unitholder of
Duncan Energy Partners, filed a petition in the 334th District
Court of Harris County, Texas, as a putative class action on
behalf of the unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned
Donald Weilersbacher, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., Enterprise
Products Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W. Randall Fowler,
Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, and
Richard S. Snell (the "Weilersbacher Petition").  The
Weilersbacher Petition alleges, among other things, that the named
directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties in connection
with Enterprise's proposal to acquire the Company's outstanding
publicly-held common units and that Enterprise aided and abetted
in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 17, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Davis Petition and the
Weilersbacher Petition filed a motion and proposed Order for
Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment of Interim Co-Lead
Counsel, and Order Compelling Limited Expedited Discovery.
Plaintiffs and defendants subsequently agreed to postpone
discovery until after the plaintiffs file a consolidated petition.
On March 28, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion and
proposed Order for Consolidation of Related Actions and
Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel.  On May 4, 2011, the court
entered an order consolidating the cases and appointing interim
lead counsel.  On May 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed their
consolidated petition.  On June 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Nonsuit Without Prejudice and the cases were dismissed
without prejudice.

On July 5, 2011, Merle Davis and Donald Weilersbacher, purported
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, filed a complaint  in the
United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Merle Davis and
Donald Weilersbacher, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated vs. Duncan Energy Partners, L.P., W. Randall
Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J.
Casey, Richard Snell, DEP Holdings, LLC, and Enterprise Products
Partners L.P. (the "Davis/Weilersbacher Federal Complaint").  The
Davis/Weilersbacher Federal Complaint alleged, among other things,
that the Company, DEP GP and the named directors of DEP GP
breached express and implied contractual duties in connection with
Enterprise's proposal to acquire the Company's outstanding
publicly held common units, that all defendants aided and abetted
in these alleged breaches, and that the Company and Enterprise
violated Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Company does not believe that any expenditures related to the
matter will be material to its financial statements.  The Company
will continue to vigorously defend the partnership in these
matters.


DUNCAN ENERGY: Faces Another Merger-Related Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Energy Partners L.P. is facing another class action lawsuit
in Texas over its proposed merger with Enterprise Products
Partners L.P., 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.

DEP Holdings, LLC ("DEP GP"), the Company's general partner, have
breached fiduciary duties in connection with the proposal of
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. ("Enterprise ") to acquire the
Company's outstanding publicly-held common units and that the
Company and Enterprise aided and abetted in these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.

On August 3, 2011, John Rinker and Arthur H. Speier, purported
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the
United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned  John Rinker and
Arthur H. Speier, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W.
Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry
J. Casey, Richard S. Snell and Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
The Rinker/Speier complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company, DEP Holdings, LLC ("DEP GP"), the Company's general
partner, and the named directors of DEP GP breached express and
implied contractual duties in connection with the proposal of
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. ("Enterprise ") to acquire the
Company's outstanding publicly held common units, that all
defendants aided and abetted in these alleged breaches, and that
the Company and Enterprise violated Section 14(a) and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Company does not believe that any expenditures related to the
matter will be material to its financial statements.  The Company
will continue to vigorously defend the partnership in these
matters.


DUNCAN ENERGY: Still Defends Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Energy Partners L.P. continues to defend a consolidated
class action lawsuit in Delaware arising from the proposed merger
with Enterprise Products Partners L.P., 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 March 8, 2011, Michael Crowley, a purported unitholder of
Duncan Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of
the public unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned
Michael Crowley v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC,
W. Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III,
Larry J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, Enterprise Products Partners
L.P., Enterprise Products Holdings LLC, and Enterprise Products
Operating LLC (the "Crowley Complaint").  The Crowley Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the named directors of DEP
Holdings, LLC ("DEP GP"), the Company's general partner, have
breached fiduciary duties in connection with the proposal of
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. ("Enterprise ") to acquire the
Company's outstanding publicly-held common units and that the
Company and DEP GP aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties and that Enterprise, as the  majority and
controlling unitholder, along with Enterprise Products Operating
LLC ("EPO"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise, have
breached fiduciary duties by not acting in the minority
unitholders' best interest to ensure the transaction resulting
from Enterprise's proposal is entirely fair.

On March 11, 2011, Sanjay Israni, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
public unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Sanjay
Israni v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC,
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Product Holdings
LLC, Enterprise Production Operating LLC, W. Randall Fowler, Bryan
F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, and Richard
S. Snell (the "Israni Complaint II").  The Israni Complaint II
alleges, among other things, that the named directors of DEP GP
have breached fiduciary duties in connection with Enterprise's
proposal to acquire the Company's outstanding publicly-held common
units and that the Company along with all of the other named
defendants aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.

On March 28, 2011, Michael Rubin, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
public unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Michael
Rubin v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W.
Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry
J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, Enterprise Products Partners L.P.,
Enterprise Products Holdings LLC, and Enterprise Products
Operating LLC (the "Rubin Complaint").  The Rubin Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the named directors of DEP GP
have breached fiduciary duties in connection with Enterprise's
proposal to acquire the Company's outstanding publicly-held common
units, that the Company and DEP GP aided and abetted in these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that Enterprise, as the
majority and controlling unitholder, along with EPO, have breached
fiduciary duties by not acting in the best interests of the
minority unitholders to ensure the transaction resulting from
Enterprise's proposal is entirely fair.

On April 5, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Crowley Complaint, the
Israni Complaint II, and the Rubin Complaint filed a Proposed
Order of Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Counsel in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The court granted
that order on the same day consolidating the three actions into a
single consolidated action, captioned In re Duncan Energy Partners
L.P. Unitholders Litigation.  On June 3, 2011, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint which alleges,
among other things, breach of express and implied contractual
duties contained in the Company's partnership agreement by DEP GP
and the named directors of DEP GP and that all defendants have
aided and abetted these alleged breaches.  The consolidated
amended complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to
provide full and fair disclosures regarding the proposed
transaction.

The Company does not believe that any expenditures related to the
matter will be material to its financial statements.  The Company
will continue to vigorously defend the partnership in these
matters.


EMDEON INC: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Blackstone Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Emdeon Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware
over its proposed merger with a Blackstone entity, 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 August 3, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P. under which
this Blackstone fund will acquire a controlling interest in the
Company in a transaction valued at approximately $3 billion.

On August 5, 2011, plaintiff Harold Litwin filed a putative class
action in Delaware Chancery Court against the Company, its
directors, Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., H&F and GA seeking
to preliminarily enjoin the proposed merger of the Company and an
entity formed by Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P. to acquire
the Company.  Plaintiff alleged that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction, and the Company allegedly aided and abetted those
breaches.  No amount of damages is stated in the complaint.  The
Company believes the allegations are without merit.


FIRST BANK: Removes Class Action to Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a St. Clair County bank has removed a putative class action
lawsuit filed against it to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, alleging it will be forced to pay
more than $5 million to customers if a judge decides against it.

First Bank is facing a lawsuit filed by investment corporation LDJ
Investments, which alleges the bank misrepresented the amount of
interest it charged on loans.

In its complaint, LDJ Investments claims defendant First Banks
enticed customers to borrow money from it by promising to charge a
low interest rate on complex standardized loan documents.

However, First Banks based its purportedly lower interest rates on
a per annum period of less than 12 calendar months, according to
LDJ's complaint filed July 12 in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

"By using only 360 days, the Bank charged over 12 calendar months
1.4 percent more than the contract cost of credit at a rate of
101.4 percent of the represented rate," the suit states.

"In utter disregard of the rights of the Class, the Bank willfully
and wantonly engaged in an ongoing systematic pattern and common
practice of deception and unfairness throughout the loan
transactions that included common misrepresentations, half-truths,
and omissions on the loans of Plaintiff and Class in order to
conceal the true 12 calendar month rate of interest and costs
credit thereby surreptitiously increasing its profits at the
expense of its borrowers."

By using inconspicuous, vague, confusing and contradictory
language in all of its loan documents, First Banks intentionally
created confusion among its clients about the actual interest
rates they were being charged, LDJ's complaint says.

For instance, it represented that its interest rate was charged
"per annum," a statement many of the bank's clients believed to
mean per year, the plaintiffs claim.  In fact, under Illinois law,
when the phrase "per annum" is used in regard to interest rates,
it must mean per year, according to the complaint.  However, First
Banks utilized the phrase "per annum" to mean 360 days, the suit
states.

"The public policy of the State of Illinois as set forth in
Promissory Notes and Bank Holiday Act and Interest Act prohibit
the deceptive and unfair acts of the Bank set forth above," the
complaint says.  "The conduct of the Bank was intentional,
deliberate, willful and wanton, based solely on greed, and
performed in utter disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff and
the Class."

In its notice of removal, First Bank admits no wrongdoing, but
says it would have to pay significant amounts if the judge finds
in LDJ's favor.

"Over this period, in the State of Illinois alone, First Bank had
more than 19,000 commercial loans," the bank writes in its notice
of removal.  "The difference in accrued interest on these loans
between the 360/365 and 365/365 method during this time period
exceeds six million dollars."

Because the class action exceeds $5 million and because more than
100 members could be involved in the suit, the complaint falls
under the district court's jurisdiction, according to First Bank.

In its complaint, LDJ wants the court to certify its complaint as
a class action, to award compensatory damages, to downward adjust
the principal balance of the bank's customers in an amount of the
excess interest and to award pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other relief the court deems just.

Bernard Ysursa of Cook, Ysursa, Bartholomew, Brauer and Shevlin in
Belleville; Pat Ducey of the Law Office of Pat Ducey, Thomas R.
Ysursa of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson; and Eric W. Evans
of Roth and Evans in Granite City will be representing LDJ.

Mike W. Bartolacci, Christopher M. Hohn and Jill M. Johnson of St.
Louis will be representing First Bank.

U.S. District Court case number: 3:11-cv-695.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Unit Continues to Face "McGrogan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A unit of First Commonwealth Financial Corporation continues to
defend itself in a class action captioned McGrogan v. First
Commonwealth Bank in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's
August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank is a class action that was
filed on January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The action alleges that the
Company's subsidiary First Commonwealth Bank promised class
members an 8% interest rate on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account
for as long as the class members kept their money on deposit in
the IRA account. The class asserts that the Bank committed fraud,
breached its modified contract with the class members, and
violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market
Rate Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a
roll-over IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate. At that time,
aggregate balances in the IRA Market Rate Savings accounts totaled
approximately $11.5 million. The class members seek monetary
damages for the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for
the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law violations, and attorney's fees. On July 27, 2011,
the court granted class certification as to the breach of contract
claim and denied class certification as to the fraud and
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
claims. The amount of liability, if any, will depend upon
information which is not presently known to the Bank, including
Court's interpretation of the IRA contract and each class member's
life expectancy and pace of distributions from the IRA account.
Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range
of a reasonably possible loss.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation operates through its
subsidiary First Commonwealth Bank, which operates 112 community
banking offices throughout western Pennsylvania and two loan
production offices in downtown Pittsburgh and State College,
Pennsylvania.


FPIC INSURANCE: Signs MOU to Settle TDC Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
FPIC Insurance Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a class action lawsuit filed in connection
with its proposed merger with The Doctors Company, according to
the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

FPIC Insurance Group, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger among the Company, The Doctors Company, a California
domiciled reciprocal inter-insurance exchange, and Fountain
Acquisition Corp., a Florida corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of TDC ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub
will merge with and into the Company, and the Company will
continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of TDC (the "Merger").

On June 29, 2011, the Company, the board of directors of the
Company, TDC and Merger Sub were named in a putative shareholder
class action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the Fourth
Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida, by a purported
shareholder of the Company.

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger for an
allegedly unfair price and as the result of an allegedly unfair
sale process.  The complaint also alleges that the Company, TDC
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches
of their fiduciary duties and that the Company failed to provide
material information to shareholders with respect to the Merger.
The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
Action can proceed as a class action, an order enjoining
completion of the Merger, attorneys' fees and such other relief as
the Court deems just and proper.

On August 9, 2011, the parties in the Action entered into a
memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a
proposed settlement of the Action, which would include the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of the
defendants.  The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among
other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of
settlement, and final approval of the proposed settlement by the
Court.  In addition, in connection with the settlement and as
provided in the memorandum of understanding, the parties
contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement.  Pursuant
to the memorandum of understanding, the Company agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger and filed a
supplement to its revised definitive proxy statement on August 9,
2011.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties
ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into
such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of the merger
consideration that the Company's shareholders are entitled to
receive in the Merger.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the Action and specifically deny that any
further supplemental disclosure was or is required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.  However, (a) to
avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and
the related transactions, (b) to minimize the expense of defending
the Action and (c) to provide additional information to the
Company's shareholders at a time and in a manner that would not
cause any delay of the special meeting of shareholders or the
Merger, the defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed
settlement.  The parties further considered it desirable that the
Action be settled to avoid the expense, risk, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally
resolve the settled claims.


GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Impala Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
General Motors Co. says a class-action suit complaining that GM
fixed rear-end problems on police versions of 2007-08 Impalas, but
not those owned by some 400,000 other drivers, should be thrown
out.

New GM was formed in July 2009 in a government-sponsored sale of
the good assets of "old GM" out of bankruptcy as part of a $49.5
billion bailout.

The Detroit automaker said in court papers that it cannot be held
liable for damages relating to vehicles produced before new GM was
created.

The suit filed by a Pennsylvania owner in U.S. District Court in
Detroit in June should be thrown out because it attempts "to hold
new GM responsible for old GM's liabilities," GM lawyer Benjamin
Jeffers said in a court filing in U.S. District Court in Detroit
on Aug. 11.

New GM said it only agreed to warranty obligations of cars
assembled before 2009.  "New GM did not assume liability for old
GM's design choices, conduct or alleged breaches of liability
under the warranty, and its terms expressly preclude money
damages," the response says.  The suit "is trying to saddle new GM
with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM."

The problem, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in
Detroit, causes owners to burn through rear tires.

The suit wants GM to replace potentially faulty rear suspension
rods.  The Detroit-based automaker sold 423,000 Impalas over the
two-year period.

The suit -- if successful -- could cost GM millions of dollars in
replaced tires and parts.  It's the latest challenge by owners to
automakers who limit the scope of auto recalls or service
campaigns.  It's also sparked dozens of angry complaints from
owners.

Americans spend about $20 billion annually on about 200 million
replacement tires, according to a 2006 government report.
Alignments and other related issues add billions in annual repair
costs to the nation's more than 250 million vehicles on the roads.

The only owner currently named in the suit, Donna Trusky of
Blakely, Pa., bought a new Chevrolet Impala in February 2008 and
said the tires wore out within 6,000 miles.  Her GM dealer
replaced the tires and provided an alignment, but didn't disclose
the spindle rod issue, she said.  According to the suit, GM issued
a service bulletin in 2008 for police versions of the Impala.

Last November, Ms. Trusky couldn't pass an annual inspection
without getting another set of rear tires -- even though the
vehicle had fewer than 25,000 miles.

"Despite having knowledge of this premature wear problem, (GM) has
not recalled the subject cars, which has required class members to
pay the cost of fixing the defective spindle rods as well as for
replacement tires and realignment," alleges the lawsuit, filed
last week.

GM's legal response says because the issue is not that the spindal
rods were manufactured incorrectly, but that the design was the
problem, precludes the lawsuit from going forward.

In its July 2008 bulletin, GM told its dealers to replace the
rods, align the rear wheels and, if necessary, replace the rear
tires. Police agencies that had replaced rear tires themselves
could seek reimbursement for a year.

GM has said the police version of the Impala was different from
those sold to others.  It has a special electrical system and
special suspension system, GM said, to accommodate law enforcement
needs.

In January, U.S. District Judge Sean Cox in Detroit ruled that in
a dispute over OnStar, new GM could not be added as an additional
defendant because of the terms of the sale of assets.

The suit was filed in 2008 naming old GM, VW, Honda and Subaru
over Onstar analog systems that stopped working in February 2008,
despite the fact that the owners claim OnStar promised the systems
would work for the life of the vehicles, among other issues.


HECKMANN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Objections to Magistrate's Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heckmann Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on
its motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit,
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 May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of shareholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010, against the Company and various directors and
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware (the "Class Action").  The Class Action alleges
violations of federal securities laws in connection with the
acquisition of China Water and Drinks Inc.  The Company responded
by filing a motion to transfer the Class Action to California and
a motion to dismiss the case.  On October 6, 2010, the Magistrate
Judge issued a report and recommendation to the District Court
Judge to deny the motion to transfer.  On October 8, 2010, the
court-appointed lead plaintiff, Matthew Haberkorn, filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint that adds China Water as a
defendant.  On October 25, 2010, the Company filed objections to
the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on the motion to
transfer.  The court adopted the report and recommendation on the
motion to transfer on March 31, 2011.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint and a reply to lead
plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss.  On June 16,
2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation to
the District Court Judge to deny the motion to dismiss.  The
Company filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation on the motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiff has filed
a response to the Company's objections.  The court has not yet
ruled on the objections to the report and recommendation on the
motion to dismiss.

The Company says the outcome of the Class Action could have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.


IQT SOLUTIONS: Sacked Workers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that former employees of call centers
in Ontario who claim they were fired without receiving their last
paycheque have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company
they used to work for.

IQT Solutions Ltd. announced it was laying off about 600 workers
at its offices in Oshawa, Ont., in July when it ended its Canadian
operations.

Former employees Bob Brigaitis and Cindy Rupert have filed the
C$30-million lawsuit against the company's shareholders,
affiliated companies and its directors on behalf of the laid-off
Ontario workers.

They are seeking to recover C$20 million in wages and severance
they say are owed, as well as C$10 million in aggravated and
punitive damages.

IQT has not responded to media requests since the layoffs took
place and their Web site is no longer operational.

The lawsuit contains allegations not yet proven in court.

The company also laid off 450 workers in Laval and 140 in Trois
Rivieres, Que.

Some of the Oshawa employees had worked for the company for 10
years when they arrived at work on July 15 to learn they had been
dismissed without pay and would not be receiving their last
paycheck, the employees' lawyer said in a release.


JDA SOFTWARE: Insurer Paid Attorneys' Fees in Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
JDA Software Group, Inc.'s insurer paid in June 2011 the fees of
the plaintiffs' attorneys after the court gave final approval of
the settlement in their shareholder lawsuit, 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.

In December, 2009, the Company was sued in a putative shareholder
class action against its subsidiary, i2 Technologies, Inc., and
its board of directors, in the County Court of Law No. 2 of Dallas
County (No. CC-09-08476-B).  The plaintiffs alleged in this
lawsuit that the directors of i2 breached their fiduciary duties
to shareholders of i2 by selling i2 to the Company via an
allegedly unfair process and at an unfair price, and that the
Company aided and abetted this alleged breach.  On January 26,
2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary
injunction that sought to enjoin the merger between JDA and i2.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, alleging
unspecified monetary damages in addition to declaratory and
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  The Company, i2 and i2's
directors have denied all allegations.  The parties agreed upon a
settlement agreement, dated February 1, 2011 ("Settlement
Agreement").  The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
Agreement on March 3, 2011.  Final Court approval of the
Settlement Agreement, as well as a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice, were issued on May 20, 2011.

The Settlement Agreement provides that (i) the pendency and
prosecution of the lawsuit and the efforts of plaintiffs' counsel
were a reason and cause for the decision by i2's then board of
directors to provide additional disclosures in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about November 19, 2009, in connection with the
Company's acquisition of i2 and (ii) plaintiffs' counsel will
receive an award of attorneys' fees and costs of $0.5 million to
be paid by i2.  The attorney's fees award was funded by i2's
director's and officers' liability insurer and was paid on
June 24, 2011.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Accused of Issuing Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
City of Royal Oak Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Kevin R.
Johnson, Robyn M. Denholm and Scott G. Kriens, Case No. 5:11-cv-
04003 (N.D. Calif., August 15, 2011) is a securities class action
on behalf of all persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Juniper's common stock between July 20, 2010, and July 26, 2011,
inclusive, against Juniper and certain of its officers and
directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

During the Class Period, the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
practices and financial results, the Plaintiff alleges.  The
Plaintiff adds that the defendants repeatedly assured investors
that Juniper was well positioned to deliver against its long-term
model of 20% or higher revenue growth and 25% or higher operating
margin.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Juniper.

Juniper designs, develops, and sells products and services that
together provide its customers with network infrastructure that
creates responsive and trusted environments for accelerating the
deployment of services and applications over a single network.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Juniper.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               -and-

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  katek@rgrdlaw.com

               -and-

          Michael J. Vanoverbeke, Esq.
          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: mvanoverbeke@vmtlaw.com
                  tmichaud@vmtlaw.com


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Nevada Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss an amended class action complaint filed against the
Company in Nevada, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William
P. Weidner.  The complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press
releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1,
2007 through November 6, 2008.  The complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner.  The complaint alleges
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008.  The
complaint, which is substantially similar to the Fosbre
litigation, seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On November 1, 2010, a purported
class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated
action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner.
The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual
defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and
misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008.  The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  On
January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which is pending before the U.S. District
Court.  This action is in a preliminary stage and management has
determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter
or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.  The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LORAL SPACE: Securities Suit vs. Old Loral Concluded
----------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities lawsuit against Loral Space &
Communications Inc.'s predecessor has been concluded after the
plaintiffs failed to appeal to the United States Supreme Court the
affirmation of that lawsuit's dismissal, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchanged Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed a purported class action complaint against Bernard L.
Schwartz, the former Chief Executive Officer of Loral Space &
Communications Ltd. ("Old Loral"), in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint
sought, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount and
reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses.  The
complaint alleged (a) that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or
failing to state material facts about the Company's financial
condition relating to the sale of assets by Old Loral to Intelsat
and Old Loral's Chapter 11 filing, and (b) that Mr. Schwartz is
secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
person" of Old Loral.  The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the
lawsuit has been asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral
common stock during the period from June 30, 2003, through
July 15, 2003, excluding the defendant and certain persons related
to or affiliated with him.  In November 2003, three other
complaints against Mr. Schwartz with substantially similar
allegations were consolidated into the Beleson case.  The
defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in July 2008, and
plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment in
September 2008.  In February 2009, the District Court granted
defendant's motion and denied plaintiffs' cross motion.  In March
2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with respect to the
District Court's decision.  Pursuant to stipulations entered into
in February, May, July, August and October 2010 among the parties
and the plaintiffs in the previously disclosed Christ case, the
appeal, which had been consolidated with the Christ case, was
withdrawn, provided however, that plaintiffs could reinstate the
appeal on or before November 19, 2010.

In November 2010, plaintiffs did reinstate the appeal, and, in
April 2011, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the
District Court. Plaintiffs did not appeal the decision to the
United States Supreme Court within the applicable time period for
filing such an appeal and, therefore, the Beleson case has been
concluded and Loral will not incur any liability as a result
thereof.


MEDIVATION INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medivation, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit, 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.

In March 2010, the first of three putative securities class action
lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers.  The lawsuits are largely identical and
allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants disseminated false and misleading statements about the
effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of their costs
and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock in the Company
between September 21, 2006, and March 2, 2010.  In September 2010,
the court entered an order consolidating the actions, and in April
2011 the court entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund L.P. and
its attorneys as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  On May 9, 2011,
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated, amended complaint.  On
June 8, 2011, the Company and those of its officers who have been
served in the action filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed
and was scheduled to be heard by the Court on August 12, 2011.

The Company says this lawsuit is subject to inherent
uncertainties, and the actual cost will depend upon many unknown
factors.  The outcome of the litigation is necessarily uncertain,
the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the
defense of the lawsuit and it may not prevail.  The Company has
not established any reserve for any potential liability relating
to this lawsuit.  The Company's management believes that the
Company has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.  The Company believes it is entitled to coverage under
its relevant insurance policies, subject to a $350,000 retention,
but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient.  As of
June 30, 2011, the Company had incurred an aggregate of $282,000
in expenses chargeable against that retention.


MERRILL LYNCH: Claims in BofA Securities Class Actions Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court has dismissed claims in In re Banc of America Securities,
Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Litigation last month, according to Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.'s
August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On January 1, 2009, Merrill Lynch was acquired by Bank of America
Corporation through the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of
Bank of America with and into ML & Co. with ML & Co. continuing as
the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of
America.

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

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. was formed in 1914 and became a publicly
traded company on June 23, 1971.


MERRILL LYNCH: Illinois Funeral Directors' Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. continues to defend itself in
a consolidated class action over matters concerning the Illinois
Funeral Directors Association, according to the Company's
August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated filed a motion
to dismiss the lawsuit captioned David Tipsword as Trustee of
Mildred E. Tipsword Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. I.F.D.A. Services Inc., et al.
action, which was denied on July 1, 2011.

All defendants in the lawsuit captioned Clancy-Gernon Funeral
Home, Inc., et al. v. MLPF&S, et al. filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.  The court denied MLBT-FSB's motion to dismiss on
June 21, 2011.

On March 14, 2011, the action titled Pettett Funeral Home, Ltd.,
et al. v. MLPF&S, et al. was ordered consolidated with the
Tipsword and Clancy-Gernon matters. On April 5, 2011, the pending
motion to dismiss the Pettett third amended complaint was denied
without prejudice and ordered to be refiled in the consolidated
action, which was done on June 21, 2011.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. was formed in 1914 and became a publicly
traded company on June 23, 1971.


MERRILL LYNCH: Lehman Brothers Litigation Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. continues to defend itself in the Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. Litigation.

Beginning in September 2008, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, among other underwriters and individuals, was named
as a defendant in several putative class action complaints filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
and state courts in Arkansas, California, New York and Texas.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false
or misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and
convertible stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and
seek unspecified damages.

All cases against the defendants have now been transferred or
conditionally transferred to the multi-district litigation
captioned In re Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  MLPF&S and other defendants moved to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was denied without prejudice on March 17, 2010, when
plaintiffs advised the SDNY District Court that they would seek to
file a third amended complaint.

On June 4, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class
action complaint, and on July 27, 2011, the court granted in part
and denied in part the motion. Certain of the allegations in the
complaint that purported to support the Section 11 claim against
the underwriter defendants were dismissed; others were not
dismissed relating to alleged misstatements regarding Lehman
Brothers Holding Inc.'s leverage and financial condition, risk
management and risk concentrations.
No further updates were reported the Company's August 5, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. was formed in 1914 and became a publicly
traded company on June 23, 1971.


MERRILL LYNCH: Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits in the Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation
remain pending, according to Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.'s August 5,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Bank of America Corporation and its affiliates and Merrill Lynch
entities and their affiliates have been named as defendants in
several cases relating to their various roles as issuer,
originator, seller, depositor, sponsor, underwriter or controlling
entity in mortgage-backed securities or MBS offerings, pursuant to
which the MBS investors were entitled to a portion of the cash
flow from the underlying pools of mortgages. These cases generally
include purported class action lawsuits and actions by individual
MBS purchasers. Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these
cases generally allege that the registration statements,
prospectuses and prospectus supplements for securities issued by
securitization trusts contained material misrepresentations and
omissions, in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 or state securities laws and other state
statutory and common laws.

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

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

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. was formed in 1914 and became a publicly
traded company on June 23, 1971.


MILLER ENERGY: Barrett Johnston Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee-based Barrett Johnston, LLC on August 17 disclosed that
a class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of
purchasers of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. publicly traded
securities during the period between March 22, 2010, and August 1,
2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 12, 2011.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Timothy
L. Miles of Barrett Johnston, LLC at (615) 244-2202, Toll Free
(866) 263-0668, or e-mail tmiles@barrettjohnston.com or our
Web site http://www.barrettjohnston.com

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

The complaint charges Miller and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Miller is an independent exploration and production company that
utilizes seismic data and other technologies for geophysical
exploration and development of oil and gas wells.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Miller stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a Class Period
high of $8.02 per share on July 15, 2011.

On July 28, 2011, TheStreetSweeper published an investigative
report on Miller regarding the Company's relationship with several
financial firms, highlighting potential accounting problems.
Specifically, the report questioned the Company's purchase of
abandoned assets in Alaska for $4.5 million, later fixing the
value of those assets at more than $350 million on its books. On
this news, Miller's stock dropped $1.64 per share to close at
$5.40 per share on July 28, 2011.  Then, on August 1, 2011, the
Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing that the Company
would be issuing revised financial statements, particularly with
respect to its statement of cash flows for the periods ended
January 31, 2011, October 31, 2010 and July 31, 2010, pursuant to
an investigation by the Company's Audit Committee.  On August 2,
2011, Miller stock dropped another $0.58 per share, to close at
$3.37 per share, the Company's lowest share price during the Class
Period, and a decline of 58% from the Class Period high of $8.02
per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Miller Energy publicly traded securities during the Class Period.
The plaintiff is represented by Barrett Johnston, LLC based in
Nashville, Tennessee.

     CONTACT: Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
              Barrett Johnston, LLC
              217 Second Avenue North
              Nashville, TN 37201
              Telephone: 615-244-2202
              E-mail: tmiles@barrettjohnston.com


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Recapitalization Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moneygram International Inc. continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits in connection with the recapitalization
agreement it entered into early this year, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

Following shareholder approval on May 18, 2011, the Company
completed its recapitalization transaction in accordance with the
Recapitalization Agreement dated as of March 7, 2011, as amended,
by and among the Company, affiliates and co-investors of Thomas H.
Lee Partners, L.P. and affiliates of Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Pursuant to the Recapitalization Agreement, (i) THL converted all
of its shares of Series B Participating Convertible Preferred
Stock, par value $0.01 per share into 286.4 million shares of
common stock and (ii) Goldman Sachs converted all of its shares of
Series B-1 Participating Convertible Preferred Stock, par value
$0.01 per share into 157,686 shares of Series D Participating
Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share and (iii)
THL received 28.2 million additional shares of common stock and
$140.8 million in cash, and Goldman Sachs received 15,503
additional shares of D Stock and $77.5 million in cash.

On April 15, 2011 a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by Willie R. Pittman purporting to be a
class action complaint on behalf of all shareholders and a
shareholder derivative complaint against the Company, THL, Goldman
Sachs and each of the Company's directors.  Ms. Pittman alleges in
her complaint that she is a stockholder of the Company and
asserts, among other things, (i) breach of fiduciary duty and
disclosure claims against the Company's directors, THL and Goldman
Sachs, (ii) breach of the Company's certificate of incorporation
claims against the Company, THL and Goldman Sachs, and (iii)
claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against
Goldman Sachs.  Ms. Pittman purports to sue on her own behalf and
on behalf of the Company and its stockholders.  Ms. Pittman sought
to, among other things, enjoin or rescind the 2011
Recapitalization.  On April 29, 2011 the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint to add two additional plaintiffs.  On May 16,
2011 a hearing to enjoin or rescind the 2011 Recapitalization was
held in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and at the
hearing, the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction was
denied.

On May 12, 2011 a complaint was filed in the County Court at Law
No. 3 in Dallas County, Texas by Hilary Kramer purporting to be a
class action complaint on behalf of all shareholders and a
shareholder derivative complaint against the Company, THL, Goldman
Sachs and each of the Company's directors.  Ms. Kramer alleges in
her complaint that she is a stockholder of the Company and
asserts, among other things, (i) breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the Company's directors, THL and Goldman Sachs and (ii)
claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against
Goldman Sachs.  Ms. Kramer purports to sue on her own behalf and
on behalf of the Company and its stockholders.  Ms. Kramer sought
to, among other things, enjoin the 2011 Recapitalization.  The
defendants have moved for the Texas court to stay this litigation
in favor of the Pittman litigation in Delaware, which has an
overlapping class definition.


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
John W. Keating, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc., Jon E.
Barfield, William R. Hambrecht, Jeanne P. Jackson, Sanjay K. Jha,
Keith A. Meister, Thomas J. Meredith, Daniel A. Ninivaggi, James
R. Stengel, Anthony J. Vinciquerra, Andrew J. Viterbi and Google
Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-28854 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
August 15, 2011) is a direct shareholder class action arising out
of the proposed acquisition of Motorola by Google.

In pursuing the Proposed Transaction, each of the defendants has
violated applicable law by directly breaching and aiding abetting
breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care owed to
plaintiff and the proposed class, Mr. Keating alleges.  He points
out that the offered consideration does not compensate
shareholders for the Company's intrinsic value and stand-alone
alternatives going forward, nor does it compensate shareholders
for the Company's value as a strategic asset for Google.

Motorola shareholders claim Google's $12.5 billion acquisition of
the company -- at a 63% premium to the pre-merger price -- is
inadequate, reports Courthouse News Service.

Mr. Keating is a shareholder of Motorola.

Motorola provides technologies, products, and services for mobile
and wire line digital communication, information, and
entertainment applications.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of Motorola.  Google maintains an index of
Web sites and other online content for users, advertisers, and
Google network members and other content providers.

A copy of the Complaint in Keating v. Motorola Mobility Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11CH28854 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/17/MotGoog.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          351 West Hubbard Street, Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057
          Facsimile: (312) 634-0059
          E-mail: Rifkind@laskyrifkind.com
                  newton@laskyrifkind.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: cobrien@rgrdlaw.com
                  SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


MYLIFE.COM: Class Action Over E-mail Solicitations Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claiming that MyLife.com, a social-networking Web site dedicated
to reconnecting old classmates, is a scam, can move ahead, a
federal judge ruled.

MyLife attracts clients by sending mass e-mail solicitations
saying that "someone" was searching for them, according to the
complaint. The class said MyLife hooks users with a "free trial
period," then charges a fee to show an ultimately bogus list of
names.

MyLife is really a troupe of hucksters in the latest incarnation
of another Web site called Classmates.com, the complaint says.

One plaintiff, John Clerkin, said he paid $21.95 for a one-month
subscription, but found that he had been charged more than $150
when he tried to cancel after no one made contact.

MyLife first refused to refund the money, but then paid
Mr. Clerkin $104.55, the suit says.

Another plaintiff, Veronica Mendez, signed up for a $5 trial
subscription but was charged $60.  No one she knew was actually
searching for her either.

In addition to overbilling, the Web site hacked into subscribers'
computers and spammed contacts in their e-mail address books with
more solicitations, according to the February complaint.

Consumer forums cited in the complaint have testimonials from
other subscribers, including one who created a profile and learned
that seven people were looking for an individual named "sfsf
sdgfsdgs."

MyLife, six individual defendants, and Oak Venture Capital, a firm
the complaint says provided MyLife with a $25 million bankroll,
moved for dismissal last month on jurisdictional grounds.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken upheld the claim that MyLife's
initial e-mail solicitations violated Consumers Legal Remedies
Act. The plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that they were sold
fake names and useless information, and that they were billed for
a different subscription than the one they selected.

The individual defendants and Oak Venture Capital are off the
hook, however, because the "complaint does not explain what these
defendants did to participate in the alleged scheme," according to
the Aug. 15 decision.

In addition to that claim, the complaint alleges breach of
contract, unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

The ruling also consolidated this case with two fraud actions
against MyLife.com.  The next hearing of the consolidated amended
class action is Sept. 1.

Judge Wilken amended the order on Aug. 16 to change a case number
cited for consolidation.

A copy of the Amended Order Granting Defendant Gorall's Rule 12
(B) (2) Motion to Dismiss, Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendants' Rule 12 (B) (6) Motion to Dismiss and Granting in Part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel in Clerkin, et
al. v. MyLife.com, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00527 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at http://is.gd/ckHSvS

MyLife.com is represented by:

          John Shaeffer, Esq.
          LATHROP & GAGE
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1623
          Telephone: (310) 789-4602
          E-mail: jshaeffer@lathropgage.com

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2121 North California Blvd, Suite 1010
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596-7351
          Telephone: (925) 482-1515
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
for summary judgment in the consolidated securities lawsuit
pending 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.

On September 15, 2008, and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between
February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.  On December 11, 2008,
these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled
Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H
(RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C.,
S.D. Cal.).  In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case
In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation.  The plaintiffs
filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who
allegedly purchased the Company's stock between February 27, 2007,
and November 10, 2008.  The consolidated complaint names the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers
as defendants.  The consolidated complaint alleges generally that
the Company issued materially false and misleading statements
during the relevant time period regarding the strength of the
Company's products and market share, the Company's financial
results and its internal controls.  The plaintiffs are seeking an
unspecified amount of damages and costs.  The court has denied
defendants' motions to dismiss.  In May 2010, the court entered an
order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified a class of purchasers of Company common stock between
February 27, 2007, and September 15, 2008.

On February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery, the Company
filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims.
A trial date had been set for May 10, 2011.  On March 15, 2011,
the case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable
Anthony J. Battaglia.  Following the reassignment, the court
vacated the trial date pending the court's consideration of
dispositive motions.  Oral argument on the motion for summary
judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011, after which the
court took the matter under submission.  The court has not yet
issued a ruling on the motion.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
The Company adds that it is unable, at this time, to estimate the
effects of this lawsuit on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


OLIVE GARDEN: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis A Scare
-------------------------------------------------------
Claire Mitchell, writing for Food Poison Journal, reports that a
class action lawsuit was filed in Cumberland County on behalf of
those individuals who were required to receive a Hepatitis A shot
after potentially being exposed to the virus while dining at a
Fayetteville, North Carolina Olive Garden restaurant.

The Hepatitis A scare began when Cumberland County Health
Department officials announced that anyone who visited the
Fayetteville Olive Garden Restaurant at 234 N. McPherson Church
Road anytime on July 25, 26, 28, 29, 31 and August 1, 2 and 8 may
have been exposed through an employee who tested positive for the
disease.

The North Carolina state epidemiologist Dr. Megan Davies explained
that if the vaccine or injection of Hepatitis A immune globulin is
administered within 2 weeks of exposure, it will be effective in
preventing infection.  "We encourage anyone who ate at the
restaurant on any of the dates mentioned to contact their own
health care provider or their local health department about
vaccination.  Individuals current on hepatitis A vaccine are
considered protected from this virus," Dr. Davies said in a press
release.

According to a report by Sonia Whalen-Miller of The Daily Courier,
a 40 year old woman who was visiting family in Cumberland County
had dined at the Fayetteville Olive Garden.  She only found out
about the Hepatitis A scare after her nephew informed her of the
health department's announcement.  She immediately contacted her
health department in Fayette County where she was able to receive
the vaccine.

However, as the woman explains, this was nonetheless an upsetting
experience.  Ms. Whalen-Miller reports:

"For the local woman, this experience has been frightening and has
caused her to think differently about the food she ingests.

"The woman said she is disappointed a warning was not issued
across the country so that people who may have been on vacation
there could have learned about the incident."

"I've been told that 800-1000 people eat at that particular Olive
Garden restaurant each day.  What about the people who may have
stopped to eat there while driving south or to the beach on
vacation? Given it's a main highway to the south, I think about
other residents who might have stopped to eat there.  Not everyone
has a family member in the state of North Carolina that can call
and tell them like I did," she said.

The Cumberland County free clinic will continue to administer
immune globulin injections until today, August 22, 2011, to
accommodate those patrons who dined at Olive Garden during the
possible exposure dates in August.


OPTIONSXPRESS: Inks Deal to Settle "Schwab Merger" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
OptionsXpress Holdings Inc. entered into an agreement to settle
claims related to The Charles Schwab Corporation's proposed
acquisition of the Company, according to the Company's August 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

A number of purported class action lawsuits were filed by
optionsXpress stockholders challenging Schwab's proposed
acquisition of optionsXpress.  These suits name as defendants
optionsXpress, members of optionsXpress' board of directors,
Schwab and Neon Acquisition Corp.

Seven lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  By orders dated April 6, 2011 and April 27, 2011, the
Illinois lawsuits were consolidated under the caption Kolton v.
Gray, et al. (Civ. Action No. 11CH10657).  On May 9, 2011, the
Illinois plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

Three lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  By order dated April 25, 2011, the Delaware lawsuits
were consolidated under the caption In re optionsXpress Holdings,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6314-VCL.  The
Delaware plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 25, 2011.  On April 28, 2011, the Delaware court stayed the
Consolidated Delaware Action in favor of the Consolidated Illinois
Action.

The complaints generally allege that (i) the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties owed to optionsXpress' stockholders by
allegedly approving the merger agreement at an unfair price and
through an unfair process and by agreeing to certain deal
protection devices; and (ii) the transaction unfairly benefits
certain members of optionsXpress' board of directors, including
the chief executive officer, to the disadvantage of other
optionsXpress stockholders.  The complaints also allege that
Schwab and Neon Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the alleged
fiduciary breaches by the individual defendants.  The complaints
seek, among other relief, to enjoin the transaction, rescission in
the event the transaction is consummated, an order directing
defendants to account to plaintiff and other members of the
putative class for all damages caused by their breaches, and an
award of costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys'
and expert fees.

On May 20, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the Illinois Amended
Complaint.  On June 16, 2011, the Illinois court dismissed with
prejudice all claims against Schwab and Neon Acquisition Corp. in
the Consolidated Illinois Action.

On July 29, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve all claims related to the Schwab Merger.  Per the terms
of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the parties on
June 22, 2011, the parties agreed that, in exchange for full
releases of all claims related to the Schwab Merger, defendants
would provide supplemental disclosures to the amended Registration
Statement on Form S-4, which was filed by Schwab with the SEC on
July 22, 2011.  Defendants have also agreed not to oppose any fee
application by plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $0.7
million.  The settlement is subject to final documentation and
court approval and is conditioned on consummation of the Schwab
Merger.  Defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the
Schwab Merger and believe the claims lack merit.  In the event the
settlement is not finalized, the remaining defendants will
continue to defend the claims vigorously.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Most Claims in "Peluso" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
All claims against Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., and its subsidiaries in
a consumer class action lawsuit have been dismissed, except for a
claim for breach of fiduciary duty against a subsidiary, 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 October 1, 2010, a putative consumer class action complaint,
captioned Peluso v. Orbitz.com, Orbitz, LLC (d/b/a Orbitz.com),
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide Development, LLC, Orbitz
Worldwide International, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, et al., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges
that the defendants overbilled customers for hotel occupancy taxes
and sales taxes imposed by the City and State of New York and
asserts claims for violation of New York's deceptive business
practices statute, declaratory and injunctive relief, conversion,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.  On October 7, 2010, the case was consolidated with
similar cases that were previously filed against other online
travel companies ("OTCs").

On May 31, 2011, and June 21, 2011, respectively, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed all of the defendants other than Orbitz, LLC, and all of
the plaintiff's claims against Orbitz, LLC, except for the claim
for breach of fiduciary duty, and further transferred the sole
remaining claim to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.


ORECK CORP: Number of People Signing Up for Class Action Grows
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Keogh Law Firm, Ltd., dozens of Oreck Halo purchasers
have signed onto class action lawsuit, getting close to "100
person" requirement.  To be included as one of the 100 named
purchasers, visit http://www.oreckclassaction.com.

In May of 2011, the owner of an Oreck Halo vacuum filed a class
action against Oreck Corporation in Illinois federal court.
(Ruscitti v. Oreck Corporation 1:11-cv-03121).  Since
Mr. Ruscitti filed the class action case, dozens of Oreck Halo
purchasers across the country have signed onto the suit.  The
lawyers leading the class action believe that there are advantages
to adding a claim for breach of written warranty under the Federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  That law requires at least 100 Oreck
Halo purchasers be identified as original purchasers for
residential use of the Oreck Halo vacuum.  The lawyers are pleased
to report that the number of Oreck Halo purchasers who have signed
onto the case continues to rise and reach the important "100
person" limit.  To learn more about the case, or be included as
one of the 100 named purchasers, go to
http://www.oreckclassaction.com

The primary charge in the class action lawsuit is that Oreck
misrepresented the "germ killing" abilities of its Oreck Halo
vacuum.  The lawsuit alleges that Oreck aggressively advertised
and marketed the Halo vacuum's ability to "kill and reduce
virtually all bacteria, viruses, germs, mold, and allergens that
exist on carpets and floor surfaces" including the flu and common
cold by use of ultra violet light.  According to the lawsuit, such
claims were not substantiated.  The lawsuit alleges Oreck charged
consumers a substantial premium for the "germ killing" Halo
vacuum, and seeks remedies under state consumer protection laws
related to false advertising.  The Federal Trade Commission
charged Oreck with making false and deceptive health claims
regarding its Halo vacuum and ProShield Plus air cleaner products.
(FTC File No. 102 3033).  The FTC action was resolved with Oreck
agreeing to pay the FTC $750,000.  Oreck also agreed to refrain
from making further unsubstantiated health claims in the
advertising related to all of its products.


PHIL&TEDS USA: Recalls 54,000 Table-Top Clip-on Chairs
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
phil&teds USA Inc, of Fort Collins, Colorado, announced a
voluntary recall of about 54,000 units of "metoo" Clip-on Chair.
These were the subject of a product safety alert issued May 6,
2011.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

Missing or worn clamp pads allow the chairs to detach from a
variety of different table surfaces, posing a fall hazard.  In
addition, when the chair detaches, children's fingers can be
caught between the bar and clamping mechanism, posing an
amputation hazard.  Also, user instructions for the chairs are
inadequate, increasing the likelihood of consumer misuse.

phil&teds and CPSC have received 19 reports of the chairs falling
from different table surfaces, including five reports with
injuries.  Two reports of injuries involved children's fingers
being severely pinched, lacerated, crushed or amputated.  The
three other reports of injury involved bruising after a chair
detached suddenly and a child struck the table or floor.

The product is an infant/toddler chair with a nylon fabric seat
and a metal frame that clamps onto tables using two metal vise
clamps.  The upper part of each clamp rests on the table top and
has either a rubber pad on its underside or a rubber boot covering
the clamp.  The chair is sold in three fabric colors -- red, black
and navy.  Chairs subject to this recall do not have black plastic
spacers between the cross bar and the clamps.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11306.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Buy Buy Baby, Target, Toys R Us and their online sites;
philandteds.com; Amazon.com; other online retailers; and a variety
of independent juvenile specialty stores from May 2006 to May 2011
for between $40 and $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
the company to receive a free repair kit and revised user
instructions.  Consumers who previously received a repair kit with
only rubber boots should also stop using the chair and contact the
company for the new repair kit.  For additional information,
contact phil&teds USA at (855) 652-9019 or visit the company's Web
site at http://www.philandteds.com/support/


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Opposes Filing of Third Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in
the purported class action lawsuit pending in Georgia, 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 October 25, 2007, the same stockholder, who filed a securities
lawsuit against the Company, filed a second purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against Piedmont and its board of directors.  The lawsuit
is captioned In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-02660-CAP.  The complaint
attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of (i) those
persons who were entitled to tender their shares pursuant to the
tender offer filed with the SEC by Lex-Win Acquisition LLC, a
former stockholder, on May 25, 2007, and (ii) all persons who are
entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed with the SEC on
October 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder.
In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants have also
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed classes.

On December 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking that
the court designate it as lead plaintiff and its counsel as class
lead counsel, which the court granted on May 2, 2008.

On May 19, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which contained the same counts as the original complaint.  On
June 30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On March 30, 2009, the court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court dismissed two
of the four counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose information
regarding the likelihood of a listing in the Company's amended
response to the Lex-Win tender offer and (ii) purported
misstatements or omissions in the Company's proxy statement
concerning then-existing market conditions, the alternatives to a
listing or extension that were explored by the defendants, the
results of conversations with potential buyers as to the Company's
valuation, and certain details of the Company's share redemption
program.  On April 13, 2009, defendants moved for reconsideration
of the court's March 30, 2009 order or, alternatively, for
certification of the order for immediate appellate review.  The
defendants also requested that the proceedings be stayed pending
consideration of the motion.  On June 19, 2009, the court denied
the motion for reconsideration and the motion for certification of
the order for immediate appellate review.

On April 20, 2009, the plaintiff, joined by a second plaintiff,
filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the
federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder.
The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and void any
authorizations secured by the proxy statement, and to compel a
tender offer.  On May 11, 2009, the defendants answered the second
amended complaint.

On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 10, 2010.  Defendants sought and received
permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal
the class certification order on an interlocutory basis.  On April
11, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the
district court's order certifying a class and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

On July 15, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a third amended complaint.  The defendants filed their response in
opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for leave on August 1, 2011.
The time for the plaintiffs to file their reply in support of
their motion for leave has not yet expired.

The parties are engaged in discovery.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit, and as such, have determined that the
risk of material loss associated with this lawsuit is remote.
Further, the Company says it will continue to vigorously defend
this action.  Due to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation
process, the Company's assessment of the ultimate potential
financial impact of the case notwithstanding, the risk of
financial loss does exist, as with any litigation.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Still Defends Securities Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., continues to defend a
securities class action lawsuit pending in Maryland, 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 March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a purported class action
and derivative complaint in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont,
Piedmont's previous advisors, and the officers and directors of
Piedmont prior to the closing of the Internalization.  The
complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of
those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007.  The lawsuit is
captioned In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP.

The complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that the
consideration to be paid as part of the Internalization is
excessive; (ii) violations of Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based upon
allegations that the proxy statement contains false and misleading
statements or omits to state material facts; (iii) that the board
of directors and the current and previous advisors breached their
fiduciary duties to the class and to Piedmont; and (iv) that the
proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich certain directors
and officers of Piedmont.

The complaint seeks, among other things, (i) certification of the
class action; (ii) a judgment declaring the proxy statement false
and misleading; (iii) unspecified monetary damages; (iv) to
nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during the proxy
process; (v) to nullify the Internalization; (vi) restitution for
disgorgement of profits, benefits, and other compensation for
wrongful conduct and fiduciary breaches; (vii) the nomination and
election of new independent directors, and the retention of a new
financial advisor to assess the advisability of Piedmont's
strategic alternatives; and (viii) the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
contains the same counts as the original complaint, with amended
factual allegations based primarily on events occurring subsequent
to the original complaint and the addition of a Piedmont officer
as an individual defendant.

On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in Piedmont's proxy
statement details of certain expressions of interest by a third
party in acquiring Piedmont.  On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the
federal proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy
statement to obtain approval for Internalization omitted details
of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.  The
second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages, to nullify and rescind Internalization, and to
cancel and rescind any stock issued to the defendants as
consideration for Internalization.  On May 12, 2008, the
defendants answered the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On September 16, 2009, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On September 30,
2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied on October 30, 2009.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The court
denied the motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in
part, the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  On
August 12, 2010, the defendants filed a motion seeking to certify
the court's decision on the parties' motions for summary judgment
for immediate appeal.  On November 1, 2010, the court denied the
defendants' motion to certify its order on the parties' motions
for summary judgment for immediate appeal.  No trial date has been
set.

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

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit, and as such, have determined that the
risk of material loss associated with this lawsuit is remote.
Further, the Company will continue to vigorously defend this
action.  Due to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation
process, the Company's assessment of the ultimate potential
financial impact of the case notwithstanding, the risk of
financial loss does exist, as with any litigation.


PROSHARES TRUST: Continues to Defend Consolidated New York Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II continues to defend a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Trust's August 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

ProShares Trust II ("Trust") and certain officers are defendants
(along with several other parties) in a consolidated class action
styled In re ProShares Trust Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 09-
cv-6935, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The complaint, as amended, alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 by including untrue statements of material fact and
omitting material facts in the Registration Statement for one or
more ProShares exchange-traded funds ("ETFs"), allegedly failing
to adequately disclose the Funds' investment objectives and risks.
The six Funds of the Trust named in the complaint are ProShares
Ultra Silver, ProShares UltraShort Gold, ProShares Ultra Gold,
ProShares UltraShort DJ-UBS Crude Oil, ProShares Ultra DJ-UBS
Crude Oil and ProShares UltraShort Silver.  The Trust believes the
complaint is without merit and that the anticipated outcome will
not adversely impact the operation of the Trust or any of its
Funds.  Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded in the
balance sheet and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated at this time.

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


QC HOLDINGS: Strikes Deal to Settle Class Action Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings Inc. entered into a tentative agreement to settle a
purported class action arbitration in Missouri, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On October 13, 2006, one of the Company's Missouri customers sued
the Company in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri in
a purported class action.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the
Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans under $500 and the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.  The lawsuit seeks monetary
damages and a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement
with the plaintiff is not enforceable on a variety of theories.
The Company moved to compel arbitration of this matter.  In
December 2007, the court refused to enforce the class action
waiver provision in the Company's customer arbitration agreement,
ordered the case to arbitration and dismissed the lawsuit filed in
Circuit Court.  In July 2008, the Company filed its appeal of the
court's order with the Missouri Court of Appeals.  In December
2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court.  In September 2009, the plaintiff filed her action in
arbitration.  The Company has filed its answer, and a three-person
arbitration panel has been chosen.  Discovery has commenced, and
the parties were scheduled to argue class certification in August
2011.  In early August 2011, the Company and plaintiff reached a
tentative agreement to settle this purported class action
arbitration for approximately $1.9 million.  As of June 30, 2011,
the Company has recorded a $2.0 million liability in accrued
expenses and other liabilities in connection with this tentative
settlement and anticipated additional legal expenses to effect the
settlement.


QC HOLDINGS: Class Action Lawsuit in North Carolina Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself from a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On February 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries,
including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr.
Don Early, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North
Carolina in a putative class action lawsuit filed by James B.
Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of a
Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided
certain services in connection with the bank's origination of
payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the
Company's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act,
the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan
Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and the
state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by the
bank to the two plaintiffs through the Company's retail locations
in North Carolina.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company made the
payday loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state
statutes, and that if the Company is not viewed as the "actual
lenders or makers" of the payday loans, its services to the bank
that made the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.
Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.  Plaintiffs have not sued the
bank in this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint
that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks
to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as
the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North
Carolina and federal law.  In July 2011, the parties completed a
weeklong hearing on the Company's motion to enforce its class
action waiver provision and its arbitration provision.  The
Company expects to receive a decision from the trial court by the
end of 2011.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: 10th Circuit Affirms Retiree Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of a putative class action filed on behalf of certain of
Qwest Communications International Inc.'s retirees, 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.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of the
Company's retirees was brought against the Company, the Qwest
Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal
district court in Colorado in connection with the Company's
decision to reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees
to a $10,000 benefit.  The action was filed on March 30, 2007.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company and
other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance
benefit at the levels in place before the Company decided to
reduce them.  Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance
benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief.  The
district court ruled in the Company's favor on the central issue
of whether the Company properly reserved its right to reduce the
life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents.
The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to assert
additional claims.  In 2009, the court dismissed or granted
summary judgment to the Company on all of the plaintiffs' claims.
The plaintiffs appealed the court's decision to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  On June 2, 2011, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the
District Court's decision.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Still Negotiating State-Wide Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. continues to negotiate
settlements on a state-by-state basis, except for the three states
that have settled, in its rights-of-way litigation, 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.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against the
Company on behalf of landowners on various dates and in various
courts in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois (where there is a federal and a state court
case), Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington.  For the most part, the
complaints challenge the Company's right to install the Company's
fiber-optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.  The complaints
allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that
did not include the right to permit the Company to install its
fiber-optic cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs'
consent.  Most of the actions purport to be brought on behalf of
state-wide classes in the named plaintiffs' respective states,
although two of the currently pending actions purport to be
brought on behalf of multi-state classes.  Specifically, the
Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of landowners
in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio
and Wisconsin, and the Indiana state court action purports to be
on behalf of a national class of landowners.  In general, the
complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust
enrichment, as well as punitive damages.  On July 18, 2008, a
federal district court in Massachusetts entered an order
preliminarily approving a settlement of all of the actions, except
the action pending in Tennessee.  On September 10, 2009, the court
denied final approval of the settlement on grounds that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction.  On December 9, 2009, the court
issued a revised ruling that, among other things, denied a motion
for approval as moot and dismissed the matter for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  The parties are now engaged in negotiating
settlements on a state-by-state basis, and have filed and received
preliminary approval of a settlement in Illinois and Alabama
federal courts as well as Tennessee state court.


RALCORP HOLDINGS: Units Continue to Defend Suits in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against class action lawsuits pending 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.

Two subsidiaries of the Company are subject to three pending
lawsuits brought by former employees currently pending in separate
California state courts alleging, among other things, that
employees did not receive sufficient meal breaks resulting in
incorrect wage statements, unpaid overtime and untimely payments
to terminated employees.  Each of these lawsuits was filed as a
class action and seeks to include in the class certain current and
former employees of the respective subsidiary involved.  In each
case, the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, interest,
attorneys' fees, compensatory and other monetary damages and
injunctive relief.  No determination has been made by either court
regarding class certification and there can be no assurance as to
whether a class will be certified or, if a class is certified, as
to the scope of such class.  The Company's liability, if any,
relating to these lawsuits cannot be reasonably estimated at this
time, yet is not likely to be material to its consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


RENAL ADVANTAGE: Accused of Violating Calif. Overtime Pay Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 15, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Renal Advantage, Inc. by the San Diego overtime lawyers at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on behalf of Dietitians who claim
the dialysis centers violated their rights under the California
Labor Code.  The lawsuit against Renal Advantage for wage & hour
violations was filed in San Diego Superior Court and is entitled
Rosenberg vs. Renal Advantage, Case No. 37-2011-00096307.

According to the complaint, dietitians allege that Renal Advantage
failed to "properly compensate them for overtime hours worked" and
illicitly prevented them from viewing complete and accurate wage
statements, in violation of California overtime pay laws.  The
complaint asserts that Renal Advantage intentionally misclassified
dietitians as exempt from state overtime requirements in order to
avoid paying them overtime compensation.

The dietitians claim they should not have been classified as
exempt from overtime pay under the law because they never acted as
executives or professionals "engaged in the traditional
professions of medicine," which therefore means they should have
been classified as non-exempt employees, entitled to overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight in a workday
and forty in a workweek under the California Labor Code.

Further allegations in the Renal Advantage Dietitian class action
lawsuit state that the dialysis centers systematically failed to
provide complete and accurate wage statements to the employees, in
violation of California Labor Code.  Specifically, the complaint
asserts that Renal Advantage provided wage statements "which
failed to show, among other things, the number of hours worked."
According to California Labor Code, employers are required to give
all employees itemized wage statements which accurately show gross
wages along with the corresponding hourly rates for all time
worked, throughout the pay period.

For more information on the lawsuit, visit the Renal Advantage
Dietitian class action Web site or call (866) 771-7099.

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


ROVI CORP: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Burke" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a class action
lawsuit against a former subsidiary of Rovi Corporation, 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 August 11, 2009, plaintiff filed a purported class action
lawsuit, captioned John Burke v. TV Guide Magazine Group, Inc.,
Open Gate Capital, Rovi Corp., Gemstar -- TV Guide International,
Inc., claiming that the Company's former subsidiary, TV Guide
Magazine, breached agreements with its subscribers and violated
consumer protection laws with its practice of counting double
issues toward the number of issues in a subscription.  On December
18, 2009, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiff
filed an appeal of that dismissal.  On July 14, 2011, the
dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

At this time, the Company says management has not reached a
determination that the matter or any other litigation,
individually or in the aggregate, is expected to result in
liabilities that will have a material adverse effect on its
financial position or results of operations or cash flows.


ROVI CORP: Still Defends Sonic Acquisition-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Rovi Corporation is still defending class action lawsuits filed in
connection with its acquisition of Sonic Solutions, 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 3, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Vassil Vassilev v. Sonic Solutions, et al. was filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Marin by an individual purporting
to be a shareholder of Sonic Solutions against Sonic Solutions,
the members of its board of directors, the Company and Sparta
Acquisition Sub, arising out of the proposed merger transaction
between the Company and Sonic.  On January 10, 14 and 18, 2011,
three substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the same court against the same defendants, entitled
Matthew Barnes v. Habinger [sic] et al., Mark Chropufka v. Sonic
Solutions, et al. and Diana Willis v. Sonic Solutions, et al.,
respectively (the "Lawsuits").  The Lawsuits allege that the
members of Sonic's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties of care and loyalty by, inter alia, failing to maximize
shareholder value and by approving the merger transaction via an
unfair process.  The Lawsuits allege that the Company and Sparta
Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties.
In January 2011, the actions were consolidated and an amended
consolidated complaint was filed adding allegations of omissions
in the Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement filed by Sonic on
January 14, 2011, and seeking to enjoin the acquisition of Sonic
by the Company, to rescind the transaction in the event it is
consummated, to impose a constructive trust, and monetary damages,
fees and costs in an unspecified amount.

On January 25, 2011, another substantially similar putative class
action lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same
defendants, entitled Joann Thompson v. Sonic Solutions, et al.  On
January 28, 2011, the parties to the consolidated action reached
an agreement in principle to settle.  The proposed settlement,
which is subject to court approval following notice to the class
and a hearing, disposes of all causes of action asserted in the
consolidated action and in Thompson v. Sonic Solutions, et. al. on
behalf of all class members who do not elect to opt out of the
settlement.  Class members who elect to opt out, if any, may
continue to pursue causes of action against the defendants.

At this time, the Company says management has not reached a
determination that the matters or any other litigation,
individually or in the aggregate, are expected to result in
liabilities that will have a material adverse effect on its
financial position or results of operations or cash flows.


STATE BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Grossman" Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Bancorp, Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative class
action filed by Edith K. Grossman, according to the Company's
August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A case was filed on May 6, 2011, in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Nassau County, on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's stockholders against the Company, the Company's
directors and Valley challenging the merger of the Company into
Valley (Edith K. Grossman v. State Bancorp, Inc., et al (No.
600469/2011)). The complaint alleges that the individual
defendants, who are directors of the Company, breached their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and independence
owed to the stockholders of the Company, and that the Company and
Valley aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. The
complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants did not
maximize stockholder value and agreed to transaction terms that
limited their ability to pursue and accept competing offers for
the Company, resulting in a "deficient sales process." The
complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the
defendants from proceeding with and consummating the transaction,
and other equitable and monetary relief. On June 9, 2011, the
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  That motion has not
yet been decided.  On July 14, 2011, Plaintiff sought leave to
amend the complaint to add allegations that the joint S-4 and
proxy statement seeking approval for the merger had insufficient
disclosures regarding projections and regarding Sandler O'Neill
and Co.'s fairness opinion.  The court has not yet allowed the
proposed amendment.  The Company, the individual defendants and
Valley vigorously deny all of the claims and allegations. The
Company's Board of Directors believes that this is a typical
meritless strike suit. The Company and the individual defendants
intend to defend the claims vigorously.

State Bancorp, Inc. is the parent company of State Bank of Long
Island and its subsidiaries, a New York State chartered commercial
bank founded in 1966.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Ruling in Consolidated "Ham" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is awaiting a court decision on its
motion for reconsideration of the class certification
determination in a consolidated lawsuit, 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 March 11, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf, and Francis Wolf on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation: Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf and Francis
Wolf v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-02145-
STA-dkv, or the Ham Complaint.  The case was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western Section of Tennessee Western
Division.  The putative class involves former students of the
Company's Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against
the Company for the suspension of their Commercial Driver
Licenses, or CDLs, and any CDL retesting that may be required of
the former students by the relevant state department of motor
vehicles.  The allegations arise from the Tennessee Department of
Safety, or TDOS, having released a general statement questioning
the validity of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in the State of
Tennessee.  The Company has filed an answer to the Ham Complaint.
The Company has also filed a cross claim against the Commissioner
of the TDOS, or the Commissioner, for a judicial declaration and
judgment that the Company did not engage in any wrongdoing as
alleged in the complaint and a grant of injunctive relief to
compel the Commissioner to redact any statements or publications
that allege wrongdoing by the Company and to issue corrective
statements to any recipients of any such publications.  The
Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's cross claim has
been dismissed by the court.

On April 23, 2009, two class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively: Michael
Pascarella, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Sharon A.
Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1921(JBS), in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, or the Pascarella
Complaint; and Shawn McAlarnen et al. v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Janet Dolan, Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and David Mitchell,
Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-
1737 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the McAlarnen Complaint.
Both putative class action complaints involve former students of
the Company's Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief
against the Company, the TDOS, and the state motor vehicle
agencies for the threatened suspension of their CDLs and any CDL
retesting that may be required of the former students by the
relevant state department of motor vehicles.  The potential
suspension and CDL re-testing was initiated by certain states in
response to the general statement by the TDOS questioning the
validity of CDL licenses the State of Tennessee issued in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in Tennessee.
The Pascarella Complaint and the McAlarnen Complaint are both
based upon substantially the same facts and circumstances as
alleged in the Ham Complaint.  The only notable difference among
the three complaints is that both the Pascarella and McAlarnen
Complaints name the local motor vehicles agency and the TDOS as
defendants, whereas the Ham Complaint does not.  The Company
denies the allegations of any alleged wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend the Company's position.  The McAlarnen Complaint
has been dismissed without prejudice because the McAlarnen
plaintiff has elected to pursue the Director of the Bureau of
Driver Licensing of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
for damages.  The Company has filed an answer to the Pascarella
Complaint.  The Company has also filed a cross-claim against the
Commissioner for a judicial declaration and judgment that the
Company did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the
complaint and a request for injunctive relief to compel the
Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege
wrongdoing by the Company and to issue corrective statements to
any recipients of any such publications.  The Commissioner's
motion to dismiss the Company's cross claim has been dismissed by
the court.

On May 29, 2009, the Company was served with two additional class
action complaints involving the same alleged facts as set forth in
the Ham Complaint and the Pascarella Complaint.  The two matters
are Gerald L. Lott and Francisco Armenta on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc. and David Mitchell the Commissioner of theTennessee
Department of Safety, Case No. 2:09-cv-02287, filed on May 7,
2009, in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee, or the Lott Complaint; and Marylene Broadnax on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6486-7, filed on
May 22, 2009, in the Superior Court of Dekalb County, State of
Georgia, or the Broadnax Complaint.  While the Ham Complaint, the
Pascarella Complaint, and the Lott Complaint all were filed in
federal district courts, the Broadnax Complaint was filed in state
court.  As with all of these related complaints, the Company has
filed an answer to the Lott Complaint and the Broadnax Complaint.
The Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner
for a judicial declaration and judgment that the Company did not
engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request
for injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any
statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company
and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such
publications.  The Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's
cross claim has been dismissed by the court.  The portion of the
Lott complaint against the Commissioner has been dismissed as a
result of a settlement agreement reached between the approximately
138 Lott class members and the Commissioner granting the class
members 90 days to retake the test for their CDL.

The Pascarella Complaint, the Lott Complaint, and the Broadnax
Complaint are consolidated with the Ham Complaint in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
discovery is ongoing.

On July 1, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee Western division entered an order of court
granting class certification of the consolidated matters.  The
Company believes that the court committed reversible error in
granting class certification and on July 15, 2011, the Company
filed a motion for reconsideration of the class certification
determination.

The Company says it intends to vigorously contest class
certification as well as the allegations made by the plaintiffs
should the class remain certified.  Based on its knowledge of the
facts and advice of outside counsel, management does not believe
the outcome of this litigation is likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company; however, the final disposition of
this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Suit Remains Stayed in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation Company: John
Burnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation
Co., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the
Burnell Complaint.  On June 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the
matter was removed to the United States District Court for the
central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP.  The
putative class includes drivers who worked for the Company during
the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that the
Company failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to
provide proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment.  The Burnell Complaint is
currently subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination
of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v.
Hohnbaum, which is currently pending before the California Supreme
Court.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend
certification of the class as well as the merits of these matters
should the class be certified.  The final disposition of this case
and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be
determined at this time.

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.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Two Suits Over Orientation Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is facing two class action lawsuits
alleging that candidates for employment were not paid minimum
wage during their orientation phase, 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 July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.  On July 22, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Glen
Ridderbush on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Ridderbush et al. v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona LLC and Swift Transportation
Services, LLC in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon,
Multnomah County.  Both putative classes include employees
alleging that candidates for employment were not paid minimum wage
during their orientation phase.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification.  The Company says it intends
to vigorously defend against certification of the class as well as
the merits of this matter should the class be certified.  The
final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Petition for Review in "Garza" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company's petition for review urging the
dismissal of class certification in the lawsuit commenced by
Leonel Garza remains pending, 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 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV07-0472.  The putative class originally involved
certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a
2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year.  The
putative class is alleging that the Company should have reimbursed
owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted
and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles.
The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class
certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court.  On November 14, 2008,
the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme
Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence
of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of
Appeals.  On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona
Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining
that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction
to reverse the trial court's original denial of class
certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for
further evaluation and determination.  Thereafter, the plaintiff
renewed the motion for class certification and expanded it to
include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers
or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after
January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference
to miles driven.  On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial
court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and
expanding the class to include employees.  The Company filed a
petition for review to the Arizona Court of Appeals to dismiss
class certification, urging dismissal on several grounds
including, but not limited to, the lack of an employee class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a 3-month
period under a one-year contract that no longer exists.

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

The Company says it intends to pursue all available appellate
relief supported by the record, which the Company believes
demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further,
that the claims raised have no merit or are subject to mandatory
arbitration.  The Maricopa County trial court's decision pertains
only to the issue of class certification, and the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages.  The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sanders" Suit Remains Stayed in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Sanders against Swift Transportation Company and IEL: Michael
Sanders individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Swift Transportation Co., Inc. and Interstate Equipment Leasing,
Case No. 10523440 in the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda, or the Sanders Complaint. The putative class involves
both owner-operators and driver employees alleging differing
claims against Swift and IEL.  Many of the claims alleged by both
the putative class of owner-operators and the putative class of
employee drivers overlap the same claims as alleged in the Sheer
Complaint with respect to owner-operators and the Burnell
Complaint as it relates to employee drivers.  As alleged in the
Sheer Complaint, the putative class includes owner-operators of
Swift during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging
that Swift misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
various California state laws and that such owner-operators should
be considered employees.  As also alleged in the Sheer Complaint,
the owner-operator portion of the Sanders Complaint also raises
certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that
certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL.  As alleged in
the Burnell Complaint, the putative class in the Sanders Complaint
includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four years
preceding the date of filing alleging that the Company failed to
provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate
wage statement upon separation from employment, and failed to
timely pay wages upon separation from employment.  The Sanders
Complaint also raises two issues with respect to the owner-
operators and two issues with respect to drivers that were not
also alleged as part of either the Sheer Complaint or the Burnell
Complaint.  These separate owner-operator claims allege that Swift
failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to properly
compensate for waiting times.  The separate employee driver claims
allege that Swift failed to reimburse business expenses and
coerced driver employees to patronize the employer.  The Sanders
Complaint seeks to create two classes, one which is mostly (but
not entirely) encompassed by the Sheer Complaint and another which
is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Burnell Complaint.
Upon the Company's motion, the Sanders Complaint has been
transferred from the Superior Court of California for the County
of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Sanders matter is currently subject
to a stay of proceedings pending determinations in other unrelated
appellate cases that seek to address similar issues.  The issue of
class certification must first be resolved before the court will
address the merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its
defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of
class certification.  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend against certification of the class as well as the merits of
this matter should the class be certified.  The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.

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.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Writ of Mandamus Bid Denied in "Sheer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus was denied in the class
action lawsuit pending in Arizona, according to Swift
Transportation 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 December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc.,
Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, or the Sheer Complaint.  The putative class involves owner-
operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified owner-
operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and various New York and
California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees.  The lawsuit also raises certain related
issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-
operators have entered into with IEL.  At present, in addition to
the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former
owner-operators have joined this lawsuit.  Upon the Company's
motion, the matter has been transferred from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United
States District Court in Arizona.  On May 10, 2010, plaintiffs
filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action
and authorize notice to the potential class members.  On June 23,
2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from
plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and
related relief.  On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted
Swift's motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class
action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.  The court
further denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and
motion for conditional class certification.  The Court also denied
plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.  The
plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that the
District Court's order be vacated.  On July 27, 2011, the court
denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus.  The Company
says it intends to vigorously defend against any arbitration
proceedings.  The final disposition of this case and the impact of
such final disposition cannot be determined at this time.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Awaits Decision in "Comdata" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit originally
filed against Comdata Network, Inc., 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 April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add the Company as a defendant, which was allowed on
March 25, 2010.  The amended complaint also added as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc.  Comdata markets fuel cards which are
used for payments by trucking companies at truck stops.  The
amended complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of
Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in connection
with its fuel cards.  The plaintiffs have sought unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.

On March 24, 2011, the Court dismissed the claims against Travel
Centers of America ("TA") in the amended complaint, but granted
plaintiffs leave to file a new amended complaint.  Four
independent truck stop owners, as plaintiffs, filed a new amended
complaint against the Company on April 21, 2011, repleading their
claims.  On May 6, 2011, the Company renewed its motion to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice.  Briefing on the motion is complete
and the parties await the Court's decision while discovery
otherwise proceeds.  The Company believes that there are
substantial factual and legal defenses to the plaintiffs' claims
against it, but that the costs to defend this case could be
significant.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC continues to defend the so-called
"hot fuel" lawsuits that were consolidated in Kansas, 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.

Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the Company's predecessor and its subsidiaries, in U.S.
district courts in over 20 states.  Major petroleum refineries and
retailers have been named as defendants in one or more of these
lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that
they are retail purchasers who purchased motor fuel at temperature
greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.  One
theory alleges that the plaintiffs purchased smaller amounts of
motor fuel than the amount for which defendants charged them
because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel they
delivered by volumes which, at higher temperatures, contain less
energy.  A second theory alleges that fuel taxes are calculated in
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons and are collected by
governmental agencies from suppliers and wholesalers, who are
reimbursed in the amount of the tax by the defendant retailers
before the fuel is sold to consumers.  These "tax" cases allege
that, when the fuel is subsequently sold to consumers at
temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell a greater volume
of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax, and therefore reap
unjust benefit because the customers pay more tax than the
retailer pays.

The Company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the theories alleged in these so called "hot fuel"
lawsuits.  The "temperature" cases seek nonmonetary relief in the
form of an order requiring the defendants to install temperature
correcting equipment on their retail fuel pumps and monetary
relief in the form of damages, but the plaintiffs have not
quantified the damages they seek.  The "tax" cases also seek
monetary relief.  Plaintiffs have proposed a formula (which the
Company disputes) to measure these damages as the difference
between the amount of fuel excise taxes paid by defendants and the
amount collected by defendants on motor fuel sales.  Plaintiffs
have taken the position in filings with the Court that under this
approach, the Company's damages for an eight-year period for one
state would be approximately $10,700.  The Company denies
liability and disagrees with the plaintiff's positions.  All of
these cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas pursuant to multi-district litigation
procedures.  On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled that, with respect
to two cases originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, it would grant plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief (implementation of
fuel temperature equipment and/or posting of notices regarding the
effect of temperature on fuel), and that it would defer
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class with respect to damages.  A
Travel Centers of America ("TA") entity was named in one of those
two Kansas cases, but the Court ruled that the named plaintiffs
were not sufficient to represent a class as to TA, and as a
result, there has been no class certified as to TA.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has denied a request for
interlocutory review of the Court's class certification decision,
and the litigation in the Kansas cases is proceeding.  The U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas has not issued a
decision on class certification with respect to the remaining
cases that have been consolidated in the multi-district.  Because
these various motions are pending, the Company cannot estimate its
ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to these
lawsuits.  However, the continued cost of litigating these cases
could be significant.


UNITED STATES: LEED Suit v. Green Building Council Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
CityBizList reports that a lawsuit against the U.S. Green Building
Council has been dismissed in its entirety by the United States
District Court in the Southern District of New York, including
allegations of false advertising, which were dismissed with
prejudice.

The case was filed in October 2010 as a class action by a group of
plaintiffs led by Henry Gifford, who alleged the USGBC's LEED
claim that certified buildings use less energy than conventional
structures violates the Sherman and Lanham acts.  Earlier this
year, the class action was dropped and replaced by an amended
complaint.

"This successful outcome is a testament to our process and to our
commitment to do what is right," said Rick Fedrizzi, president,
CEO and founding chair of the Washington, DC-based USGBC.
"Thousands of people around the world use LEED because it's a
proven tool for achieving our mission of transforming the built
environment.  We're grateful that the court found in our favor so
we can give our full attention to the important work before us."


URS CORP: Contractor Immunity Not Available at Trial, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana held that the defense of government contractor immunity
is not available to URS Corporation's subsidiary at trial in the
New Orleans levee failure litigation, but would be an issue for
appeal, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 1, 2011.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary
acquired by the Company on November 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created by the hurricane
overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the
Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.

Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant.  Other defendants
include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the
Orleans Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Company.  Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including
the WGI Ohio cases, have been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District
Court").  The plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in
their design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans
levees.  The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who
claim to have incurred damages arising out of the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina.  The allegation against the Company is
that the work the Company performed adjacent to the Industrial
Canal damaged the levee and floodwall and caused and/or
contributed to breaches and flooding.  The plaintiffs allege
damages of $200 billion and demand attorneys' fees and costs.  WGI
Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  WGI Ohio performed the work adjacent to the Industrial
Canal as a contractor for the federal government and has pursued
dismissal from the lawsuits on a motion for summary judgment on
the basis that government contractors are immune from liability.

On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the
Company performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a
contractor for the federal government and are therefore immune
from liability, which was appealed by a number of the plaintiffs
on April 27, 2009, to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals ("Court of Appeals").  On September 14, 2010, the Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision
and WGI Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further litigation.  On August 1, 2011, the
District Court held that the defense of government contractor
immunity is not available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an
issue for appeal.

WGI Ohio says it intends to continue to defend these matters
vigorously; however, the Company cannot provide assurance that it
will be successful in these efforts.  The potential range of loss
and the resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time.


VALERO ENERGY: Continues to Defend Fuel Temperature Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy Corporation continues to defend itself against the
consolidated retail fuel temperature litigation in Kansas,
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.

In 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the Company
and several other defendants engaged in the retail and wholesale
petroleum marketing business.  The complaint alleges that because
fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the defendants
violated state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the
volume or price of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60
degrees Fahrenheit.  The complaints seek to certify classes of
retail consumers who purchased fuel in various locations.  The
complaints seek an order compelling the installation of
temperature correction devices as well as monetary relief.
Following the 2006 complaint, numerous other federal complaints
were filed, and there are now a total of 46 lawsuits of which 21
involve the Company.  (The Company is named in classes involving
several states where it has no retail presence.)  The lawsuits are
consolidated into a multi-district litigation case in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) (Multi-
District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation).  In May 2010, the court issued an
order in response to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the Kansas cases.  The court certified an
"injunction class" covering nonmonetary relief but deferred ruling
on a "damages class."  The court has scheduled trial in the Kansas
cases for May 2012.

The Company anticipates that the non-Kansas cases will be remanded
in late 2011 or early 2012 with no additional rulings on the
merits or class certification.  The Company is a party to the
Kansas cases, but it has no company-owned retail locations in
Kansas.  The Company believes that it has several strong defenses
to these lawsuits, which it intends to contest.  The Company has
not recorded a loss contingency liability with respect to this
matter.  While the Company believes that it is reasonably possible
that it may suffer a loss with respect to one or more of the
lawsuits, it does not believe that such an outcome in any one or
more of these lawsuits would have a material adverse effect on its
financial position or results of operations.

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


VANGUARD NATURAL: "O'Neal" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit John O'Neal v. Encore
Energy Partners, L.P., et al., filed an amended putative class
action complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, among other
allegations, according to Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC's
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 29, 2011, John O'Neal, a purported unitholder of Encore
Energy Partners LLC ("ENP") filed a class action complaint in the
125th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of
unitholders of ENP.  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
Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC ("VNG"), a Company subsidiary.

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, Encore Energy Partners GP LLC ("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 proposed merger from going forward
and compensatory damages if the proposed merger is consummated.
The defendants named in the Texas lawsuits intend to defend
vigorously against them.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Delaware Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC, is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit pending
in Delaware over its proposed merger with Encore Energy Partners
LLC, according to 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 April 5, 2011, Stephen Bushansky, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the
unitholders of Encore Energy Partners LLC ("ENP").  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 Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC ("VNG"), a
Company subsidiary.  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, Encore Energy Partners GP LLC ("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.


VITACOST.COM INC: Plea to Dismiss "Miyahira" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vitacost.com, Inc., still awaits the decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in Florida,
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 May 24, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR.  The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws during the period by, among
other things, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material facts concerning the Company's current and
prospective business and financial results.  The complaint also
alleges that as a result of these actions the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated during the class period.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and
expenses.

On October 19, 2010 the Southern District of Florida appointed a
lead plaintiff to represent the purported class of shareholders.
Lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on February 15,
2011.  The amended complaint additionally named as defendants the
Company's underwriters for its initial public offering and the
Company's former registered independent public accounting firm,
added additional claims of alleged false and misleading statements
and/or omissions under both the Securities Act and the Exchange
Act, and expanded the class period to extend as late as
December 7, 2010.  On April 28, 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a
notice of dismissal without prejudice of the accountant
defendants, and on May 4, 2011, the court dismissed the former
registered independent public accounting firm without prejudice.
The remaining defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 28, 2011.  Lead plaintiffs' filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 20, 2011, and
defendants' filed their reply on July 20, 2011.

The Company records provisions in its consolidated financial
statements for pending litigation when it determines that an
unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be
reasonably estimated.  As of June 30, 2011, the Company has
concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred
and is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable verdict.  Therefore, the Company
has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial
statements for an unfavorable outcome.  The Company believes, and
has been so advised by counsel, that it has meritorious defenses
to the complaint pending against it and will vigorously defend
against it.  It is possible that the Company's consolidated
balance sheets, statements of operations, or cash flows could be
materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome.


YKK CORP: Class Action Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that an antitrust
class action accusing some of the world's largest zipper-makers of
a decades-long international price-fixing conspiracy will move
forward, a federal judge ruled.

Apparel companies claim that the conspiracy resulted in
artificially high prices for ubiquitous "fasteners," including
zippers, buttons and hooks.

The European Commission in September 2007 announced a roughly $458
million fine against manufacturers "for operating cartels on the
markets for fasteners and attaching machines."

Thirty-five plaintiffs subsequently filed suits in four U.S.
District Courts, before the suits were consolidated into a single
class action with Pennsylvania's Eastern District in May 2010.

An inspection of any pants zipper will likely reveal the same
three letters: YKK.

But the apparel companies say Tokyo-based YKK Corp. did not
achieve dominance in the fastener industry through natural market
forces.

YKK conspired with a select group of international companies to
"allocate customers and markets; fix prices, including minimum,
average and target prices; monitor price increases; and coordinate
price increases" for "zippers, snap fasteners, jeans buttons,
hooks and eyes, clamping locks, clip fasteners and rivets" used in
the apparel, textile, footwear and luggage industries, according
to the May 2010 class action.

YKK, Georgia-based Scovill Fasteners and a German group of
companies called the Prym Group "entered into anticompetitive
agreements with respect to the sale of fasteners and their related
attaching machines," according to the suit.

A slew of meetings between different combinations of defendants
took place from the mid-1970s until approximately 2003, the
clothiers claim.

The meetings concerned "the maintenance or improvement of current
price levels," "allocation of customers," "marketing strategies,"
a "worldwide minimum price provision" and "cooperation on global
accounts," according to the suit.

High-level YKK and Prym executives "agreed on minimum prices for
fasteners" at a December 2000 meeting, the suit says.

"Specific prices were set for certain individual countries and a
separate minimum price was set for the rest of the world, which
included the United States," the complaint states.

It says senior management for YKK, Scovill and Prym began meeting
in so-called "work circles" under the auspices of a German trade
association in 1991 to discuss strategies to manipulate
competition.

The alleged co-conspirators had claimed the class action is time-
barred, but U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick denied their
joint motion to dismiss on Aug. 12.

Judge Surrick said the plaintiffs, who want equitable tolling,
have adequately demonstrated that the defendants took steps to
conceal their alleged anticompetitive acts and obstruct the
plaintiffs' fact-finding process.

The plaintiffs want to toll the statute of limitations until
Sept. 19, 2007 -- the date the European Commission announced the
massive fine.

Plaintiffs have adequately shown that the defendants took steps to
conceal discovery of their wrongdoing, but a definitive ruling on
plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling would be premature at
this stage in the litigation, according to Judge Surrick's 32-page
ruling.

The defendants claim public reports and newspaper articles
confirmed that a European Commission investigation was underway as
early as 2001, and that the commission had raided one of the
defendant's facilities.

Judge Surrick noted that he could still deny equitable tolling
once a factual inquiry determines "plaintiffs' exposure to these
articles, the circulation of various publications, and the
likelihood that a reasonable plaintiff would have read such
documents."

The defendants also claimed there was insufficient proof of
wrongdoing in the American marketplace and of a conspiracy between
defendants.

Judge Surrick disagreed, finding that the apparel companies have
sufficiently alleged both a "unity of purpose" among the
defendants and a deleterious impact on the market for fasteners in
the United States.

A copy of the Memorandum in In Re Fasteners Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 08-md-01912 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/17/zipperopinion.pdf


YONGYE INT'L: Defends Class Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------
Yongye International, Inc., is defending itself against class
action lawsuits in New York alleging it issued false and
misleading information to investors, 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 May 26, 2011, and June 3, 2011, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors were named in class action lawsuits filed
in the United States Federal District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging, among other things, that the
Company and such officers and directors issued false and
misleading information to investors about the Company's financial
and business condition.  On July 19, 2011, the Company and certain
of its officers and directors were named in a derivative lawsuit
filed in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
and for Carson City alleging, among other things, that the
Company's directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company, misrepresented the Company's earnings, wasted
corporate assets and unjustly enriched themselves at the expense
of the Company.

The Company believes the claims contained in these lawsuits to be
without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.


YOUTUBE: Music Publishers' 2007 Class Action Settled
----------------------------------------------------
Greg Sandoval, writing for CNET News, reports that a group of
music publishers that joined a class action lawsuit filed against
YouTube in 2007 have reached a settlement with Google's video-
sharing site.

The National Music Publishers Association as well as individual
music-publishing companies, such as Cherry Lane Music Publishing
Company, the Harry Fox Agency, and Murbo Music Publishing, joined
a class action lawsuit filed against Google by The Football
Association Premier League among others.

The suit -- which accused YouTube of encouraging users to upload
pirated video clips of TV shows, films, and music videos -- was
filed shortly after Viacom filed a copyright complaint against
YouTube and Google.  For efficiency, Viacom and the class action
were reviewed by the court simultaneously even though they were
separate complaints.

"As a result of this resolution," the publishers wrote in a
statement, "music publishers will have the opportunity to enter
into a license agreement with YouTube and receive royalties from
YouTube for musical works in videos posted on the site."

Thanks to the agreement, music publishers can license Google the
right to sync their music with videos posted by YouTube users and
YouTube will pay the royalties.  The parties involved didn't
disclose the complete terms of the agreement.

That's nice but what's important here is that YouTube executives
continue to put their copyright troubles behind them.  The Web's
top video-sharing service was once packed with pirated content but
the service built a filter system and now most of the top film
studios and TV networks consider the site to be swept clean.

Google has also penned content-licensing deals with the top music
labels to offer music on the site and YouTube also has agreements
in place with major Hollywood and independent film studios to
offer streaming rentals.

"We already have deals in place with a number of music publishers
in the U.S. and around the world," YouTube said in a blog post.
"[Wednes]day's deal offers more choice for rights holders in how
they manage use of their songs."

YouTube triumphed in the first round of the Viacom copyright case
as well as the class action suit last year when a U.S. district
court in New York ruled that YouTube was "protected by the safe
harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) against
claims of copyright infringement."

Viacom's case only involves YouTube's actions prior to 2008.  The
media conglomerate and the parties belonging to the class appealed
the ruling.


* PUBLISHERS: Freelance Writers' Class Action Settlement Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court voided a class-action settlement in a case brought
by freelance writers who accused publishers of reprinting their
works in online databases without permission.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the
settlement, calling for payments of as much as $18 million, was
unfair because it shortchanged authors who did not register
copyrights in their works.  These authors represented more than
99% of the claims covered by the 2005 settlement.

The 2-1 decision on Aug. 17 followed a unanimous March 2010 U.S.
Supreme Court decision, Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, that
resurrected a possible settlement, which the 2nd Circuit earlier
threw out on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction.

Publishers in the lawsuit included Reed Elsevier, New York Times
Co., News Corp.'s Dow Jones & Co., Thomson Reuters Corp and Knight
Ridder, which was bought by McClatchy Co. in 2006.

The settlement, reached through mediation, came four years after
the Supreme Court in 2001 said publishers violate copyright law
when they reproduce freelance works electronically without first
obtaining permission from copyright owners.

A group of 10 authors objected.  They contended that authors who
had not registered their works could see their recoveries unfairly
reduced, and that the settlement freed publishers from potential
litigation over too many claims.

Writing for the appeals court majority, Circuit Judge John Walker
said a lower court judge erred in combining this group of authors
with other groups, who could recover more on their claims, into a
single settlement.

"Although all class members share an interest in maximizing the
collective recovery," Judge Walker wrote, "their interests diverge
as to the distribution of that recovery because each category of
claim is of different strength and therefore commands a different
settlement value."

He said the "simplest and most logical approach" might be to
create classes for each type of claim, with different lawyers for
each class.  The 2nd Circuit returned the case to the U.S.
District Court in Manhattan for further proceedings.

Circuit Judge Chester Straub dissented in part, finding that
class-action certification was proper.

"The defendants are very disappointed," said Charles Sims, a
partner at Proskauer Rose representing the publishers.  "The
decision tells authors they will have to wait even longer for any
money."  He said the publishers are considering their options.

Charles Chalmers, a lawyer for the objecting authors, said his
clients are "gratified" with the decision, and "look forward to a
revised resolution that insures protection for the 99 percent of
freelance articles involved in the action."

A lawyer for the remaining authors did not respond to a request
for comment.

One of the mediators in the 2005 settlement was Kenneth Feinberg,
who oversees a $20 billion fund that BP Plc set up for victims of
last year's Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Jonathan Tasini, the lead plaintiff in the 2001 Supreme Court
case, in April sued AOL Inc. and The Huffington Post, saying they
failed to pay bloggers for their work.

The case is In re: Literary Works in Electronic Databases
Copyright Litigation, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 05-
5943.




                            *********

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  * * *