CAR_Public/110823.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 23, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 166

                             Headlines

ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Arkansas
ALL MARKET: Labaton Sucharow Files Vita Coco Class Action
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Hearing on Settlement of Suit Set for Sept. 28
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Sued for Denying Disability Claims to Pilots
AMERICAN INT'L: Seeks to Block Class Action Over Near-Collapse

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
AUSTRALIA: Law Firm to Pursue Class Action Over Jet Noise
AUSTRALIA: Creswick Residents Won't Pursue CMA Class Action
BEAZER HOMES: Final Hearing on RESPA Class Settlement on Aug. 30
BEAZER HOMES: Florida Homeowners' Class Suit Remains Pending

BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Reverses ERISA Class Action Ruling
CBIZ INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Arizona
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal in Benefit Plan Suit Remains Pending
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Securities Suit in Oklahoma Remains Pending

CITY HOLDING: Plea to Dismiss "Casto" Suit Still Pending
CITY HOLDING:: "Clay" Suit on Overdraft Fees Remains Pending
CO LYNCH: Recalls 5,200 Itasca Fusion Hiker Boots
COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: MDL Panel Coordinates Securities Lawsuits
COYNE AMERICAN: Sued Over Bogus "Medical Assistant" Program

DEAN FOODS: Awaits Ruling in Tennessee Dairy Farmer Actions
DEAN FOODS: Gets Final Approval in Vermont Dairy Farmer Suit Deal
DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Action Still Stayed in Tennessee
DELPHI FINANCIAL: Court Gives Preliminary Approval of Settlement
DG FASTCHANNEL: Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set for Sept. 13

DIGI INTERNATIONAL: NetSilicon IPO Class Suit Still Pending
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Still Awaits Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Suit Over Solectron Merger Faces Dismissal
FREDERICK COUNTY: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
FULL TILT: Canadian Poker Players File Class Action

FUSHI COPPERWELD: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Continues to Defend Suits Over "Fu Proposal"
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Settles Wellbutrin Antitrust Class Action
GOVGUAM: Manglona Called to Testify on Tax Refund Class Action
HANCOCK HOLDING: Reaches Settlements on Suits Over Whitney Merger

HANOVER INSURANCE: 5th Cir. Remands Louisiana Suit to Dist. Court
HANOVER INSURANCE: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration
HANSEN NATURAL: Continues to Defend "Chavez" Class Action
HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit
HANSEN NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Sub Judice

IBERIABANK CORP: Awaits Okay of $2.5MM Joint Deal in Class Suits
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Atlantic Lotteries Class Suit Remains Pending
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Discovery Ongoing in IBEW Securities Suit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated ERISA Suit
INTL FCSTONE: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in Missouri

INTL FCSTONE: Plea to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Still Pending
INVESTORS TITLE: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Conspiracy Suit
KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Await Settlement Approval in Suits
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Still Defends Wage and Hour Litigation
MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Recalls 960,000 Martha Stewart Casseroles

MARCUS CORP: Class Certification of "Goodman" Suit Still Pending
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Parties Agree to Settle Stockholder Suit
MEDIFAST INC: Court Consolidates Securities Class Suits in Md.
MEMC ELECTRONIC: 8th Circuit Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Jerry Jones Withdraw as Plaintiff in Own Suit

MERGE HEALTHCARE: To Seek Dismissal of Insurer Suit in Illinois
MGIC INVESTMENT: Discrimination Class Suit Still Pending in Pa.
MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion for Relief From Suit Dismissal Pending
MOOSE ENTERPRISE: 7th Cir. Refuses to Certify Aqua Dots Suit
NATIONAL PENN: Continues to Defend "Reyes" Class Suit

NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Defend Deferred Annuities Suit
NBTY INC: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Hutchins" Suit
NBTY INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Hamilton" Wage Suit
NBTY INC: Continues to Defend "Dirickson" Wage Suit
NBTY INC: Court Okays Settlement in Carlyle Merger-Related Suit

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Plea to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
OFFICE DEPOT: Recalls 34,000 Desk Chairs Due to Pinch Hazard
PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend Fuel Temperature Suit in Kansas
PANTRY INC: Plaintiffs Must File Plea for Class Status by Oct. 3
REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss "Indirect Purchaser" Suit Pending

REDDY ICE: Still Awaits Court Okay on Suit Settlement in Canada
REDDY ICE: Consolidated Securities Suit in Michigan Still Pending
RENTECH INC: Hearing on Class Suit Settlement Set for Sept. 26
SANDISK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Rehearing Plea in Antitrust Suit
SANDISK CORP: Trial in "Ritz" Suit Set for Aug. 20, 2012

SANDISK CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit Over SD Cards
SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuits in Massachusetts
SAXON MORTGAGE: Sued Over Failure to Fulfill HAMP Obligations
SCIQUEST INC: Appeals From Suit Settlement Approval Still Pending
STATE AUTO FINANCIAL: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio

STERLING FINANCIAL: Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
STERLING FINANCIAL: Plea to Dismiss ERISA Suit Remains Pending
STERLING FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit
STEVEN MADDEN: Court Approves "Tahvilian" Class Settlement
SUNOPTA INC: Paid $700,000 Wage Class Settlement in July 2011

SUNPOWER CORP: Court Hears Motion to Dismiss Class Action
SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Suits Dismissal
THEGLOBE.COM: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remanded
TOYOTA MOTOR: Applauds Court Decision Trimming Acceleration Class
TRIBUNE CO: Seeks Court Okay of Wage Class Action Settlement

VAN ACKER CONSTRUCTION: Faces Suit by Ex-Employees in California
WALTER ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Suit Pending
WALTER ENERGY: Defends Securities Class Action in Ontario
YTB: Suit Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme Can Seek Class Certification

* OKLAHOMA RESTAURANTS: Sued for Double Taxing Patrons on Liquor
* TRAVEL WEB SITES: N.J. Towns' Hotel Occupancy Tax Suit Tossed




                             *********

ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, against Advocat
Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility").  The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the residents of the Facility over the past five
years.  The lawsuit has not been certified as a class action, and
no motion to certify the class has been filed by Plaintiffs'
counsel to date.  The Company says it intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.

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.


ALL MARKET: Labaton Sucharow Files Vita Coco Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on August 10,
2011, against All Market Inc., the manufacturer of Vita Coco
Coconut Water in the Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit
was filed on behalf of purchasers of Vita Coco products between
August 10, 2007 and the present.

Plaintiff alleges that Vita Coco products are falsely marketed as
"super-hydrating," "nutrient-packed," "mega-electrolyte," "life-
enhancing," and healthy "super-water" that should be regularly
consumed to help maintain optimal hydration.  In reality, Vita
Coco products are no more hydrating than a standard sports drink
and, for some Vita Coco products, do not even contain the levels
of electrolytes indicated on their nutritional labels.  According
to a recent independent study, certain Vita Coco products have
nearly 50% less sodium and significantly less magnesium than
advertised.

"Consumers are paying a premium for a product that simply does not
live up to its health claims," says Hollis Salzman, a partner with
Labaton Sucharow.  "Vita Coco products do not deliver on their
nutritional promises and we intend to demonstrate that the company
went too far in promoting these alleged health benefits."

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- represents
institutional investors in class action and complex securities
litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions
seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive and deceptive
business practices.  The firm has offices in New York, New York
and Wilmington, Delaware.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Hearing on Settlement of Suit Set for Sept. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing to consider approval of the proposed settlement
of securities class actions against Ambac Financial Group Inc. is
scheduled for September 28, 2011, 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.

Ambac Financial and certain of its present or former officers or
directors have been named in lawsuits that allege violations of
the federal securities laws and/or state law.  Various putative
class action suits alleging violations of the federal securities
laws have been filed against Ambac and certain of its present or
former directors and officers.  These suits include four class
actions filed in January and February of 2008 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York that were
consolidated on May 9, 2008 under the caption In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV
411. On July 25, 2008, another suit, Painting Industry Insurance
and Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al., case No.
08 CV 6602, was filed in the United States District for the
Southern District of New York.

On or about August 22, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed in the consolidated action.  The consolidated amended
complaint includes the allegations presented by the original four
class actions, the allegations presented by the Painting Industry
action, and additional allegations.  The consolidated amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
Ambac's common stock from October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on
behalf of purchasers of Ambac's "DISCS", issued in February of
2007, and on behalf of purchasers of equity units and common stock
in Ambac's March 2008 offerings.  The suit names as defendants
Ambac, the underwriters for the three offerings, Ambac's
independent Certified Public Accountants and certain present and
former directors and officers of Ambac. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial
results and guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions and that the
Registration Statements pursuant to which the three offerings were
made contained material misstatements and omissions in violation
of the securities laws.  On August 27, 2009, Ambac and the
individual defendants named in the consolidated securities action
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On
February 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the claims arising out of
the March 2008 equity units and common stock offering (resulting
in the dismissal of Ambac's independent Certified Public
Accountants from the action), and otherwise denied the motions to
dismiss.  On April 15, 2010, the Court ordered a Discovery Plan
and Proposed Pretrial Schedule, pursuant to which discovery was
scheduled to commence on May 10, 2010, with dispositive motions
due by December 2, 2011.  On December 9, 2010, Ambac and the
present or former officers or directors who are defendants in
these actions entered into a memorandum of understanding with
Plaintiffs with respect to settlement.  On May 6, 2011, Ambac and
the present or former officers or directors who are defendants in
these actions entered in a stipulation of settlement to settle the
claims asserted in these actions.

On December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action
entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et
al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and
director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241.  An amended
complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009.  This action
is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured Repackaged
Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates,
Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
Securities 2007-1 from June 29, 2007 through April 22, 2008.  The
STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly issued by a
subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly
collateralized solely by Ambac's DISCS.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial
results and Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in
violation of the securities laws.  On April 15, 2009, Ambac and
the individual defendants named in Tolin moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On December 23, 2009, the Court initially
denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but later recalled that
decision and requested further briefing from parties in the case
before it rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss.  The
additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010, and oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was heard on August 4, 2010.  On
December 9, 2010, Ambac and the former officer and director and
the former officer who are defendants in this action entered into
a memorandum of understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to
settlement.  On May 6, 2011, Ambac and the former officer and
director and the former officer who are defendants in this action
entered into a stipulation of settlement to settle the claims
asserted in this action.

Various shareholder derivative actions have been filed against
certain present or former officers or directors of Ambac, and
against Ambac as a nominal defendant.  These suits, which are
brought purportedly on behalf of Ambac, are in many ways similar
and allege violations of law for conduct occurring between October
2005 and the dates of suit regarding, among other things, Ambac's
guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, Ambac's public disclosures
regarding such guarantees and Ambac's financial condition, and
certain defendants' alleged insider trading on non-public
information.  The suits include (i) three actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV
854; on June 30, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint that asserts violations of state and federal law,
including breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets,
unjust enrichment and violations of the federal securities laws;
on August 8, 2008, Ambac and the individual defendants named in
the consolidated Southern District of New York derivative action
moved to dismiss that action for want of demand and failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted; on December 11,
2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
the complaint and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
December 17, 2008; on June 2, 2009 defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint; on November 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the
consolidated derivative action without prejudice to its renewal
when and if the automatic stay provided by the Bankruptcy Code is
lifted (ii) two actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders Derivative Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 3521; on May 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated and amended complaint that asserts claims including
breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, reckless and gross
mismanagement, and unjust enrichment; on December 30, 2008, the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motion to stay the
Delaware shareholder derivative action in favor of the Southern
District of New York Consolidated Derivative Action; plaintiffs in
the Delaware action subsequently moved to intervene in the
Southern District of New York derivative action and on May 12,
2009, the motion to intervene was denied; and (iii) two actions
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation,
Consolidated Index No. 650050/2008E; on September 22, 2008,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that asserts
claims including breaches of fiduciary duties, gross
mismanagement, abuse of control, and waste; on January 5, 2010,
the New York Supreme Court granted defendants motion to stay the
New York Supreme Court action in favor of the Southern District of
New York Consolidated Derivative Action; one of the actions
consolidated in the New York Supreme Court actions is currently
listed on the Court's docket as dismissed, the other action
remains listed as stayed.

Pursuant to the terms of a memorandum of understanding entered
into on December 9, 2010, on May 6, 2011, Ambac and all of its
present or former officers or directors who are defendants in the
Securities Class Actions or the Derivative Actions, entered into a
stipulation of settlement with the lead plaintiffs in In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation and the named
plaintiffs in Tolin v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. for settlement
of both of the Securities Class Actions.  The Stipulation provides
that the claims of the putative plaintiff classes, among other
claims, will be settled for a cash payment of $27,100.  Certain of
the insurance carriers who provided directors and officers'
liability coverage to Ambac's present and former officers and
directors for the period July 2007-July 2009 have agreed to pay
$24,600,000 of the settlement, pursuant to a separate agreement
entered into between Ambac, the present or former officers or
directors who are defendants in the Securities Class Actions or
the Derivative Actions, and those insurance carriers.  Ambac has
agreed to pay $2,500,000 of the settlement and previously
deposited that amount into an escrow account (classified as
Restricted Cash on the Consolidated Balance Sheet since these
amounts are held in escrow).  Lead and named plaintiffs in the
Securities Class Actions, on behalf of themselves and all other
members of the settlement class, have agreed to releases of claims
against, among others, Ambac and the present or former officers or
directors who are parties to the Stipulation.  The settlement
provided for in the Stipulation is subject to various conditions,
including, among others, approval by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and approval by the
bankruptcy court of Ambac's entry into the settlement and of
certain releases and bar orders that would release and bar claims
(among others) by or on behalf of Ambac, including by any
shareholder or creditor of Ambac purportedly acting derivatively
on behalf of Ambac, against present or former officers or
directors of Ambac that were, could have been, might have been or
might be in the future asserted in any of the Securities Actions
or any of the Derivative Actions. The Stipulation further provides
that nothing in the Stipulation shall be deemed an admission by
any defendant of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing.  The
description of terms of the Stipulation is qualified in its
entirety by reference to the text of the Stipulation, which was
filed in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
on May 6, 2011.  On May 19, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an
order lifting the automatic stay pursuant to section 362 of the
Bankruptcy Code to permit inter alia the settling parties to seek
preliminary approval of the settlement in the District Court.

On June 14, 2011, the District Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On July 19, 2011, the
Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtor's motion pursuant to section
105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and bankruptcy rule 9019 approving
the Stipulation and related agreements and the Debtor's entry into
the Stipulation and related agreements and performance of all of
its obligations thereunder.  The Bankruptcy Court's order also
approved certain releases and bars that will, upon the effective
date of the settlement, release and bar claims (among others) by
or on behalf of Ambac, including by any shareholder or creditor of
Ambac purportedly acting derivatively on behalf of Ambac, against
present or former officers or directors of Ambac that were, could
have been, might have been or might be in the future asserted in
any of the Securities Actions or any of the Derivative Actions. On
July 25, 2011, the Debtor sought by Notice of Presentment to enter
an amended order pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code
and bankruptcy rule 9019.  Certain objections have been filed on
behalf of putative shareholders who are or were plaintiffs in the
derivative actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery or the
Southern District of New York, and a hearing before the Bankruptcy
Court has been scheduled for August 10, 2011.  A settlement
fairness hearing in the District Court is currently scheduled for
September 28, 2011.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Sued for Denying Disability Claims to Pilots
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
American Airlines "systematically" denies pilots' disability
claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Twitchell v. American Airlines
Retirement Benefit Program, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00509 (D.
Ariz.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/18/AAirlines.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Martin, Esq.
          Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Kroll, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2010
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
                  dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com


AMERICAN INT'L: Seeks to Block Class Action Over Near-Collapse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Berkowitz, writing for Reuters, reports that bailed-out
insurer American International Group and dozens of banks have
filed motions in federal court to block a proposed nationwide
class-action suit against them over AIG's 2008 near-collapse.

Their argument is that the proposed class is ultimately too large
and too diverse to have anything in common, particularly citing
the recent Supreme Court decision throwing out a class-action suit
against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on similar grounds.

AIG came within minutes of bankruptcy before the government
rescued it in September 2008 with a bailout that ultimately
totaled $182 billion.  Even after a share sale last May, the
government still owns 77% of the company.

The State of Michigan Retirement System, as lead plaintiff, has
asked the federal court in lower Manhattan to certify a class
consisting of anyone who bought AIG common stock from mid-March
2006 to the date of the bailout, plus anyone who took part in 101
different securities offerings over that time period.

But AIG, in its filing on Aug. 17, argued that the proposed class
covered so many different time periods, so many different sets of
circumstances prior to its bailout and so many different kinds of
financial interests that it was impossible to say such a broad
class had anything in common.

"(Given) the varied market conditions and disclosures, the diverse
characteristics of the securities and the disparate interests of
investors, Lead Plaintiff has not come close to carrying its heavy
burden" to provide such proof, AIG said.

In a separate memorandum of law, the banks -- all underwriters on
various AIG offerings over the period in question -- also argued
that they do not have a sufficient amount in common to be sued as
a class.

"These issues and defenses must be addressed offering by offering,
underwriter by underwriter," they said.

Accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was AIG's
independent auditor, also filed a memo opposing class claims
against it, saying the plaintiffs had no claim because various
disclosures by PwC about AIG's finances were not material to bond
investors.

The suit, which predates AIG's bailout, was filed in late May
2008.

The case is In re: American International Group, Inc. 2008
Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York, No. 08-04772.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc., obtained final court approval of a
class action settlement, 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 July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests (Medical
Capital Holdings, Inc./Medical Capital Corporation and affiliated
corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and affiliated
corporations) sold by the Company's subsidiary Securities America,
Inc. were the subject of SEC actions (brought against those
entities and individuals associated with them), which has resulted
in the filing of several putative class action lawsuits naming
both SAI and Ameriprise Financial, as well as related regulatory
inquiries. Approximately $400 million of Medical Capital and
Provident Shale investments made by SAI clients are outstanding
and currently in default. Medical Capital and Provident Royalties
are both in receivership. A significant volume of FINRA
arbitrations were brought against SAI. Several of them were
individually settled, and there was one adverse ruling. The
putative class actions and arbitrations generally allege
violations of state and/or federal securities laws in connection
with SAI's sales of these private placement interests. These
actions were commenced in September 2009 and thereafter. The
Medical Capital-related class actions were centralized and moved
to the Central District of California by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under the
caption "In re: Medical Capital Securities Litigation." The
Provident Shale-related class actions remain pending in Texas
federal court. On June 22, 2010, the Liquidating Trustee of the
Provident Liquidating Trust filed an adversary action
("Liquidating Trustee Action") in the Provident bankruptcy
proceeding naming SAI on behalf of both the Provident Liquidating
Trust and a number of individual Provident investors who are
alleged to have assigned their claims. The Liquidating Trustee
Action generally alleges the same types of claims as are alleged
in the Provident class actions as well as a claim under the
Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Trustee Action has been moved
from bankruptcy court to the Texas federal court with the other
Provident class actions. On January 24, 2011 the Medical Capital
Class Action was temporarily transferred to the federal court for
the Northern District of Texas (the Court), where the Provident
class action is pending, so that coordinated settlement
negotiations can be conducted under that single Court's
supervision. On February 17, 2011, the named plaintiffs to the
class actions filed with the Court a Settlement Agreement and
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,
seeking the Court's approval of agreed-upon settlement terms. That
settlement was recorded as a subsequent event to the 2010 fourth
quarter and reflected in the Company's audited 2010 financial
statements. On March 18, 2011, the Court declined to grant
preliminary approval of that settlement. On April 15, 2011, SAI
and its holding company, Securities America Financial Corporation
entered into new settlement agreements which, in exchange for
release of pending arbitration and litigation claims (including
certain class action claims pending against the Company and the
claims brought by the Liquidating Trustee), provide for the
payment of a total of $150 million, $40 million of which was
previously reported and charged to the Company's fourth quarter
2010 results as described above. The combined settlements,
together with other provisions for claims relating to Medical
Capital or Provident Royalties resulted in a $118 million pre-tax
expense in the Company's first quarter 2011 results. The new
settlements are subject to certain conditions, including
participation requirements for claimants to be covered by the
settlements, and preliminary and final review and Court approval
of the class action settlement.  The Court issued an order finally
approving the class action settlement on August 4, 2011. A related
Administrative Complaint brought against SAI by the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts on January 26, 2010, was also settled on May 24,
2011 with an agreement to pay $2.8 million to Massachusetts
investors.


AUSTRALIA: Law Firm to Pursue Class Action Over Jet Noise
---------------------------------------------------------
ABC Newcastle reports that a Canberra legal firm says it still
expects to proceed with a high court class action over air force
jet noise at Port Stephens, even though the Defence Department has
modified its noise maps for the area.

New noise modelling shows thousands of Port Stephens residents now
will not be impacted by the new Joint Strike Fighter jets, which
had threatened to cause major disruptions for new developments as
well as existing homes.

Around 200 residents have already indicated they would join a
class action led by law firm, Goodman Law.

Principal Director Stephen Gavagna was set to hold talks with the
firm's senior legal representatives on Aug. 19 about the case,
which he thinks can still proceed in some form.

"I think it will reduce the number of claimants," he said.

"But there are a lot of issues with regards to how it actually
affects planning in and around Raymond Terrace and whether or not
there is still real damages that have been caused not only by the
introduction of the JSF but also the current air force.

"So there is still a lot of room to move and there's still a lot
of questions to be answered which just can't be answered overnight
or by putting new lines on a page.

"I think in the short term the action will continue and the
investigation into the action will continue."


AUSTRALIA: Creswick Residents Won't Pursue CMA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a Creswick resident, Dorothy Leishman, says
locals have decided not to launch a class action against the North
Central Catchment Management Authority (CMA).

The town has been flooded three times in the past 12 months.

Ms. Leishman says residents think the CMA failed to properly
manage the Creswick Creek, which worsened the extent of the
flooding.

However, she says the CMA has started to address the problem, so
residents have decided legal action is unnecessary.

"The reason we were going to take it was to sort of push the hand
of the people who were responsible for clearing the creek," she
said.

"They have started to do [it], so at the moment we are not doing
anything about it."


BEAZER HOMES: Final Hearing on RESPA Class Settlement on Aug. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina court is set to consider final approval of a
settlement resolving a homeowners' class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act against
Beazer Homes USA, 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.

A putative class action was filed on April 8, 2008, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
Salisbury Division, against Beazer Homes, U.S.A., Inc., Beazer
Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation (BMC).  The Complaint
alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices
Act (RESPA) and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 by (1)
improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned mortgage and
settlement services as part of a down payment assistance program,
and (2) illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement
services sold by Beazer Homes Corp.  The purported class consists
of all residents of North Carolina who purchased a home from
Beazer, using mortgage financing provided by and through Beazer
that included seller-funded down payment assistance, between
January 1, 2000 and October 11, 2007.  The parties have reached an
agreement to settle the lawsuit, which will be partially funded by
insurance proceeds.  The settlement has been preliminarily
approved by the court, but remains subject to final court
approval.  Under the terms of the settlement, the action will be
dismissed with prejudice, and the Company and all other defendants
will not admit any liability.  A fairness hearing has been set for
August 30, 2011.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- headquartered
in Atlanta, is one of the top ten homebuilders in the United
States, based on number of homes closed.  The Company's ongoing
operations are geographically diversified in 16 states across the
country, and its high performance homes, called eSMART, are
designed to appeal to homebuyers at various price points across
various demographic segments.


BEAZER HOMES: Florida Homeowners' Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
purported class action complaint filed by Florida homeowners,
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 June 3, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed by
the owners of one of the Company's homes in the Company's Magnolia
Lakes' community in Ft. Myers, Florida.  The complaint names the
Company and certain distributors and suppliers of drywall and was
filed in the Circuit Court for Lee County, Florida on behalf of
the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated owners of homes
in Magnolia Lakes or alternatively in the State of Florida.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Company built their homes with
defective drywall, manufactured in China, that contains sulfur
compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that are
allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals.
Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal and
equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees.  This
case has been transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana
pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  In addition, the Company has been named
in other multi-plaintiff complaints filed in the multidistrict
litigation.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in these actions are
governed by home warranties or are without merit.  Accordingly,
the Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions.
Furthermore, the Company has offered to repair all Beazer homes
affected by defective Chinese drywall pursuant to a repair
protocol that has been adopted by the multidistrict litigation
court, including those homes involved in litigation. To date,
nearly all of affected Beazer homeowners have accepted the
Company's offer to repair.  The Company also continues to pursue
recovery against responsible subcontractors, drywall suppliers and
drywall manufacturers for its repair costs.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- headquartered
in Atlanta, is one of the top ten homebuilders in the United
States, based on number of homes closed.  The Company's ongoing
operations are geographically diversified in 16 states across the
country, and its high performance homes, called eSMART, are
designed to appeal to homebuyers at various price points across
various demographic segments.


BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Reverses ERISA Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters Contact, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has
reversed a lower court ruling that certified a class of self-
insured union benefit funds in a suit against Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Michigan.  At issue in the case, brought pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), was a fee Blue
Cross collected from the funds for the state of Michigan to
subsidize health insurance coverage for senior citizens.

The split Aug. 12 ruling in Pipefitters Local 636 Insurance Fund
v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan reversed an order by Judge
Arthur Tarnow of the Eastern District of Michigan.

The Pipefitters Fund and several trustees sued Blue Cross in
September 2004 alleging that Blue Cross breached its fiduciary
duty under ERISA by charging and failing to disclose this fee,
which it collected from June 2002 to January 2004.  Specifically,
the Pipefitters Fund claimed that the fee violated the Michigan
Nonprofit Health Care Corporation Reform Act, which bars some cost
shifting between self-funded subscribers and Blue Cross.

The fee was intended to fund an "Other-Than-Group" (OTG) subsidy
for clients that weren't under Blue Cross' group insurance
coverage.  The Pipefitters Fund was a Blue Cross group insurance
customer before it became self-insured in June 2002.  In January
2004, Blue Cross stopped charging the fee to the Pipefitters Fund.

According to the 6th Circuit ruling, Blue Cross regularly
collected the fee from group clients, but not always from self-
insured clients.  An amicus brief submitted by Michigan's
insurance commissioner stated that the OTG subsidy was ultimately
used to reduce insurance coverage costs for Michigan senior
citizens.  It is a so-called "Medigap" subsidy that funds Medicare
coverage gaps.

The district court initially dismissed the claim, but in 2007, the
6th Circuit found that the Pipefitters Fund had sufficiently
claimed that Blue Cross breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA by
charging the OTG fee.

The Pipefitters' Fund sought class certification for all similarly
situated self-insured employee health and welfare plans or groups
that contracted with Blue Cross for administrative services for
their plans and were improperly charged the OTG subsidy.  In
September 2009, Judge Tarnow ruled that class certification was
appropriate under one provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 because "the individual actions would create the risk of
inconsistent adjudication that would establish incompatible
standards of conduct."  He also found that another Rule 23
provision supported certification because "it's a common question
whether Blue Cross controlled assets and whether the assessment
was consonant with Michigan statute."  His order defined the class
as all entities that currently have or previously an
administrative-services contract with Blue Cross and were charged
an OTG fee.

At issue before the 6th Circuit was whether Blue Cross was a
fiduciary as defined by ERISA with respect to the OTG fees it
charged to class members and whether it breached its fiduciary
duty to the class by assessing the OTG fee.

Senior Judge Richard Suhrheinrich authored the ruling, joined by
Judge John Rogers.  Judge Eric Clay dissented in part.

Judge Suhrheinrich wrote that a class action is not a superior
method of adjudication of the case. Citing the U.S. Supreme
Court's recent ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.
Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011), he determined that "there is no common
contention capable of class-wide resolution such 'that
determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that
is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one
stroke.'"

Judge Suhrheinrich found that the district court ignored "the
critical, factual threshold issue specific to each and every class
member of whether [Blue Cross] was acting as an ERISA fiduciary in
each individual, contractual relationship with each plan member
when it imposed the OTG fee."  Such an analysis would mean
examining the contract terms and funding arrangements of 550 to
875 class members, Judge Suhrheinrich wrote.

He also noted the Michigan insurance commissioner's claim that
Blue Cross "would potentially be forced to stop collecting more
than $100 million dollars annually," which would raise premiums
for insurance customers, cut Medigap coverage or lead to a premium
hike for the state's senior citizens if the case were to proceed
as a class action.

"The serious financial repercussions to Michigan's elderly
population further support a conclusion that a class action is not
a superior method of resolving the Fund's allegation," Judge
Suhrheinrich wrote.

He further observed that class members stand to collect high
potential damage awards, such as the $280,000 claimed by the
Pipefitters Fund: "These are not the types of awards that would
preclude individual class members from seeking relief through
litigation."

Judge Clay wrote that he agreed with the majority's ruling that
the case should not be certified under a class under the provision
of Rule 23 that allows a class action when "inconsistent or
varying adjudications with respect to individual class members . .
. would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party
opposing the class."

But he opposed the majority's ruling rejecting certification under
a different provision of Rule 23, which allows certification when
common questions of law or fact predominate and a class action is
superior to other available options "for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy."

Judge Clay wrote that the case should be remanded for further
factual development to determine how much individualized inquiry
into each class member's contract would be necessary for a class
action.

"In its certification inquiry in the instant case, the district
court did not discuss the particularities of the class' claims
against Defendant to elucidate what pieces of evidence would be
necessary to prove class members' claims, and the extent to which
this evidence would require individualized inquiries," Judge Clay
wrote. "The district court's failure to develop and analyze the
record impedes our ability to thoroughly review whether the
district court's certification of the class was an abuse of
discretion."

Blue Cross spokesperson Helen Stojic, said in an e-mailed
statement that "Blue Cross is pleased with the judge's decision."

The company's lawyers at Detroit-based Dickinson Wright did not
respond to requests for comment.

Ronald Lederman, a partner at Southfield, Mich.-based Sullivan,
Ward, Asher & Patton who argued for the Pipefitters Fund, declined
to comment without his client's permission.  The Pipefitters Fund
did not return a call for comment.

The Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation
submitted an amicus brief supporting Blue Cross because the class
certification could impede the office's collection of the Medigap
funds, "which would adversely affect the health care of Michigan
senior citizens."

Officials at the state agency, which has a new commissioner since
it filed the amicus brief, was not available for immediate
comment.


CBIZ INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
CBIZ, Inc., continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
against lawsuits alleging securities fraud in Arizona, 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 May, June, July, August and September of 2010, CBIZ, Inc. and
its subsidiary, CBIZ MHM, LLC (fka CBIZ Accounting, Tax & Advisory
Services, LLC) ("the CBIZ Parties"), were named as defendants in
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (Robert Facciola, et al v. Greenberg Traurig
LLP, et al.) and in the Superior Court for Maricopa County Arizona
(Victims Recovery, LLC v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.; Roger
Ashkenazi, et al v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.; Mary Marsh, et
al v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.; and ML Liquidating Trust v.
Mayer Hoffman McCann, PC, et al.), respectively.  The Maricopa
County cases were removed to the United States District Court or
Bankruptcy Court but all, except ML Liquidating Trust, have since
been remanded to the Superior Court for Maricopa County.  These
remand orders are currently being appealed.  The motion to remand
the ML Liquidating Trust matter was denied and the Plaintiff is
seeking permission to appeal that ruling.  The Facciola plaintiffs
seek to proceed as a class action.  Additionally, in November
2009, CBIZ MHM, LLC was named as a defendant in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona (Jeffery C. Stone v.
Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.).  These matters arise out of the
bankruptcy proceedings related to Mortgages Ltd., a mortgage
lender to developers in the Phoenix, Arizona area.  Various other
professional firms not related to the Company are also defendants
in these lawsuits.  The motion phase of these proceedings has
commenced and the discovery phase in Facciola has commenced.

The plaintiffs, except for those in the Stone and ML Liquidating
Trust cases, are all alleged to have directly or indirectly
invested in real estate mortgages through Mortgages Ltd.  The
Facciola, Victims Recovery, Ashkenazi and Marsh plaintiffs seek
monetary damages equivalent to the amounts of their investments.
The plaintiff in Stone sought monies it allegedly lost based on
the claim that Mortgages Ltd. did not fund development projects in
which it was a contractor.  The Stone case has been voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in that matter.  The plaintiff in the
ML Liquidating Trust matter asserts errors and omissions and
breach of contract claims, and is seeking monetary damages.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits also seek pre-and post-judgment
interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Mortgages Ltd. had been audited by Mayer Hoffman McCann PC, a CPA
firm which has an administrative services agreement with CBIZ.
The claims against the CBIZ Parties seek to impose auditor-type
liabilities upon the Company for audits it did not conduct.
Specific claims include securities fraud, common law fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, Arizona Investment Management Act
violations, control-person liability, aiding and abetting and
conspiracy.  CBIZ is not a CPA firm, does not provide audits, and
did not audit any of the entities at issue in these lawsuits.

The CBIZ Parties deny all allegations of wrongdoing made against
them in these actions and are vigorously defending the
proceedings.  The Company has been advised by Mayer Hoffman McCann
PC that it denies all allegations of wrongdoing made against it
and that it intends to continue vigorously defending the matters.
Although the proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in
the litigation process and the ultimate disposition of these
proceedings is not presently determinable, management believes
that the allegations are without merit and that the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows of CBIZ.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal in Benefit Plan Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction
to prevent Century Aluminum Company from implementing changes in a
post-retirement medical benefit plan 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.

Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. amended its postretirement
medical benefit plan, effective January 1, 2010, for all current
and former CAWV salaried employees, their dependents and all
bargaining unit employees who retired before June 1, 2006, and
their dependents.

The principal changes to the plan as a result of this amendment
were that, upon attainment of age 65, all CAWV provided retiree
medical benefits ceased for retirees and dependents.  In addition,
bargaining unit retirees under age 65 and qualified dependents
under age 65 were covered by the salary retiree medical plan which
required out-of pocket payments for premiums, co-pays and
deductibles by participants.

In November 2009, CAWV filed a class action complaint for
declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union ("USWA"), the USWA's local union, and
four CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives,
seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree
medical benefits.  Later in November 2009, the USWA and
representatives of a retiree class filed a separate lawsuit
against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master
Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does.  These actions,
entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and
Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial &
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have
been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent the Company from implementing the changes
while these lawsuits are pending, which was dismissed by the
court.  The USWA has appealed the decision and proceedings have
been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.  Based upon the
Company's analysis of the court's ruling during the third quarter
of 2010, in accordance with ASC 715-60, "Compensation - Retirement
Plans - Defined Benefit Plans - Other Postretirement", the
amendment to the CAWV postretirement medical plan benefits was
recorded as a negative plan amendment in the third quarter of
2010.  The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously
pursue its case in the actions.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2010, the purported stockholder class actions
consolidated as Century Aluminum Company Securities Litigation
were dismissed without prejudice by the court for failure to state
a claim.  On May 28, 2010, and June 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed
amended complaints, which, like the previous complaints, alleged
that Century Aluminum Company improperly accounted for cash flows
associated with the termination of certain forward financial sales
contracts which accounting allegedly resulted in artificial
inflation of the Company's stock price and investor losses.
Plaintiffs are seeking rescission of the Company's February 2009
common stock offering, unspecified compensatory damages, including
interest thereon, costs and expenses and attorneys' fees.  A
hearing was held in September 2010 to hear the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaints.  On March 3, 2011, the class
actions were dismissed with prejudice and judgment was entered in
the Company's favor.  On March 10, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal from the order and judgment entered by the court on
March 3, 2011.

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.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Securities Suit in Oklahoma Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation continues to defend a securities
class action complaint in Oklahoma.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering.  Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and
counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 11,
2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission.  The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009.  The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied on
September 2, 2010.  A derivative action was also filed in the
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma on March 10, 2009
against the company's directors and certain of its officers
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties relating to the disclosure
matters alleged in the securities case.  The derivative action is
stayed pursuant to stipulation.

No material developments 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.

The Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss
or estimate a range of potential loss associated with the
securities class action case, which is at an early stage.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a large
producer of natural gas, a Top 15 producer of oil and natural gas
liquids and the most active driller of new wells in the U.S.
Headquartered in Oklahoma City.  The Company's operations are
focused on discovering and developing unconventional natural gas
and oil fields onshore in the U.S. Chesapeake owns leading
positions in the Barnett, Haynesville, Bossier, Marcellus and
Pearsall natural gas shale plays and in the Granite Wash,
Cleveland, Tonkawa, Mississippian, Bone Spring, Avalon, Wolfcamp,
Wolfberry, Eagle Ford, Niobrara, Bakken/Three Forks and Utica
unconventional liquids plays.  The Company has also vertically
integrated its operations and owns substantial midstream,
compression, drilling and oilfield service assets.


CITY HOLDING: Plea to Dismiss "Casto" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
City Holding Company continues to await ruling on its motion to
dismiss a class action complaint filed by a certain Casto relating
to overdraft fees, 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 July 2010, City National was named as a defendant in a putative
class action, styled Casto, et al v. City National Bank, in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, WV, alleging that the manner in
which City National assessed overdraft fees to its consumer
checking accounts violates the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act, breached an implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing and creates an unjust enrichment to City National.
The amount claimed by the plaintiffs has not been determined, but
could be material.  On October 8, 2010, City National filed a
Motion to Dismiss, which was heard on
December 13, 2010.  Proposed orders were submitted to the Circuit
Court on December 30, 2010, but no ruling has been made.

City Holding Company is the parent company of City National Bank
of West Virginia.  City National operates 68 branches across West
Virginia, Eastern Kentucky and Southern Ohio.


CITY HOLDING:: "Clay" Suit on Overdraft Fees Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2011, City Holding Company and City National Bank were
named as defendants in a putative class action styled Clay, et al
v. City Holding Company and City National Bank, filed in the
United States District Court located in the Southern District of
West Virginia, alleging that the manner in which City National
assessed overdraft fees to its consumer checking accounts,
breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
created unjust enrichment to City National.  The amount claimed by
the plaintiffs has not been determined, but could be material.

No 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.

City Holding Company is the parent company of City National Bank
of West Virginia.  City National operates 68 branches across West
Virginia, Eastern Kentucky and Southern Ohio.


CO LYNCH: Recalls 5,200 Itasca Fusion Hiker Boots
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation C. O.
Lynch Enterprises, Inc., of Roseville, Minnesota, announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,200 Itasca Fusion Hiker boots.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The boots could fail to provide the intended protection against
compression and impact, posing the risk of a foot injury to
consumers.  The boots have a hard composite toe material rather
than steel.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

Itasca men's shoes sizes 7 to 14 with the model name Fusion Hikers
are being recalled.  The model name Fusion, style number 45513 and
order numbers 22215, 22216 or 22217 are printed on a label on the
underside of the tongue.  The word Itasca and the Itasca logo are
embossed on the top of the tongue of the shoe and are also
imprinted on the removable insole.  The shoe is black with leather
and nylon upper and a thermoplastic rubber (TPR) outsole.  "Steel
Toe" is printed on a tag on the outside of the shoe.  Picture of
the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11307.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Big 5 Sporting Goods Stores between March 2011 and
June 2011 for about $50.

Consumers should stop wearing the recalled boots immediately and
return the shoes to C. O. Lynch for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact C. O. Lynch toll-free at (800) 225-2565
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday
or via e-mail at itascacol@aol.com


COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: MDL Panel Coordinates Securities Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the federal panel on multidistrict litigation has coordinated
eight securities lawsuits filed against Countrywide Financial
Corp. on behalf of investors who purchased its mortgage-backed
securities.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Aug. 15
ordered the Countrywide cases coordinated before U.S. District
Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who already was overseeing several of the
suits in Los Angeles.

"We are pleased with the panel's decision," said Lawrence Grayson,
a spokesman for Bank of America Corp., which purchased Countrywide
in 2008.

The multidistrict proceeding joined several other cases in which
investors have sued financial institutions, claiming that they
were misled about the mortgage-backed securities they purchased.

It was the third MDL to target Countrywide since the 2008
financial crisis.  Another MDL involving Countrywide's mortgage
lending practices is pending before U.S. District Judge John
Heyburn in Louisville, Ky. U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San
Diego is hearing an MDL regarding the sales and marketing
practices of Countrywide's mortgages.

The latest MDL is limited to investors who claim they were misled
about the origination practices or credit quality of mortgages
Countrywide originated between 2004 and 2007.  Many of the suits
were filed this year.  Four are in California, one in Illinois,
one in Ohio, one in Oklahoma and one in New York.

In a May 23 motion to coordinate the "large and growing number of
securities disclosure cases," Countrywide's lawyer, Brian
Pastuszenski, a partner at Boston's Goodwin Procter, sought to
coordinate 12 lawsuits brought against his client on behalf of
investors in bonds, stock and mortgage-backed securities.  Several
investor plaintiffs opposed the motion, citing differences in
facts and geography.

The federal panel declined to coordinate four of the suits -- all
in California -- because they weren't limited to mortgage-backed
securities.  Among them were suits filed on Jan. 26 by
institutional investors who opted out of a $601 million settlement
with Countrywide that Judge Pfaelzer approved on Feb. 25.

Joseph Tabacco, managing partner of Berman DeValerio's San
Francisco office, who filed two of the opt-out suits on behalf of
the state of Michigan and an institutional fund in Fresno, Calif.,
praised the panel's decision.  "Since the Michigan and Fresno
actions will substantially track the discovery taken in the now
settled class action, it makes perfect sense to keep these cases
separated from cases involving mortgage-backed securities which,
while related to the overall well documented problems existing at
Countrywide, giving rise to its spectacular collapse, will likely
raise issues unique to those cases that would most efficiently be
handled outside of the securities opt out cases."

The panel split claims in another suit, filed in the Southern
District of New York, against Countrywide and the Bank of New York
Mellon, a trustee for four mortgage securitization trusts.  The
claims against Countrywide will be in the MDL, while the claims
against the Bank of New York Mellon will be transferred back to
New York, the panel decided.

The panel agreed with Bank of America to exclude another case
pending in New York that involved alleged misrepresentations made
by Bank of America about its stock.  Countrywide is not a
defendant in that case, the panel concluded.

The MDL is styled In re: Countrywide Financial Corp. Mortgage-
Backed Securities Litigation, No. 2265.


COYNE AMERICAN: Sued Over Bogus "Medical Assistant" Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gertie Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Coyne American Institute, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, d/b/a Coyne College, Case No. 2011-CH-29049 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August 17, 2011) is brought to recover
damages and all related relief against Coyne College for (a)
violations of the Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, (b)
violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, and (c) breach of contract.

The class action claims Coyne College charged more than $10,000
for its "Medical Assistant" program, which it pushed with false
promises, including about certification and accreditation.

According to the complaint, Coyne College induced Plaintiff and
the putative class members, through false and misleading
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, to enroll in
and pay Coyne College for courses in Medical Assisting.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and the class members enrolled at
Coyne College to become Medical Assistants, but Coyne College
intentionally failed to disclose to them that they would lack
requisite credentials to become employed as Medical Assistants
after completing the Coyne College Medical Assistant courses.

Ms. Williams is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Coyne American Institute, a Delaware Corporation, is doing
business as Coyne College, with its principal place of business
located at 330 N. Green St., in Chicago, Illinois.  Coyne College
also operates a campus extension at 230 W. Monroe St., Suite 400,
in Chicago, Illinois.

A copy of the Complaint in Williams v. Coyne American Institute,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11CH29049 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/18/ForProfit.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY J. ANTONELLI, LTD.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 201-8310
          Facsimile: (312) 332-4663
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Antonelli-Law.com

               - and -

          Stewart T. Kusper, Esq.
          Paul Mallon, Esq.
          KUSPER & RAUCCI CHARTERED
          30 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 332-5000

               - and -

          William J. Harte, Esq.
          Walter Piecewicz, Esq.
          WILLIAM J. HARTE, LTD.
          135 South LaSalle St., Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-5015
          Facsimile: (312) 641-2455


DEAN FOODS: Awaits Ruling in Tennessee Dairy Farmer Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion
concerning the impact of the decertification order on its
settlement agreement in the dairy farmer actions, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

The Company is named, along with several other defendants, in two
putative class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007.
The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, and allege
generally that the Company and others in the milk industry worked
together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid
for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade
A milk processing facilities.  Four additional putative class
action complaints were filed in 2007 and 2008 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville
Division.  The allegations in these complaints are similar to
those in the dairy farmer actions.  All six of the class actions
(collectively, the "dairy farmer actions") were consolidated and
were transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville
Division.  Class certification in the dairy farmer actions was
granted in September 2010.

On July 12, 2011, the Company announced that it entered into a
settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs in the dairy farmer
actions.  On July 14, 2011, the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee granted preliminary approval of
the class-wide settlement agreement and stayed the dairy farmer
action with respect to the Company.  Under the proposed settlement
agreement, the Company agreed to pay a total of up to $140 million
over a period of four to five years into a fund for distribution
to dairy farmer class members in a number of Southeastern states.
On July 21, 2011, the Company made an initial payment of $60
million into an escrow account, to be distributed following the
Court's final approval, and issued a standby letter of credit in
the amount of $80 million to support the subsequent payments due
under the agreement.  The settlement agreement calls for the
Company to make a payment of up to $20 million on each of the
following four anniversaries of the settlement agreement's final
approval date.

On July 28, 2011, the Court issued an order partially decertifying
the dairy farmer plaintiff class with which the Company had
previously entered into the settlement agreement.  The plaintiffs
have filed a motion that the Court re-consider its decertification
order.  In order to pursue a final and certain resolution of this
matter consistent with the settlement agreement, the Company has
filed a motion with the Court concerning the impact of the
decertification order on the Company's settlement agreement,
including whether the settlement agreement remains appropriately
and adequately enforceable against the entire original plaintiff
class.  The motion was scheduled to be heard by the Court on
August 12, 2011.  Until the Company has further clarification,
there can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will
receive final approval in its current form, or at all.

The Company has have recorded a $131.3 million charge and a
corresponding liability for the present value of the Company's
obligations under the settlement agreement, based on imputed
interest computed at a rate of 4.77%, which approximates the
Company's like-term incremental fixed rate borrowing cost.

                       Mississippi Action

On April 26, 2011, the Company, along with its Chief Executive
Officer, Gregg Engles, and other defendants, were named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg
Division. The allegations in this complaint are similar to those
in the Tennessee dairy farmer actions.  In addition, plaintiffs
have alleged generally that defendants committed civil violations
of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), as well as common law fraud.  Plaintiffs are seeking
treble damages for the alleged antitrust and RICO violations, and
compensatory and consequential damages for the common law fraud
claim.  With respect to the antitrust allegations in the
complaint, the plaintiffs' proposed geographic market in the
Mississippi action is identical to the geographic market alleged
in the Tennessee dairy farmer actions.  Mississippi farmers who
would be included in the class proposed in the Mississippi action
would likely also be included in the class certified in the
Tennessee dairy farmer actions.  Members of the Tennessee class
who failed to exclude themselves from that class, or who excluded
themselves but are permitted to opt back into that class for
purposes of the settlement with Dean, will be bound by the
settlement in the Tennessee dairy farmer actions when it is
approved, which should release and extinguish any claims asserted
by them in the Mississippi action.

At this time, the Company says it is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of these matters.


DEAN FOODS: Gets Final Approval in Vermont Dairy Farmer Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Vermont
granted final approval of Dean Foods Company's settlement
agreement to resolve the dairy farmer action pending in Vermont,
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 8, 2009, the Company is named, among several
defendants, in a putative class action antitrust complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont.
The original complaint was amended on January 21, 2010, and
contained allegations similar in nature to that of the dairy
farmer actions, and alleges generally that the Company and others
in the milk industry worked together to limit the price dairy
farmers in the Northeastern United States are paid for their raw
milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk
processing facilities.  A second similar complaint was filed by a
different plaintiff on January 14, 2010.  The Company reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to settle all claims against the
Company in this action.  On May 4, 2011, the court entered an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement,
certifying the settlement class, and staying further proceedings
against the Company in the matter.  Pursuant to the agreement, the
Company paid $30 million into an escrow fund pending final
approval of the settlement agreement.  The court convened a final
fairness hearing on July 18, 2011, for the purpose of evaluating
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement, and
granted final approval of the settlement on August 3, 2011.


DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Action Still Stayed in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action on behalf of indirect purchasers against Dean Foods
Company remains stayed pending the outcome of the summary judgment
motions in a antitrust class 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.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed on August 9, 2007, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  Plaintiffs
allege generally that the Company, either acting alone or in
conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also
defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the
Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A
milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the
defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices
for direct milk purchasers.  Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the retailer action is still pending.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was
granted in part and denied in part in August 2010.  Defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2010, and
filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment as to the
remaining claims on September 27, 2010.  Those motions are
currently pending before the Court.  The Court has not set a trial
date yet for the retailer action.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on
behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the
"indirect purchaser action").  The allegations in this complaint
are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve
state law claims.  Because the allegations in the indirect
purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the
retailer action, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the
outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action.
At this time, the Company says it is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of these matters.

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


DELPHI FINANCIAL: Court Gives Preliminary Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi has preliminarily approved a negotiated settlement of
a class action complaint related to insurance policy payments
involving Reliance Standard Life Insurance, a subsidiary of Delphi
Financial Group, Inc., according to Delphi'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, Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance
Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi in July 2008 against the
Company's subsidiary, RSLIC. The action challenges RSLIC's ability
to pay certain insurance policy benefits through a mechanism
commonly known in the insurance industry as a retained asset
account and contains related claims of breach of fiduciary duty
and prohibited transactions under the federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974. The parties have entered into an
agreement to settle this litigation, and the settlement has been
preliminarily approved by the court. It is not anticipated that
this settlement will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.


DG FASTCHANNEL: Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set for Sept. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of a settlement in the
consolidated securities litigation against DG FastChannel, Inc.,
is scheduled for September 13, 2011, 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 September 2010, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned
Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al, was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (10 Civ. 6523).
Subsequently, an identical lawsuit by the same plaintiff, also
captioned Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (10 Civ. 1769),
and a similar lawsuit, captioned Tours v. DG FastChannel Inc., et
al, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by a different plaintiff (10 Civ. 6930).  The Northern
District of Texas lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff and the other two lawsuits were consolidated before
Judge Richard J. Sullivan in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned In re DG FastChannel,
Inc. Securities Litigation (10 Civ. 6523).  On November 24, 2010,
Judge Sullivan appointed a lead plaintiff and ordered that a
consolidated amended complaint be filed.

On January 24, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of a purported class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired DG FastChannel common stock
between August 4, 2010, and August 27, 2010, inclusive.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false or misleading statements of material fact,
or failed to disclose material facts, about the Company's
financial condition during the class period.  The plaintiffs
sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.   On May 5,
2011, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to settle
the class action for an amount within the coverage limits of the
Company's directors and officers' liability insurance.  The MOU
provides, among other things, that: (i) the litigation will be
dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants; (ii) defendants
believe the claims are without merit and continue to deny
liability, but agree to settle in order to avoid the potential
cost, burden and uncertainty of continued litigation; and (iii)
the parties will jointly and promptly seek court approval of the
settlement.  On June 17, 2011, the parties jointly submitted a
stipulation of settlement to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  On June 22, 2011, the Court
entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and
directing the Lead Plaintiff to notify the class of the
settlement.  The Court set a final hearing on the settlement for
September 13, 2011.  The settlement is subject to final court
approval.

The Company is involved in a variety of other legal actions
arising from the ordinary course of business.  The Company does
not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a
material effect on its financial statements.


DIGI INTERNATIONAL: NetSilicon IPO Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Digi International Inc. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated amended class action complaint filed in connection
with the initial public offering of its subsidiary, 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 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting claims relating to the initial
public offering (IPO) of the Company's subsidiary NetSilicon, Inc.
and approximately 300 other public companies.  The Company
acquired Net Silicon, Inc. on February 13, 2002.  The complaint
names the Company as a defendant along with NetSilicon, certain of
its officers and certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's
IPO, among numerous others, and asserts, among other things, that
NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration statement violated
federal securities laws because they contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of
NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in NetSilicon's
IPO to the underwriters' customers.  The Company believes that the
claims against the NetSilicon defendants are without merit and has
defended the litigation vigorously.  Pursuant to a stipulation
between the parties, the two named officers were dismissed from
the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Still Awaits Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
FalconStor Software, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on
motions for appointment of "lead plaintiff" and "lead counsel" in
a consolidated 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.

In October 2010, two purported securities class actions (the
"Actions") were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the Company between February 5, 2009, and September 29,
2010.  The two Actions contain substantially similar allegations
and causes of actions.  The complaint in each of the Actions name
as defendants the Company and ReiJane Huai, as well as Wayne Lam,
an officer of the Company, and James Weber, the Company's Chief
Financial Officer and interim Chief Operating Officer.

On September 29, 2010, the Company announced that it had accepted
the resignation of Mr. Huai, its President and Chief Executive
Officer, and the Chairman of its Board of Directors, following his
disclosure to the Company that certain improper payments allegedly
were made in connection with the Company's licensing of software
to one customer.

The complaint in each of the actions alleges that the defendants
made a series of materially false and misleading statements
related to the Company's business and operations in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The following adverse facts
are alleged: (i) that FalconStor was experiencing weak demand for
its products and services; (ii) that FalconStor was making
improper payments to secure a contract with at least one of its
customers; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about
FalconStor and its prospects.  The plaintiffs in each Action seek
damages from the defendants.  On November 3, 2010, the Actions
were consolidated before Judge Edward R. Korman (the combined
Actions are referred to as the "Class Action").  Oral argument on
motions for the appointment of "lead plaintiff" and for the
approval of selection of "lead counsel" in the Class Action was
held in June 2011.  The Company anticipates that following
decisions on these motions, it will receive an amended complaint.

The Company says that it is, thus, unable to determine what claims
will ultimately be asserted in the Class Action.  In addition key
issues such as whether a class will be certified and, if so, who
the members of the class will be and what time period the class
will cover, have not yet been determined.  The Company believes it
has meritorious defenses to some or all of the claims of the
Actions as filed and intends to file a motion to dismiss.  The
Company is, therefore, unable to estimate reasonably its exposure
for the Class Action.


FLEXTRONICS INT'L: Suit Over Solectron Merger Faces Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court held a hearing on August 12,
2011 for a plaintiff to show cause why its shareholder class
action lawsuit against Flextronics International Ltd. should not
be dismissed, 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.

On June 4, 2007, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in
Santa Clara County Superior Court. The lawsuit arises out of the
merger with Solectron Corp. in 2007 and other defendants include
selected officers of the Company, Solectron and Solectron's former
directors and officers. On behalf of the class, the plaintiff
seeks compensatory, rescissory, and other forms of damages, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff does not seek a
jury trial.  On August 12, 2010, the Court certified a class of
all former Solectron shareholders that were entitled to vote and
receive cash or shares of the Company's stock in exchange for
their shares of Solectron stock following the merger. On April 21,
2011, the Court granted a request by the plaintiff's counsel to
withdraw as class counsel, and ordered the plaintiff to retain new
counsel by June 24, 2011. The plaintiff failed to do so, thus on
June 28, 2011, the Court issued an order to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed and the hearing was scheduled for
August 12, 2011.  The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and any possible losses resulting from such claims would not
be material to the financial statements as a whole.


FREDERICK COUNTY: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick County Bancorp Inc. is awaiting court approval of an
agreement to settle a purported class action lawsuit against its
subsidiary, according to the Company's August 11, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On July 30, 2010, Frederick County Bank was served with a lawsuit,
Pionteck, v. Frederick County Bank, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division,
alleging noncompliance the ATM notice requirements of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.  The complaint, which purports to
be a class action, was filed on July 15, 2010.  If the class
action proceeds and the Bank is ultimately found to be liable,
statutory damages from the noncompliance could be up to 1% of the
Bank's net worth, approximately $270,000 at June 30, 2011.  The
Bank has entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff
for an amount, inclusive of plaintiff legal fees and costs, below
the maximum statutory damages.  The settlement agreement is
subject to approval by the court.  The Company's June 30, 2011
financial statements reflect a reserve for litigation and
settlement costs that the Company believes will cover
substantially all remaining expense to be incurred in connection
with this matter.  If the settlement agreement is approved by the
court, the Company believes that it would not have a material
adverse affect on the Company's financial position.  There can be
no assurance that the settlement will be approved by the court on
the proposed terms, or that final settlement will not result in
greater expense than that anticipated.


FULL TILT: Canadian Poker Players File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Tom Victor, writing for eGaming Review, reports that a new class
action lawsuit has been brought against Full Tilt Poker, more than
one month after four poker players brought a similar suit against
the suspended operator.  The case -- brought by Canadian players
Zayn Jetha and Donald Whelan, names just three individuals:
indicted duo Ray Bitar and Nelson Burtnick as well as Team Full
Tilt member Howard Lederer.  It also names Full Tilt Poker Ltd and
several associated companies including Orinic, Oxalic, Tiltware
and Vantage.  A summon was issued to the individuals and companies
concerned on August 9.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Fushi Copperweld, Inc., continues to defend itself against
securities class action lawsuits over its restatement of certain
financial statements, 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.

Shareholder class action complaints have been filed against Fushi
and certain of its present and former officers and directors in
connection with the Company's restatement of its consolidated
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2008
and 2009, and the unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2010, June 30, 2010
and September 30, 2010.  In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks
damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class of
persons and entities who purchased the Company's common stock
between August 14, 2007 and March 29, 2011.  The plaintiff alleges
that the Company's financial statements for the aforementioned
periods contain material misstatements and omissions, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Company has discussed
the allegations with its legal counsel that the Company believes
the allegation are without merit and the Company has viable
defenses to the allegations, nevertheless, there is a possibility
that a loss may have been incurred.  In accordance with ASC Topic
450, no loss contingency was accrued as of June 30, 2011, since
the possible los or range of loss cannot be reasonable estimated.

Fushi Copperweld, Inc., is a producer and innovator of bimetallic
wire products, principally copper-clad aluminum, or CCA, and
copper-clad steel, or CCS, products. CCA and CCS conductors are
generally used as a substitute for solid copper conductors in
applications for which either cost savings or specific electrical
or physical attributes are necessary.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Continues to Defend Suits Over "Fu Proposal"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fushi Copperweld, Inc., continues to defend itself against
shareholder class action lawsuits relating to a common stock
acquisition proposal by the Company's chief executive officer,
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 November 3, 2010, the Company's Board of Directors received a
proposal from its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Li Fu
and Abax Global Capital (Hong Kong) Limited on behalf of funds
managed by it and its affiliates ("Abax") for Mr. Fu and Abax to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Fushi not
owned by Mr. Fu and his affiliates in a going private transaction
for $11.50 per share in cash, subject to certain conditions (the
"Fu Proposal").  According to the proposal letter, Mr. Fu and Abax
will form an acquisition vehicle for the purpose of completing the
acquisition and plan to finance the acquisition with a combination
of debt and equity capital. The proposal letter states that the
equity portion of the financing would be provided by Mr. Fu, Abax
and related sources.  A Special Committee of the Company's Board
of Directors has retained BofA Merrill Lynch as its financial
advisor and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal advisor to
assist the Special Committee in its consideration of the Fu
Proposal.  No decisions have been made by the Special Committee
with respect to the Company's response to the proposal.

Shareholder class action complaints have been filed against Fushi
and certain officers and directors in connection with the Fu
Proposal in Nevada.  In the complaints, the plaintiffs alleged
that the consideration in the proposal was grossly inadequate. The
complaint sought, among other relief, to enjoin defendants from
consummating the Fu Proposal and to direct defendants to exercise
their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best
interests of the shareholders.  There are no definite claims for
damages, though the plaintiffs claim that the proposed offer price
in the Fu Proposal is unfair.  The Company has discussed the
allegations with its legal counsel that the Company believes the
allegation are without merit and the Company has viable defenses
to the allegations, nevertheless, there is a possibility that a
loss may have been incurred.  In accordance with ASC Topic 450, no
loss contingency was accrued as of
June 30, 2011 since the possible los or range of loss cannot be
reasonable estimated.

Fushi Copperweld, Inc., is a producer and innovator of bimetallic
wire products, principally copper-clad aluminum, or CCA, and
copper-clad steel, or CCS, products. CCA and CCS conductors are
generally used as a substitute for solid copper conductors in
applications for which either cost savings or specific electrical
or physical attributes are necessary.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Settles Wellbutrin Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $49 million to settle a 6-year-
old antitrust lawsuit by purchasers of the antidepressant
Wellbutrin SR.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement in In re Wellbutrin SR
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-05525 (E.D. Pa.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/18/settlement.pdf

SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline was
represented by:

          David P. Gersch, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          555 Twelve Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          E-mail: David.Gersch@aporter.com

The Class was represented by:

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          RODA NAST, P.C.
          801 Estelle Drive
          Lancaster, PA 17601
          Telephone: (717) 892-3000
          E-mail: dnast@rodanast.com


GOVGUAM: Manglona Called to Testify on Tax Refund Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Administration Benita Manglona has been summoned to
give her deposition in the tax refunds class action lawsuit on
August 31, 2011.  Deputy Tax Commissioner Paul Pablo already was
deposed last month.

This class action suit further justifies the need for the
government to make good on its obligations to the people owed tax
refunds before a court forces the government to do so.

This is not the first class action suit filed against the
government of Guam for non-payment of money owed to thousands of
taxpayers.  In October 1993, GovGuam retiree and former GGRF
deputy director Candelaria Rios filed a class action suit against
the government.  The suit was 13 years old before Superior Court
of Guam Judge Arthur Barcinas ruled the government owed this class
$123 million for the years the government had not paid its
recipients.

On December 3, 2004, the government of Guam was hit with a class
action lawsuit for GovGuam to pay the Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC).  The class action lawsuit was settled, with the government
of Guam incurring tens of millions more in debt to those owed the
EITC.

The government of Guam was able to pay most of these overdue
obligations to the people by floating bonds in 2007 and 2009.

The amount of money owed to taxpayers in tax refunds is nearly
equal to the total amount the government paid to COLA class and
EITC class recipients.

"I want to pay the people their tax refunds before a court has to
force us to do it," Governor Eddie Baza Calvo said.  "If a court
forces us to pay these refunds, not only will our government
collapse, but the people owed refunds will be shortchanged their
refunds by attorney's fees."


HANCOCK HOLDING: Reaches Settlements on Suits Over Whitney Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hancock Holding Company have reached settlements in principle
resolving class action lawsuits related to its acquisition of
Whitney Holding Corporation, the Company disclosed in its
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Effective June 4, 2011, Hancock completed the acquisition of all
of the outstanding common stock of Whitney Holding Corporation, a
bank holding company based in New Orleans, Louisiana, in a stock
and cash transaction.  Whitney common shareholders received 0.418
shares of Hancock common stock in exchange for each share of
Whitney stock, resulting in Hancock issuing 40,794,261 common
shares at a fair value of $1.3 billion.  The Whitney TARP
preferred stock plus warrants of $307.7 million was purchased by
the Company as part of the merger transaction.  In total, the
purchase price was approximately $1.6 billion based on the fair
value on the acquisition date of Hancock common stock exchanged
and the options to purchase Hancock common stock, and cash paid
for the TARP preferred stock and warrant.

On January 7, 2011, a purported shareholder of Whitney filed a
lawsuit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans of
the State of Louisiana captioned De LaPouyade v. Whitney Holding
Corporation, et al., No. 11-189, naming Whitney and members of
Whitney's board of directors as defendants.  The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of Whitney's
common shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly
maintainable as a class action.  The lawsuit alleges that
Whitney's directors breached their fiduciary duties and/or
violated Louisiana state law and that Whitney aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by, among other things,
(a) agreeing to consideration that undervalues Whitney, (b)
agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude a fair sales
process, (c) engaging in self-dealing, and (d) failing to protect
against conflicts of interest.  Among other relief, the plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the merger.  The parties have reached a settlement
in principle.

On February 17, 2011, a complaint in intervention was filed by the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System ("MPERS")
in the De LaPouyade case.  The MPERS complaint is substantially
identical to and seeks to join in the De LaPouyade complaint.  The
parties have reached a settlement in principle.

On February 7, 2011, another putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Realistic Partners v. Whitney Holding Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00256, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against
Whitney, members of Whitney's board of directors, and Hancock
asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty under Louisiana state law,
and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty by, among other
things, (a) making material misstatements or omissions in the
proxy statement, (b) agreeing to consideration that undervalues
Whitney, (c) agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude a
fair sales process, (d) engaging in self-dealing, and (e) failing
to protect against conflicts of interest.  Among other relief, the
plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger.  On February 24, 2011, the
plaintiff moved for class certification. The parties have reached
a settlement in principle.

On April 11, 2011, another putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Jane Doe v. Whitney Holding Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:11-cv-00794-ILRL-JCW, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Whitney,
members of Whitney's board of directors, and the defendants'
insurance carrier asserting breach of fiduciary duty under
Louisiana state law by, among other things, (a) agreeing to
consideration that undervalues Whitney, (b) agreeing to deal
protection devices that preclude a fair sales process, (c)
engaging in self-dealing, and (d) failing to protect against
conflicts of interest. Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the merger.  On April 20, 2011, this case was consolidated
with the Realistic Partners case.  The parties have reached a
settlement in principle.

Following completion of the Whitney merger, Hancock Holding
Company -- http://www.hancockbank.com/-- has assets of
approximately $20 billion.  Both Hancock Bank and Whitney Bank
were founded more than a century ago and operate a combined total
of 293 full-service bank branches and almost 400 ATMs across a
Gulf South corridor comprising South Mississippi; southern and
central Alabama; southern Louisiana; the northern, central, and
Panhandle regions of Florida; and Houston, Texas.  The Hancock
Holding Company financial services family also includes Hancock
Investment Services, Inc.; Hancock Insurance Agency and its
divisions of J. Everett Eaves and Ross King Walker; Magna
Insurance Company; Southern Coastal Insurance Agency, Inc.;
corporate trust offices in Gulfport and Jackson, Miss., New
Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Orlando; and Harrison Finance Company.


HANOVER INSURANCE: 5th Cir. Remands Louisiana Suit to Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded
a lawsuit commenced by the state of Louisiana against insurers to
the District Court for further proceedings, according to The
Hanover Insurance 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.

In August 2007, the state of Louisiana filed a putative class
action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
State of Louisiana, entitled State of Louisiana, individually and
on behalf of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,
Office of Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C.
Foti, Jr., The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana,
individually and as a class action on behalf of all recipients of
funds as well as all eligible and/or future recipients of funds
through The Road Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al., No.
07-8970.  The complaint named as defendants over 200 foreign and
domestic insurance carriers, including the Company, and asserts a
right to benefit payments from insurers on behalf of current and
former Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or
will receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program.  The
case was thereafter removed to the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

On March 5, 2009, the court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants.  The
court dismissed all claims for bad faith and breach of fiduciary
duty and all claims for flood damages under policies with flood
exclusions or asserted under Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, but
rejected the insurers' arguments that the purported assignments
from individual claimants to the state were barred by anti-
assignment provisions in the insurers' policies.  On April 30,
2009, Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth
Circuit"), which was granted.  On July 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit
certified the anti-assignment issue to the Louisiana Supreme
Court.  On May 10, 2011, the Supreme Court of Louisiana issued a
decision holding that the anti-assignment provisions were not
violative of public policy.  The court also indicated, however,
that such provisions would only serve to bar post-loss assignments
if they clearly and unambiguously expressed that they apply to
post-loss assignments.  On June 28, 2011, the Fifth Circuit
remanded the case to the Federal District Court for further
proceedings consistent with the Louisiana's Supreme Court's
opinion.

At this time, the Company says it is unable to provide a
reasonable estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability.
The Company is unable to determine how many policyholders have
assigned claims under the Road Home program and, in any case, has
no basis to estimate the amount of any differences between what
the Company paid with respect to any such claim and the amount
that the State of Louisiana may claim should properly have been
paid under the policy.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of
additional claims in the lawsuit commenced by Jennifer A. Durand,
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 putative class action lawsuit captioned
Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., The
Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
The named plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum
distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at
or about the time of her termination, claims that she and others
similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum
distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company
understated the accrued benefit in the calculation.

The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009.  In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010.  In addition to the pending claim challenging the
calculation of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint
includes: (a) a claim that the Plan failed to calculate
participants' account balances and lump sum payments properly
because interest credits were based solely upon the performance of
each participant's selection from among various hypothetical
investment options (as the Plan provided) rather than crediting
the greater of that performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b)
a claim that the 2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest
crediting for all participants from the performance of
participant's investment selections to the 30 year Treasury rate,
reduced benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for participants who had account
balances as of the amendment date by not continuing to provide
them performance-based interest crediting on those balances; and
(c) claims for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice
requirements arising from the various interest crediting and lump
sum distribution matters of which Plaintiffs complain.  The
District Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the
additional claims on statute of limitations grounds by a
Memorandum Opinion dated March 31, 2011, leaving the claims
substantially as set forth in the original March 12, 2007
complaint.  Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the District Court's decision to dismiss the additional claims.

At this time, the Company says it is unable to provide a
reasonable estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability
if the outcome of the lawsuit is unfavorable.  This matter is
still in the early stages of litigation.  The extent to which any
of the Plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which
are overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel,
are accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the
Plan's or the Company's potential liability.  It is not clear
whether a class will be certified or, if certified, how many
former or current Plan participants, if any, will be included. The
statute of limitations applicable to the alleged class has not yet
been finally determined and the extent of potential liability, if
any, will depend on this final determination.  In addition,
assuming for these purposes that the Plaintiffs prevail with
respect to claims that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan
were understated, then there are numerous possible theories and
other variables upon which any revised calculation of benefits as
requested under Plaintiffs' claims could be based.  It is likely
that any adverse judgment in this case would be against the Plan.
Such a judgment would be expected to create a liability for the
Plan, with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay
benefits.  The Company's future required funding of the Plan could
also be impacted by such a liability.


HANSEN NATURAL: Continues to Defend "Chavez" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corporation is still defending itself in a class
action lawsuit filed by Christopher Chavez 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.

In September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a certain class of consumers filed an action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair
business practices, false advertising, violation of California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled wholly
in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Defendants removed this Superior Court
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "District Court") under the Class
Action Fairness Act and filed motions for dismissal or transfer.
On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss Chavez's complaint with prejudice.  On June 23, 2009,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth
Circuit") filed a memorandum opinion reversing the decision of the
District Court and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
CLRA claims; the plaintiff filed a motion for a decision on a
preemption issue; and the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On June 18, 2010, the District Court entered an
order certifying the class, ruled that there was no preemption by
federal law, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  The
class that the District Court certified initially consists of all
persons who purchased any beverage bearing the Blue Sky mark or
brand in the United States at any time between May 16, 2002 and
June 30, 2006.  On September 9, 2010, the District Court approved
the form of the class notice and its distribution plan; and set an
opt-out date of December 10, 2010, and a trial date for March,
2011.  On September 28, 2010, the Company filed a Request for
Leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order certifying
the class action.  On November 11, 2010, the Company filed two
dispositive motions: a motion to decertify the class and a motion
for summary judgment.  The plaintiff filed his motion for partial
summary judgment.  The District Court took all motions under
submission without oral argument.  On January 31, 2011, the case
was reassigned to Judge Jeffrey S. White.  The District Court has
subsequently vacated all pending hearing dates and has taken the
pending motions under submission without oral argument.  The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all the
allegations and plans a vigorous defense.  The Company believes
that any possible litigation losses, if awarded, would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.


HANSEN NATURAL: Certification Docs Not Yet Filed in "Wellman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against Hansen Natural Corporation
and its former Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as
defendants.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misleadingly packaged and labeled Monster Energy(R) products in
Canada by not including sufficiently specific statements with
respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated
with the consumption of the energy drink products.  The
plaintiff's claims against the defendants are for negligence,
unjust enrichment, and making misleading/false representations in
violation of the Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act
(Canada) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario).  The
plaintiff claims general damages on behalf of the putative class
in the amount of C$20 million, together with punitive damages of
C$5 million, plus legal costs and interest.  The plaintiff's
certification motion materials have not yet been filed.  In
accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company
will not file an answer to the complaint until after the
determination of the certification motion.  The Company believes
that the plaintiff's complaint is without merit and plans a
vigorous defense.

No 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.


HANSEN NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Sub Judice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corporation and other defendants' request to
dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint remains sub
judice, 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 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities
class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et
al. was also filed in the District Court.

On July 14, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the actions and appointing lead counsel and the
Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff. On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws. The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007.  It named as
defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and
Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the
Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements
relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements
with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and its sales of "Allied" energy drink
lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis
of material non-public information.  Plaintiff also alleged that
the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of 2007
did not include certain promotional expenses.  The Consolidated
Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended  and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On July 12, 2010, following a
hearing, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to
amend, on the grounds, among others, that it failed to specify
which statements Plaintiff claimed were false or misleading,
failed adequately to allege that certain statements were
actionable or false or misleading, and failed adequately to
demonstrate that defendants acted with scienter.

On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws.  While
similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the
allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
and makes certain new allegations, including that the Company
engaged in "channel stuffing" during the Class Period that
rendered false or misleading the Company's reported sales results
and certain other statements made by the defendants.  In addition,
it no longer names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.  The Amended
Class Action Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on November 8, 2010.   At a hearing on defendants'
motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint held on
May 12, 2011, the District Court issued a tentative ruling that
would grant the motion to dismiss as to certain of Plaintiff's
claims, but would deny the motion to dismiss with regard to the
majority of Plaintiff's claims.  The District Court has not,
however, issued a final ruling.  The District Court held an
additional hearing on the motion to dismiss on May 25, 2011, and
has received supplemental submissions from the parties.
Defendants' motion to dismiss remains sub judice.

The Amended Class Action Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages. As a result, the amount or range of reasonably possible
litigation losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be
estimated.


IBERIABANK CORP: Awaits Okay of $2.5MM Joint Deal in Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
IBERIABANK Corporation is awaiting court approval of its $2.5
million joint settlement to resolve two putative class action
lawsuits relating to the imposition of overdraft fees, 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.

IBERIABANK and the Company have been named as defendants in two
putative class actions relating to the imposition of overdraft
fees on customer accounts. The first such case, Eivet v.
IBERIABANK is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and presently bears Case No. 1:10-CV-
23790-JLK.  The case was originally filed elsewhere, but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a
multi-district litigation ("MDL") involving numerous defendant
banks, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No. 09-
MD-02036-JLK.  Plaintiff challenges IBERIABANK's practices
relating to the imposition of overdraft fees and non-sufficient
fund fees on consumer checking accounts.  Plaintiff alleges that
IBERIABANK's methodology for posting transactions to customer
accounts is designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees
and brings claims for breach of contract and of a covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust
enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices laws.
Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

The second of the two cases, Sachar v. IBERIABANK Corporation,
Case No. 60CV2011-0770, was filed in Pulaski County, Arkansas,
Circuit Court on February 18, 2011.  Plaintiff asserts that
IBERIABANK Corporation engaged in the practice of re-sequencing
customers' accounts in high-to-low order by posting the largest
transactions first and the smallest transactions last which is
alleged to increase the number of overdraft fees.  The complaint
seeks damages for allegedly deceptive trade practices under
Arkansas state law, for breach of contract, for unjust enrichment,
for conversion, and for injunctive relief.

On May 12, 2011, the Company entered into a provisional settlement
agreement with the legal counsel for the plaintiffs in the two
putative class actions.  The joint settlement amount of $2,500,000
is predicated on the (1) the judge's accepting this settlement as
fair and (2) the judge's certifying a national class.  All
plaintiffs have consented to the settlement amount.  A motion of
approval of the settlement is pending before a federal judge in
charge of the multi-district litigation in the Southern District
of Florida.

At June 30, 2011, the Company recorded a liability for the
settlement amount and related expenses of $2,750,000 in its
unaudited consolidated balance sheet, with a corresponding amount
recorded as noninterest expense in its consolidated statements of
income for the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2011.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Atlantic Lotteries Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification of a lawsuit brought by Atlantic Lotteries
against a subsidiary of International Game Technology is still
pending, according to the Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 2, 2011.

In May 2010, Atlantic Lotteries commenced an action against
International Game Technology, VLC, Inc. and IGT-Canada, wholly
owned subsidiaries of International Game Technology, and other
manufacturers of video lottery machines in the Supreme Court of
New Foundland and Labrador seeking indemnification for any damages
that may be awarded against Atlantic Lotteries in a class action
suit also filed in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and
Labrador.  A motion for class certification has been filed by
plaintiff but has not yet scheduled for argument.  In the interim,
plaintiff has filed a motion to preclude the third party
defendants from participating on the motion to certify.  By a
decision and order, dated April 28, 2011, the Court denied
plaintiff's motion to preclude third party defendants from
participating on the motion to certify.

International Game Technology is a global company specializing in
the design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming
equipment and systems products.  The Company is a leading supplier
of gaming products in substantially all legal jurisdictions
worldwide and provide a diverse offering of quality products and
services at competitive prices, designed to increase the potential
for gaming operator profits by enhancing the player's experience.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Discovery Ongoing in IBEW Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a class action lawsuit against International Game
Technology is currently proceeding, the Company related in its
August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging
causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act against IGT and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  The complaint alleges that between
November 1, 2007 and October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated
IGT's stock price through a series of materially false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding IGT's business,
operations, and prospects.  In April 2010, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  In March 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss
that complaint was granted in part and denied in part.  The Court
found that the allegations concerning statements about the
seasonality of game play levels and announcements of projects with
Harrah's and City Center were sufficient to state a claim.
Plaintiffs did not state a claim based on the remaining statements
about earnings, operating expense, or forward-looking statements
about play levels and server-based technology. Discovery is
proceeding.

International Game Technology is a global company specializing in
the design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming
equipment and systems products.  The Company is a leading supplier
of gaming products in substantially all legal jurisdictions
worldwide and provide a diverse offering of quality products and
services at competitive prices, designed to increase the potential
for gaming operator profits by enhancing the player's experience.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action complaint against International Game
Technology, asserting violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, is currently into a discovery process, according to
the Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension plans,
naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan
Committee, and several current and former officers and directors.
The actions, filed in the US District Court for the District of
Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technology
et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. International
Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585. The actions were
consolidated.  The consolidated complaint, which seeks unspecified
damages, asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132.

The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar to
securities and derivative filed against the Company, and further
alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to Plan
Participants by failing to disclose material facts to Plan
Participants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in
the interest of the Participants, failing to properly manage Plan
assets, and permitting Participants to elect to invest in Company
stock.  In March 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part.
Discovery is proceeding.

International Game Technology is a global company specializing in
the design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming
equipment and systems products.  The Company is a leading supplier
of gaming products in substantially all legal jurisdictions
worldwide and provides a diverse offering of quality products and
services at competitive prices, designed to increase the potential
for gaming operator profits by enhancing the player's experience.


INTL FCSTONE: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated securities
class action complaint in Missouri, 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.

FCStone Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of INTL FCStone,
and certain officers of FCStone were named as defendants in an
action filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.  A consolidated amended
complaint ("CAC") was subsequently filed on September 25, 2009.
As alleged in the CAC, the action purports to be brought as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock
between November 15, 2007 and February 24, 2009.  The CAC seeks to
hold defendants liable under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and concerns disclosures
included in FCStone's fiscal year 2008 public filings.
Specifically, the CAC relates to FCStone's public disclosures
regarding an interest rate hedge, a bad debt expense arising from
unprecedented events in the cotton trading market, and certain
disclosures beginning on November 3, 2008 related to losses it
expected to incur arising primarily from a customer energy trading
account.  FCStone and the named officers moved to
dismiss the action.  Although the Court denied that motion on
November 16, 2010, it limited the action to the public disclosures
made on November 3 and 4, 2008, related to the energy trading
account.  As a result of the Court's order and lead plaintiffs'
decision not to amend their complaint, the lead plaintiffs lost
standing to prosecute the action because they were not
shareholders at the relevant time.  Counsel for lead plaintiffs
have since added named plaintiffs who purport to possess standing.
Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion as to
whether the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
requires supplemental notice in order for the action to proceed.

The Company and the FCStone defendants continue to believe the
action is meritless, and intend to defend the action vigorously.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities; debt
origination and asset management.  During the quarter ended March
31, 2011, the Company changed its name from International Assets
Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc., following approval of
the name change by the Company's stockholders.  INTL's businesses,
which include the commodities advisory and transaction execution
firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve more than 10,000 commercial
customers in more than 100 countries through a network of offices
in 12 countries around the world.


INTL FCSTONE: Plea to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. continues to await court approval of its motion
to dismiss a consolidated shareholder class action complaint
brought against its subsidiary.

In August 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed against
FCStone Group, Inc., a subsidiary of INTL, and certain directors
of FCStone in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri,
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets
and unjust enrichment.  An amended complaint was subsequently
filed in May 2009 to add claims based upon the losses sustained by
FCStone arising out of a customer's energy trading account.  On
July 7, 2009, the same plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the existing case to add a purported class action claim on behalf
of the holders of FCStone common stock.

On July 8, 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against FCStone, and its directors, as well as the
Company in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.  The
complaint alleged that FCStone and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in
connection with the contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the
Company.  This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated
complaint which does not assert any claims against the Company.
This complaint purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone and
the Company's behalf and against certain of FCStone current and
former directors and officers and directly against the same
individuals.  The Company, FCStone, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on multiple grounds.  That motion is fully
briefed and pending decision.

No 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.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities; debt
origination and asset management.  During the quarter ended March
31, 2011, the Company changed its name from International Assets
Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc., following approval of
the name change by the Company's stockholders.  INTL's businesses,
which include the commodities advisory and transaction execution
firm FCStone Group, Inc., serve more than 10,000 commercial
customers in more than 100 countries through a network of offices
in 12 countries around the world.


INVESTORS TITLE: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Conspiracy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Title Company continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging price-fixing.

A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against several
title insurance companies, including Investors Title Insurance
Company, entitled Backel v. Fidelity National Title Insurance et
al. (6:2008- CV-00181).  The plaintiff in this case contends a
lack of meaningful oversight by agencies with which title
insurance rates are filed and approved.  There are further
allegations that the title insurance companies have conspired to
fix title insurance rates.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages,
including treble damages, as well as injunctive relief. Similar
suits have been filed in other jurisdictions, several of which
have already been dismissed.  In West Virginia, the case has been
placed on the inactive list pending the resolution of the
bankruptcy of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.  The Company
believes that this case is without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations.  At this stage in the
litigation, the Company does not have the ability to make a
reasonable range of estimates in regards to potential loss
amounts, if any.

No 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.

Investors Title Company is engaged through its subsidiaries in the
business of issuing and underwriting title insurance policies.
The Company also provides investment management services to
individuals, companies, banks and trusts, as well as services in
connection with tax-deferred exchanges of like-kind property.


KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Await Settlement Approval in Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc., continues to await final court approval of
settlements resolving class action lawsuits commenced by the
Company's temporary employees, according to the Company's
August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

The Company is the subject of two pending class action lawsuits.
The two lawsuits, Fuller v. Kelly Services, Inc. and Kelly Home
Care Services, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles, and Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., pending in the
U.S. District Court Southern District of California, both involve
claims for monetary damages by current and former temporary
employees working in the State of California.

The Fuller matter involves claims relating to alleged
misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and not
entitled to overtime compensation under state law and alleged
technical violations of a state law governing the content of
employee pay stubs.  The Sullivan matter relates to claims by
temporary workers for compensation while interviewing for
assignments.  Tentative settlements have been reached in both
matters and are awaiting final court approval.  Accordingly, a
$1.2 million after-tax charge related to the Fuller matter was
recognized in discontinued operations during the second quarter of
2011.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a
leader in providing workforce solutions.  Kelly(R) offers a
comprehensive array of outsourcing and consulting services as well
as world-class staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire and
direct-hire basis.  Serving clients around the globe, Kelly
provides employment to more than 530,000 employees annually.
Revenue in 2010 was $5 billion.


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Still Defends Wage and Hour Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Transportation, Inc., is involved in certain class action
litigation in which the plaintiffs allege claims for failure to
provide meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized
deductions, and other items.  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 materially adverse
effect on the Company.  However, the final disposition of these
matters and the impact of such final dispositions cannot be
determined at this time.

No further updates or details 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.


MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Recalls 960,000 Martha Stewart Casseroles
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Macy's Merchandising Group, in New York, announced a voluntary
recall of about 960,000 Martha Stewart Collection(TM) Enamel Cast
Iron casseroles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The enamel coating on the cast iron casseroles can crack or break
during use.  This can cause the enamel to crack and fly off as a
projectile, posing a risk of laceration or burn hazard to the user
or bystanders.

Macy's has received two reports of the enamel cracking and flying
off of the casseroles during use.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Martha Stewart Collection(TM) Enamel Cast Iron
Casseroles in 7 quart, 5.5 quart and 2.75 quart sizes, with
exterior enamel finishes in red, cobalt blue, sand, green, blue,
white, mustard, brown and teal, with cream colored interior
finishes.  The casseroles are embossed with Martha Stewart
Collection(TM) on the bottom and lid handle.  Picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11308.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Macy's stores and AAFES, MCX and NEX locations nationwide, and on
macys.com between June 2007 and June 2011 for between about $25
and $170.

Consumers should immediately stop using the casseroles and return
them to any Macy's store for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Macy's toll-free at (888) 257-5949 between
10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time or visit the Macy's Web
site at http://www.macys.com/


MARCUS CORP: Class Certification of "Goodman" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification of a class action lawsuit filed
against subsidiaries of The Marcus Corporation captioned Goodman,
et al. v. Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, Case No. 09-CV-
957 (D. Nev.), remains pending, according to the Company's
August 9, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 26, 2011.

On December 5, 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada for Clark County against
Platinum LLC.  On April 30, 2009, Platinum LLC was served with a
summons and a copy of an amended complaint.  The amended complaint
also named another one of the Company's subsidiaries, Marcus
Management Las Vegas, LLC, as a defendant.  Subsequently, Platinum
LLC and Marcus Management LV removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, where it is currently pending.
The amended complaint in Goodman seeks an unspecified amount of
damages and alleges violations of federal and Nevada law, and that
Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV made various
misrepresentations in connection with the Platinum Hotel & Spa
development in Las Vegas, Nevada.  On June 29, 2009, both Platinum
LLC and Marcus Management LV moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety.  On March 29, 2010, the District of
Nevada granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss,
and dismissed most of the claims against Platinum LLC and Marcus
Management LV without prejudice.

On April 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
realleging most of the claims made in the amended complaint.  On
May 28, 2010, Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV answered one
count of the complaint and moved to dismiss the remaining counts
of the complaint.  On September 27, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint that names
Marcus Hotels, Inc. as an additional defendant.  On March 31,
2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file the third
amended complaint and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint as moot.  On January 11, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed their motion for the court to certify a class on
all claims.  On February 11, 2011, the defendants filed their
opposition to the motion for class certification.  The motion for
class certification remains pending with the court.  Discovery in
the matter has commenced.

The Marcus Corporation -- http://www.marcuscorp.com/-- is in the
lodging and entertainment industries.  The Marcus Corporation's
movie theatre division, Marcus Theatres(R), currently owns or
manages 684 screens at 55 locations in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and Ohio.  The company's lodging
division, Marcus Hotels and Resorts, owns or manages 19 hotels,
resorts and other properties in ten states.


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Parties Agree to Settle Stockholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation entered into a settlement with
plaintiffs of a consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit and
two derivative lawsuits pending in Arizona, 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 3, 10 and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action
lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-
01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
stockholders who purchased securities of the Company during the
period between October 30, 2003 and approximately September 24,
2008. The Court consolidated these actions into a single
proceeding and on May 18, 2009 an amended complaint was filed
alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements
in 2008. On December 2, 2009, the Court granted the Company's and
other defendants' dismissal motions and dismissed the consolidated
amended complaint without prejudice. On January 18, 2010 the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and on or about
August 9, 2010, the Court denied the Company's and other
defendants' related dismissal motions. On December 17, 2010, the
lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the
defendants filed an opposition to the motion on March 8, 2011. On
June 6, 2011, the Company, certain of its current officers who are
named in the complaint, and the Company's outside auditors entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs'
representatives to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle
the pending action. Under the terms of the settlement agreement,
which remains subject to Court approval among other customary
conditions, the Company's portion of the settlement will be paid
entirely by insurance. The Company's outside auditors also will
contribute to this settlement. The Company itself is not required
to make any payments to fund the settlement. The settlement
agreement contains no admission of liability by the Company or the
named individuals in the action, the allegations of which are
expressly denied in the Class Action MOU. In the event the
settlement is not approved by the Court, the Company will continue
to vigorously defend the claims in the class action lawsuits.
There can be no assurance that the Court will approve the
settlement, or that the Company will otherwise ultimately be
successful in settling the lawsuits or in defending the lawsuits,
and an adverse resolution of the lawsuits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position and results of
operations in the period in which the lawsuits are resolved.


MEDIFAST INC: Court Consolidates Securities Class Suits in Md.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action complaints alleging violations of securities law
against MediFast, Inc., have been consolidated by a Maryland
court, 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 17, 2011, a class action complaint titled Oren Proter et
al. v. Medifast, Inc. et al. (Civil Action 2011-CV-720[BEL]),
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified amount of damages
in the US District Court, District of Maryland.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding
the Company's business, operations and prospects. On March 24,
2011, a class action complaint titled Fred Greenberg v Medifast,
Inc., et al (Civil Action 2011-CV776 [BEL], alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified
amount of damages in the US District Court, District of Maryland.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects.
On July 19, 2011, the U.S. District Judge ordered the
consolidation of the cases and appointment of co-lead counsel
among other matters.  The Greenberg case was dismissed without
prejudice.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
remaining actions.

MediFast, Inc., is engaged in the production, distribution, and
sale of weight management and disease management products and
other consumable health and diet products.  The Company's product
lines include meal replacements and vitamins.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: 8th Circuit Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated securities
lawsuit against MEMC Electronic Materials, 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 September 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association asserting
claims against MEMC and Nabeel Gareeb, MEMC's former Chief
Executive Officer, captioned Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., et al.  On
October 10, 2008, a substantially similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Donald Jameson against MEMC, Mr.
Gareeb and Ken Hannah, MEMC's former Chief Financial Officer and
currently MEMC's Executive Vice President and President-Solar
Materials.  These cases purportedly were brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired shares of MEMC's common stock between
June 13, 2008, and July 23, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Both complaints alleged that, during the Class Period, MEMC failed
to disclose certain material facts regarding MEMC's operations and
performance, which had the effect of artificially inflating MEMC's
stock price in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").  Plaintiffs further
alleged that Messrs. Gareeb and Hannah are subject to liability
under Section 20(a) of the Act as control persons of MEMC.
Plaintiffs sought certification of the putative class, unspecified
compensatory damages, interest and costs, as well as ancillary
relief.  On December 12, 2008, these actions were consolidated,
and the Court appointed Mahendra A. Patel as lead plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 23,
2009.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties by
June 24, 2009.  On March 8, 2010, the Court dismissed the
consolidated class action complaint with prejudice.  On March 31,
2010, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  Oral argument for this
appeal occurred on April 12, 2011.  On June 17, 2011, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Jerry Jones Withdraw as Plaintiff in Own Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Jones withdrew as one of the plaintiffs in the putative
class action lawsuit he originally commenced in 2008 against MEMC
Electronic Materials, 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 December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Jerry Jones v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of MEMC's 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan")
between September 4, 2007, and December 26, 2008, inclusive.  The
complaint asserted claims against MEMC and certain of its
directors, employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan.
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA"), generally asserting that the defendants
failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's participants of the
risks of investing in MEMC's stock and that the Company's stock
should not have been made available as an investment alternative
in the Plan.  The misstatements alleged in the complaint
significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the
federal securities class action against MEMC.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008, through the
present, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The amended complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages, including losses the
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced
due to their investment through the Plan in MEMC's stock,
equitable relief and an award of attorney's fees.  No class has
been certified and discovery has not begun.  The Company and the
named directors and employees filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties as of October 9,
2009.  The parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental
authority and corresponding responses.  On March 17, 2010, the
court denied the motion to dismiss.  The MEMC defendants filed a
motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification
for interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties
as of June 16, 2010.  The parties each subsequently filed notices
of supplemental authority and corresponding responses.  On
October 18, 2010, the court granted the MEMC defendants' motion
for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the MEMC
defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will revisit the
issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the parties
supplement their arguments relating thereto.  Both parties filed
briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010, and the
parties each subsequently filed additional notices of supplemental
authority.  On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice
of voluntary withdrawal from the action.  On June 29, 2011, the
Court entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs
in the action.

MEMC believes the remaining ERISA class action is without merit
and it will assert a vigorous defense.  Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, MEMC cannot predict the ultimate
outcome or resolution of the class action proceedings or estimate
the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect to these
proceedings.  An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse
impact on MEMC's business, results of operations and financial
condition.  MEMC has indemnification agreements with each of its
present and former directors and officers, under which MEMC is
generally required to indemnify each such director or officer
against expenses, including attorney's fees, judgments, fines and
settlements, arising from actions such as the lawsuits (subject to
certain exceptions, as described in the indemnification
agreements).


MERGE HEALTHCARE: To Seek Dismissal of Insurer Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Healthcare Incorporated intends to seek dismissal of a
lawsuit in Illinois commenced by its insurer seeking a declaration
that the insurer is not responsible for the $2.5 million portion
of the judgment previously rendered by a Massachusetts court,
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 January 2010, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts,
in connection with AMICAS Inc.'s (AMICAS) proposed acquisition by
Thoma Bravo, LLC (the "Thoma Bravo Merger").  A second similar
action was filed in the same Court in February 2010 and
consolidated with the first action.  In March 2010, because AMICAS
had terminated the Thoma Bravo Merger and agreed to be acquired by
the Company, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as moot.
Subsequently, counsel for the plaintiffs filed an application for
approximately $5 million of attorneys' fees for its work on this
case, which fee petition AMICAS opposed.  The Company retained
litigation counsel to defend against the fee petition.  On
December 4, 2010, the Court awarded plaintiffs approximately $3.2
million in attorneys' fees and costs.  AMICAS has filed a notice
of appeal from this judgment, and the plaintiffs have cross-
appealed.  The Company previously tendered the defense in this
matter to its appropriate insurers, who have provided coverage
against the claims asserted against AMICAS.  After receipt of the
Court's attorneys' fee award decision, the applicable insurer
denied policy coverage for approximately $2.5 million of the fee
award.  The Company does not believe that the insurer's denial has
merit and has retained counsel to contest it.  The Company says it
will vigorously assert all of its rights under its applicable
insurance policies, which the Company believes cover the claims
and expenses incurred by AMICAS or the Company in connection with
the fee award.

On June 6, 2011, the insurer filed an action against AMICAS, Inc.
and Merge in Federal Court in the Northern District of Illinois
seeking a declaration that it is not responsible for the $2.5
million portion of the judgment rendered in the December 4, 2010
judgment from the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
Merge intends to file a counterclaim seeking a declaration that
the insurer must pay the full amount of the Superior Court's fee
award, plus additional damages.  Merge intends to seek a dismissal
of the insurer's action.  However, an adverse outcome could
negatively impact the Company's financial condition.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Discrimination Class Suit Still Pending in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania, 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.

In September 2010, a housing discrimination complaint was filed
against MGIC with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development alleging that MGIC violated the Fair Housing Act and
discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her sex and
familial status when MGIC underwrote her loan for mortgage
insurance.  In May 2011, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development commenced an administrative action against MGIC and
two of its employees, seeking, among other relief, aggregate fines
of $48,000.  The HUD complainant elected to have charges in the
administrative action proceed in federal court and on July 5,
2011, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
against MGIC and these employees on behalf of the complainant.
The complaint seeks redress for the alleged housing
discrimination, including compensatory and punitive damages for
the alleged victims and a civil penalty payable to the United
States.  MGIC denies that any unlawful discrimination occurred and
disputes many of the allegations in the complaint.

In October 2010, a separate purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MGIC by the HUD complainant in the same District
Court in which the DOJ action is pending alleging that MGIC
discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and familial
status when MGIC underwrote her loan for mortgage insurance. In
May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion to dismiss with
respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing Act claims.

MGIC intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations
in both the class action lawsuit and the DOJ lawsuit.  Based on
the facts known at this time, MGIC does not foresee the ultimate
resolution of these legal proceedings having a material adverse
effect on the Company.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion for Relief From Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for relief from the dismissal of an amended class action
complaint against MGIC Investment Corporation 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.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 22,
2009.  The Complaint alleged that the Company and its officers
named in the Complaint violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about
(i) loss development in their insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS,
including its liquidity.  The Company's motion to dismiss the
Complaint was granted on February 18, 2010.  On March 18, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
The Amended Complaint alleged that the Company and the officers
named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing
to properly account for their investment in C-BASS.  The Amended
Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the
Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.  The purported
class period covered by the Amended Complaint began on February 6,
2007 and ended on August 13, 2007.  The Amended Complaint sought
damages based on purchases of the Company's stock during this time
period at prices that were allegedly inflated as a result of the
purported violations of federal securities laws.  On December 8,
2010, the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint was
denied and the Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  On
January 6, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the February 18, 2010 and
December 8, 2010 decisions to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.  On June 6, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
motion with the District Court for relief from that court's
judgment of dismissal on the grounds that the transcripts it
obtained of testimony taken by the Securities and Exchange
Commission in its now-terminated investigation regarding C-BASS
are newly discovered evidence showing that amending its complaint
would not be futile.  On August 1, 2011, the Company filed a
response to the plaintiffs' motion seeking its dismissal.  The
Company is unable to predict the outcome of these consolidated
cases or estimate its associated expenses or possible losses.
Other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws could be
brought against the Company.


MOOSE ENTERPRISE: 7th Cir. Refuses to Certify Aqua Dots Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to
certify a class seeking refunds and damages over their purchase of
later-recalled Aqua Dots, colored beads that fused into designs
when sprayed with water.

The toy was manufactured by Australian-owned Moose Enterprise and
distributed in the United States by Spin Master.  More than 12
million packets of Aqua Beads were distributed across 40 different
countries.

The beads were supposed to be nontoxic, since "it was inevitable
given the age of the intended audience and the beads' resemblance
to candy . . . that some would be eaten," Chief Judge Frank
Easterbrook explained.

But instead of using nontoxic, 1,5-pentanediol, the Chinese
company charged with manufacturing Aqua Beads substituted 1,4-
butanediol.  When ingested, the chemical metabolized into gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid, a compound that causes dizziness, drowsiness,
seizures and unconsciousness.  At least two children fell into
Aqua Bead-induced comas.

Spin Master immediately recalled the product, offering
nondefective replacement kits or comparably priced toys in
exchange.  Though the notice of recall did not mention refunds,
more than 500,000 money-back requests were honored.

Of the one million kits sold in the United States, 600,000 were
returned.  Another three million were pulled from distribution
before sale.  Spin Master believes that few, if any, kits remain
in consumers hands.

Despite the recall, five parents initiated a class action against
Spin Master, Moose Enterprises and several distributors of the
toy, seeking a full refund and punitive damages.

But U.S. Judge David Coar declined to certify the class,
concluding that consumers would be better off returning their
products for a refund than pursuing litigation that would simply
add cost to the already existing remedy.

The 7th Circuit affirmed.  The plaintiffs in the case, whose
children were not harmed and who did not seek refunds, are not
proper champions of class members' interests, the court ruled.

"The plaintiffs could have had refunds -- and still can have them
today," Easterbrook wrote.  "A representative who proposes that
high transaction costs (notice and attorneys' fees) be incurred at
the class members' expense to obtain a refund that already is on
offer is not adequately protecting the class members' interests. .
. .  The principal effect of class certification, as the district
court recognized, would be to induce the defendants to pay the
class's lawyers enough to make them go away; effectual relief for
consumers is unlikely."

A nontoxic version of the product, rebranded as Pixos, remains on
the market today.  The product's Web site prominently features
safety information that takes care to differentiate Pixos from
their ill-fated predecessors.

"Pixos"! are a new product from Spin Master that offer the
same great play as [Aqua Dots], but with an entirely new bead
formulation and industry-leading safety standards developed in
association with a team of chemists, toxicologists and leading
toy-testing firms," the site states.

A copy of the decision in Aqua Products Liability Litigation in
Bertanowski, et al., No. 10-3847 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/AJ19IVZ4.pdf


NATIONAL PENN: Continues to Defend "Reyes" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
National Penn Bancshares, Inc., continues to defend, and await a
ruling on the motion for class certification of, a complaint filed
by Reynaldo Reyes, 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 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a putative
class action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. - 1961,
et seq., in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against multiple defendants, including
National Penn Bank (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345).  The complaint
essentially alleges that the defendants were part of a fraudulent
telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully withdrawn from
Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers, deposited into the
telemarketers' accounts with the bank defendants (including
National Penn Bank) via payment processors, and then transferred
to offshore accounts. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf
of himself and a purported nationwide class.  National Penn plans
on vigorously defending the lawsuit.  Each of the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint.  In late March
2011, the Court dismissed all defendants' motions without
prejudice and ordered the Plaintiff to file a "RICO Statement" and
set forth in detail the factual basis for Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff's RICO Statement was filed in April 2011.  National Penn
renewed its motion to dismiss in May 2011 and briefing on the
motion was completed at the end of July 2011.  National Penn
expects that a decision will be issued in the third quarter of
2011.  If National Penn's renewed motion to dismiss is denied, the
parties will take discovery and the Court will establish a
schedule for a class certification motion and related briefing.
To date, a class has not been certified.

National Penn Bancshares, Inc., with approximately $9 billion in
assets, is a bank holding company based in Pennsylvania.
Headquartered in Boyertown, National Penn operates 122 community
banking offices in Pennsylvania and one office in Maryland through
National Penn Bank and its HomeTowne Heritage Bank, KNBT and
Nittany Bank divisions.  National Penn's financial services
affiliates consist of National Penn Wealth Management, N.A.,
including its National Penn Investors Trust Company division;
National Penn Capital Advisors, Inc.; Institutional Advisors LLC;
National Penn Insurance Services Group, Inc., including its
Higgins Insurance division; and Caruso Benefits Group, Inc.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Continues to Defend Deferred Annuities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against a deferred annuities class action lawsuit pending in
California.

The Company is currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit
pending as of June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.  The case is titled In Re
National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation. The
complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder
Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq,
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the
Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and
Imposition of Constructive Trust.  On July 12, 2010 the Court
certified a nationwide class of policyholders under the RICO
allegation and a California class under all of the remaining
causes of action except breach of fiduciary duty.

No 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.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this
cause and intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted
claims. Therefore, no amounts have been provided in the
consolidated financial statements of the Company as of June 30,
2011 for this matter.

National Western Life Insurance Company provides life insurance
products on a global basis for the savings and protection needs of
policyholders and annuity contracts for the asset accumulation and
retirement needs of contract holders, both domestically and
internationally.  The Company accepts funds from policyholders or
contract holders and establishes a liability representing future
obligations to pay the policy or contract-holders and their
beneficiaries.   To ensure the Company will be able to pay these
future commitments, the funds received as premium payments and
deposits are invested in high quality investments, primarily fixed
income securities.


NBTY INC: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Hutchins" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc., continues to await a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action complaint, according to the
Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On May 11, 2010, a putative class action, captioned John F.
Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against NBTY
and certain current and former officers, claiming that the
defendants made false material statements, or concealed adverse
material facts, for the purpose of causing members of the class to
purchase NBTY stock at allegedly artificially inflated prices.  An
amended complaint was served on February 1, 2011.  The Company
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 18, 2011, and that
motion is pending.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action.  At this time, however, no
determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of any
of the defendants.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NBTY INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Hamilton" Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
An affiliate of NBTY, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
wage and hour class action lawsuit in Alameda, California,
according to the Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On or about July 7, 2010, a putative class action captioned
Hamilton and Taylor v. Vitamin World, Inc., was filed against one
of the Company's subsidiaries in the Alameda Superior Court,
California.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of employees in
connection with several causes of action alleging, among other
things, wage and hour violations.  Plaintiffs describe the class
as all non-exempt current and former employees of Vitamin World
Stores in California.  To date, the Plaintiffs have filed an
amended complaint and discovery is ongoing.  The Company
challenges the validity of the claims and intends to vigorously
defend this action.  At this time, however, no determination can
be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount
of liability, if any, on the part of the defendant.  In addition,
on or about October 27, 2010, a different set of plaintiffs filed
an action captioned Hickman v. Vitamin World, Inc., in Solano
County Superior Court, California.  Vitamin World filed a demurrer
and motion to abate that action because it is identical to the
instant Hamilton complaint and the Hickman action was dismissed on
May 31, 2011.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NBTY INC: Continues to Defend "Dirickson" Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage and hour
class action lawsuit in Los Angeles, California, according to the
Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On or about April 8, 2010, a putative class action captioned
Dirickson v. NBTY Acquisition, LLC, NBTY Manufacturing, LLC, NBTY,
Inc., and Volt Management Corporation was filed against the
Company and certain subsidiaries in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Volt is not related to the
Company.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of employees in
connection with several causes of action alleging, among other
things, wage and hour violations.  The Complaint seeks damages on
behalf of all non-exempt employees within the State of California
who worked for Volt or any of the NBTY entities between April 8,
2006 and April 8, 2010 (the "Class Period").  The NBTY entities
have entered into settlement discussions with the plaintiffs, and
those discussions are ongoing.  Until such settlement is
finalized, however, no determination can be made as to the
ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if
any, on the part of the defendant.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NBTY INC: Court Okays Settlement in Carlyle Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A New York court approved a settlement resolving a class action
lawsuit against NBTY, Inc., in relation to the Company's merger
transaction with The Carlyle Group, according to the Company's
August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 22, 2010 and on August 10, 2010, respectively, plaintiffs
filed two actions, captioned Philip Gottlieb v. NBTY, Inc., et al,
and Bredthauer v. NBTY, Inc., et al., each as a purported class
action against the Company, the members of its Board of Directors,
The Carlyle Group and certain Carlyle-related entities,
challenging the Board of Directors' decision to sell the Company
to the Carlyle Group for the price of $55 per share. The
complaint, in each of these cases, alleged that this price per
share did not represent fair value for the Company and sought to
enjoin the anticipated sale and to invalidate certain related
transactions.  The Bredthauer lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, was dismissed by
Plaintiff.  Plaintiff then joined in the Gottlieb lawsuit, filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau.
On January 11, 2011, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement providing for the proposed settlement and dismissal
with prejudice of the remaining action, which was subject to,
among other things, court approval following notice to the members
of the putative class.  Following notice to the class, the court
approved the settlement on April 27, 2011, dismissing the action
with prejudice and directing the payment of certain attorneys'
fees and expenses.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer and distributor of a broad line
of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements in the
United States and throughout the world.  Under a number of NBTY
and third party brands, the Company offers over 22,000 products,
including products marketed by the Company's Nature's Bounty(R),
Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R),
Rexall(R), Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
American Health(R), GNC (UK)(R), DeTuinen(R), LeNaturiste(TM),
SISU(R), Solgar(R), Good 'n' Natural(R), Home Health(TM), Julian
Graves, Ester-C(R) and Natural Wealth brands.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Plea to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint filed by plaintiffs of the purported class action
lawsuit against NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation in New York
remains pending, according to the Company's August 11, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case include NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company, and several
unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that
the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements
regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities
purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members.  On
August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the Court granted, with leave to amend,
on March 31, 2011. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
May 16, 2011, and the Company has again filed a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff has not yet responded to the motion. The Company cannot
provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the case and expects to defend
the case vigorously.


OFFICE DEPOT: Recalls 34,000 Desk Chairs Due to Pinch Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Office Depot Inc., of Boca Raton,
Florida, and manufacturer, Huichang Furniture Co. Ltd., of China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 34,000 Realspace(TM) PRO
3000 Series desk chairs in the United States of America and 425 in
Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

A consumer's finger can get caught in an opening in the chair's
tilt mechanism, posing a pinch hazard to consumers.

Office Depot has received one report of a consumer who was injured
when his finger was pinched by the chair's tilt mechanism.

This recall involves all Realspace(TM) PRO 3000 Series Custom Fit
desk chairs.  The mid-back fabric chairs were sold in black and
have SKU number 996-190.  The date of manufacture, P.O. number and
"Made in China" are printed on labels located on the underside of
the seat bottom.  Affected chairs have a manufacture date between
March 2009 and May 2011, listed in Year/Month/Date format (e.g.
date code 20100812 represents August 12, 2010).

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11309.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Office Depot retail stores nationwide and online at
http://www.OfficeDepot.com/from May 2009 through June 2011 for
about $170.

Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and contact
Office Depot's recall hotline to receive a free repair kit with a
cover for the tilt mechanism.  Consumers should write down the
P.O. number found on the underside of the chair for reference when
contacting Office Depot.  For additional information, contact
Office Depot toll-free at (855) 259-5093 between 8:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.officedepot.com/customerservice/errata.do/


PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend Fuel Temperature Suit in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated lawsuit over fuel temperature, 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.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  To date, the Company has
been named as a defendant in eight cases: one in Florida (Cozza,
et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-
80156-DMM, filed 2/16/07); one in Delaware (Becker, et al. v.
Marathon Petroleum Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-
00136, filed 3/7/07); one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v.
Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-
00091-FL, filed 3/7/07); two in Alabama (Snable, et al. v. Murphy
Oil USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC, filed
3/26/07) and (Cook,et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala.,
No. 2:07-cv-750-WKW-CSC, filed 8/22/07); one in Georgia
(Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-
00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07); one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v.
RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed
7/13/07); and one in South Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation
North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed
9/24/07).  Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on
Multi-District Litigation, all of the cases, including the eight
in which the Company is named, have been transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated
for all pre-trial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants
agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of
motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons
which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  These cases
seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to
install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel
dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases, including some of
the cases in which the Company is named, plaintiffs also have
alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.  The plaintiffs in these
cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and
punitive damages.  Both types of cases seek compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment
interest.  The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for
failure to state a claim, which were denied by the court on
February 21, 2008.  A number of the defendants, including the
Company, subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable
"political questions."  The Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and
defendants request to appeal that decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31,
2010.  In May 2010, in a lawsuit in which the Company is not a
party, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel
purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature
controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any
class for damages.  Defendants sought permission to appeal that
decision to the Tenth Circuit in June 2010, and that request was
denied on August 31, 2010.

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

At this stage of proceedings, the Company says it cannot estimate
the Company's ultimate loss or liability, if any, related to these
lawsuits because there are a number of unknown facts and
unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of any
potential liability, including, without limitation: (i) whether
defendants are required, or even permitted under state law, to
sell temperature adjusted gallons of motor fuel; (ii) the amounts
and actual temperature of fuel purchased by plaintiffs; and (iii)
whether or not class certification is proper in cases to which the
Company is a party.  An adverse outcome in this litigation could
have a material adverse affect on its business, financial
condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.


PANTRY INC: Plaintiffs Must File Plea for Class Status by Oct. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' deadline to file an amended motion for class
certification in the lawsuit commenced by Patrick Amason is on
October 3, 2011, according to The Pantry, Inc.'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 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit
against The Pantry in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v.
Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W).  On
September 9, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed adding
Enger McConnell on behalf of herself and a putative class of
similarly situated individuals.  The plaintiffs seek class action
status and allege that The Pantry included more information than
is permitted on electronically printed credit and debit card
receipts in willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g).
Plaintiff Patrick Amason seeks to represent a subclass of those
class members as to whom The Pantry printed receipts containing
the first four and last four digits of their credit and/or debit
card numbers.  Plaintiff Enger McConnell seeks to represent a
subclass of those class members as to whom The Pantry printed
receipts containing all digits of their credit and/or debit card
numbers.  The plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages of
$100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the statute,
as well as attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a
permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.

On May 25, 2011, a hearing was held on plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
requested further information from the parties, including
information regarding the number of ascertainable putative class
members and the potential impact on The Pantry if it were
ultimately found liable.  On July 25, 2011, the court, due to the
need for the additional discovery, denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification but granted the plaintiffs the right to file
an amended motion for class certification on or before October 3,
2011.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate its ultimate loss or liability, if any,
related to this lawsuit because there are a number of unknown
facts and unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of
the Company's potential liability, including, without limitation:
(i) whether a class or classes will be certified; (ii) if a class
or classes are certified, the identity and number of the putative
class members; and (iii) if a class or classes are certified, the
resolution of certain unresolved statutory interpretation issues
that may impact the size of the putative class(es) and whether or
not the plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages.  An adverse
outcome in this litigation could have a material adverse affect on
the Company's business, financial condition, results of
operations, cash flows and prospects.


REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss "Indirect Purchaser" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the second amended class action complaint
filed by "indirect purchaser" plaintiffs against Reddy Ice
Holdings, Inc., is pending, according to the Company's August 11,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

Beginning in 2008 a number of lawsuits, including putative class
action lawsuits, were filed against the Company, Reddy Ice
Corporation, Home City Ice Company, Arctic Glacier Income Fund,
Arctic Glacier, Inc. and Arctic Glacier International, Inc., in
various federal courts in multiple jurisdictions alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws and related claims
and seeking damages and injunctive relief.  Pursuant to an Order
from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the civil
actions pending in federal courts have been transferred and
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Home City
entered into a settlement agreement with the direct purchaser
plaintiffs that was approved by the Court on February 22, 2011.
On March 30, 2011, Arctic Glacier announced that it had entered
into a proposed settlement agreement with the direct purchaser
plaintiffs.  Preliminary approval of that settlement was granted
on July 20, 2011.  Discovery is ongoing regarding the claims
asserted on behalf of direct purchasers against the Company.  On
March 11, 2011, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser claims.
On April 26, 2011, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Class Action complaint asserting violations of the
antitrust laws of various states and related claims.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 24,
2011.


REDDY ICE: Still Awaits Court Okay on Suit Settlement in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., is still awaiting court approval of its
agreement to settle two putative class actions filed against the
Company in Canada, according to the Company's August 11, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On March 1, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim was
filed against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
in Canada alleging violations of Part VI of the Competition Act
and seeking general damages, punitive and exemplary damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs.  On March 8, 2010,
a putative class action Statement of Claim was filed against the
Company in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial
District of Calgary, in Canada, alleging violations of Part VI of
the Competition Act and seeking general damages, special and
pecuniary damages, punitive and exemplary damages, interest and
costs.

An agreement has been reached to resolve the class actions filed
in Canada against Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier, Inc.  The
agreement provides that Arctic Glacier will pay CDN $2,000,000,
all claims asserted against Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier in both
Ontario and Alberta will be dismissed, and Reddy Ice and Arctic
Glacier will be granted full and final releases with regard to
those claims.  Reddy Ice is not making any payment in connection
with this settlement.  The agreement is subject to the execution
of final settlement documents and court approval.


REDDY ICE: Consolidated Securities Suit in Michigan Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed in Michigan, according to
the Company's August 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

Beginning on August 8, 2008, purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan asserting claims under the federal securities
laws against the Company and certain of its current or former
senior officers.  On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the
actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and interim lead
plaintiff's counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint on November 2, 2009.  That complaint purports to
assert claims on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock and alleges that the defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence of, and the
Company's alleged participation in, an alleged antitrust
conspiracy in the packaged ice industry.  The Company and the
other defendants have filed an answer in that case.


RENTECH INC: Hearing on Class Suit Settlement Set for Sept. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court is set to hold a hearing on
September 26 on the proposed settlement of a consolidated class
action complaint against Rentech Inc., 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.

Between December 29, 2009 and January 6, 2010, three purported
class action shareholder lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that the Company and the named current and
former directors and officers made false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance in connection with
its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2009.

Plaintiffs in the actions purport to bring claims on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2008
and December 14, 2009 and seek unspecified damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The cases were consolidated as Michael
Silbergleid v. Rentech, Inc., et al. (In re Rentech Securities
Litigation), Lead Case No. 2:09-cv- 09495-GHK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), and
a lead plaintiff was appointed on April 5, 2010.  The lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 20, 2010, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 15, 2010.
The Company announced on March 23, 2011 that it has reached an
agreement to settle these matters with a settlement fund provided
by its insurance carrier of approximately $1.8 million, subject to
court approval of the settlement.  A settlement hearing will be
held in Los Angeles on September 26, 2011 before the United States
District Court for the Central District of California to determine
whether the terms of the settlements should be approved.


SANDISK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Rehearing Plea in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation is awaiting a court decision on indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing after a lower court denied
reconsideration of its refusal to certify a class in a
consolidated antitrust lawsuit, according to the Company's
August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

Between August 31, 2007, and December 14, 2007, the Company (along
with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was
sued in the Northern District of California, in eight purported
class action complaints.  On February 7, 2008, all of the civil
complaints were consolidated into two Complaints, one on behalf of
direct purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the
Northern District of California in a purported class action
captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No.
C07-0086.  Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory and flash memory products conspired
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of NAND flash
memory in violation of state and federal laws and sought an
injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs, and disgorgement of
profits.  The direct purchaser lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice.  On March 31, 2010, the Court denied the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion, and denied
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended
Complaint to substitute certain class representatives.  On
April 5, 2011, the Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the class certification decision and
on April 19, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Rule
23(f) petition to the Ninth Circuit to request permission to
appeal that decision.  On June 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied
that petition.  On July 12, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing.


SANDISK CORP: Trial in "Ritz" Suit Set for Aug. 20, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled for August 20, 2012, in the antitrust lawsuit
commenced by Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, according to SanDisk
Corporation's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2011.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust
law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for
flash memory products.  The lawsuit, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v.
SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, Case No. 5:10-cv-
02787-HRL, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006, through the present.  The
Amended Complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained
a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.  On February 24, 2011, the Court issued an
Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to
dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a
defendant.  In addition, the Company filed a motion requesting
that the Court certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the
portion of its Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based
on Plaintiff's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust
claims.  A hearing on that motion was held on May 6, 2011, but no
order has yet been issued by the Court.  The Company answered the
Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of Ritz's allegations of
wrongdoing.  Discovery is just beginning and under the current
schedule a class certification hearing is scheduled for
November 15, 2011, and trial is scheduled for August 20, 2012.

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


SANDISK CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit Over SD Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation continues to defend itself in a putative
antitrust class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a nationwide
class of indirect purchasers of secure digital cards, according to
the Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2011.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action was filed on behalf of
a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of Secure Digital ("SD")
cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC,
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba Corporation, and Toshiba America Electronic Components,
Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and
common law (Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al., CV 11 11026 (N.D. Cal.)).
Plaintiffs allege the Company (along with the other members of SD-
3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated
with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California
antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly
caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards.  The
allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the
complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic
Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C
LLC, CV 10 3098 (N.D. Cal.).  On June 27, 2011, the parties
stipulated that the time for defendants to respond to this
complaint is extended, and discovery stayed, until 90 days after
the Court issues an order on the pending motion to dismiss in the
Samsung case, unless (1) there has been no ruling on the motion to
dismiss by September 15, 2011, or (2) similar class actions are
filed and defendants are unable to obtain a stay of those
proceedings.

The Company received two demand letters dated March 30, 2011,
pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A - 9 ("93A
Demand Letters").  Both letters gave notice of intention to file a
class action lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect
purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the
Company, SD-3C, Panasonic; Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc. under Massachusetts unfair competition law if the
Defendants do not tender a settlement.  These letters generally
repeat the allegations in the antitrust cases filed against SD-3C
and Panasonic defendants in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
Panasonic Corp., et al., CV 10 3098 (N.D. Cal.) and against the
Company, SD-3C, Panasonic defendants, and Toshiba defendants in
Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al., CV 11 11026 (N.D. Cal.).  On
April 21, 2011, the Company responded to both letters detailing
their deficiencies.  To date, the Company says there have been no
further developments.


SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuits in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Satcon Technology Corporation is facing two securities class
action lawsuits which stemmed from the recent acquisition of its
stock by investors, 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.

In July 2011, two purported securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its former Chief Financial Officer by these plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in
the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts: Allan Edwards
(filed July 19, 2011) and Larry Ziegler (filed July 21, 2011).

The virtually identical complaints are purportedly brought on
behalf of persons who acquired the Company's common stock during
the period of March 4, 2010, through July 5, 2011, and allege
claims against all defendants for violations under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
as well as claims against the individual defendants for violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Putative plaintiffs claim
that the defendants caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices through false and misleading
statements and/or omissions related to its business.  The
complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages sustained as
a result of the defendants' actions, including reasonable costs
and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and
proper.  The Company believes these allegations are baseless and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Sued Over Failure to Fulfill HAMP Obligations
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Mortgage Professional Magazine reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court in New York against
Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., the Morgan Stanley mortgage servicer
division, for failing to fulfill its obligations under the
federally-sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) to
homeowners in financial distress.  The lawsuit is brought on
behalf of plaintiffs Ranujoy and Deborah Pandit and a nationwide
class of homeowners who sought loan modifications.  It asserts
claims for breach of contract, and deceptive business practices
under New York law, and seeks monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

The Pandits, who live in Long Island, N.Y., sought a loan
modification in October 2008.  After giving them a runaround for
several months through ill-informed and ill-trained
representatives, Saxon Mortgage Services Inc. offered them a trial
period with reduced payments.  Under the HAMP program, this trial
period was to be for three months, at the end of which the loan
had to be modified.  On numerous occasions, when the plaintiffs
inquired about the status of their application, Saxon's
representatives demanded re-submission of essentially the same
information and documentation.  The Pandits responded to every one
of these demands; they sent and re-sent documentation, and
completed the same financial package, at least three times. After
about a year, Saxon denied their application, but advised them to
apply again.

The Pandits point out that servicers have significant incentives
to avoid modifying the loan under HAMP.  Servicer fees depend on
the unpaid principal balance; therefore, any reduction in loan
amounts in turn reduce the servicer's fees.  The servicers of the
loan also retain all late fees, inspection fees and other related
delinquency charges.

In April of this year in the Northern District of California
Federal Court, Marie Gaudin filed a suit against Saxon Mortgage
Services, Gaudin v. Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., claiming that
the company uses HAMP to lure customers into making "trial"
payments on loans it has no intention of ever permanently
modifying.

HAMP has been widely viewed as a failure primarily due to the
banks and mortgage servicer's failure to cooperate.  As of
June 30, 2011, for example, Saxon had used less than 20 percent of
these funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP),
approximately $12.25 million, to subsidize homeowners, the primary
intended beneficiaries of HAMP.


SCIQUEST INC: Appeals From Suit Settlement Approval Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from a court order approving the settlement of a
consolidated class action complaint against Sciquest Inc. are
still pending, according to the Company's August 11, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

In 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in several
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York originating
from its December 1999 initial public offering.  The complaints
alleged, among other things, that the prospectus used in the
Company's December 1999 initial public offering contained material
misstatements or omissions regarding the underwriters' allocation
practices and compensation and that the underwriters manipulated
the aftermarket for its stock.  These complaints were consolidated
along with similar complaints filed against over 300 other issuers
in connection with their initial public offerings.  After several
years of litigation and appeals related to the sufficiency of the
pleadings and class certification, the parties agreed to a
settlement of the entire litigation, which was approved by the
Court on October 5, 2009.  Notices of appeal to the Court's order
have been filed by various appellants.  The Company has not
incurred significant costs to date in connection with its defense
of these claims since this litigation is covered by its insurance
policy.

The Company believes it has sufficient coverage under its
insurance policy to cover its obligations under the settlement
agreement.  Accordingly, the Company believes the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have an impact on its
financial position and, therefore, it has not accrued a contingent
liability as of June 30, 2011.


STATE AUTO FINANCIAL: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corp. continues to defend itself from an
amended class action complaint in Ohio, 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.

In December 2010, a putative class action lawsuit (Kelly vs. State
Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed against
State Auto Financial, State Auto P&C and State Auto Mutual in
state court in Ohio.  In this lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in deceptive
practices by failing to disclose to plaintiffs the availability,
through one or more related companies, of insurance policies
providing for identical coverage and service as those policies
purchased by plaintiffs but at a lower premium amount.  Plaintiffs
are seeking class certification and compensatory and punitive
damages to be determined by the court and restitution and/or
disgorgement of profits derived from plaintiffs and the alleged
class.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 13, 2011,
adding an additional plaintiff but not materially revising the
claims raised in the original action.  The Company's motion to
dismiss this action was denied on June 23, 2011.  The Company
believes its practices with respect to pricing, quoting and
selling its insurance policies are in compliance with all
applicable laws, denies any and all liability to plaintiffs or the
alleged class, and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation continues to await a ruling on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in Washington,
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 December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of the Company's current
and former officers.  The court appointed a lead plaintiff on
March 9, 2010.  On June 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint.  The Complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sterling's stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to
October 15, 2009.  The Complaint alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
failing to disclose the extent of Sterling's delinquent commercial
real estate, construction and land development loans, properly
record losses for impaired loans, and properly reserve for loan
losses, thereby causing Sterling's stock price to be artificially
inflated during the purported class period.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  Sterling
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.  On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to
dismiss the Complaint.  On March 2, 2011, after complete briefing,
the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  The court has
not yet issued an order on the motion.

Failure by Sterling to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims
set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on
its business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered
probable or reasonably estimable in amount.

Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is the
bank holding company for Sterling Savings Bank, a commercial bank.
Sterling Savings Bank is a large commercial bank headquartered in
Washington state.  Sterling Savings Bank serves more than 25,000
small and medium-sized businesses and nearly 200,000 retail
accounts throughout the Pacific Northwest in a network of branches
that span from northern California to the Canadian border and from
the Pacific coast to central Montana.
Sterling operates 178 deposit-taking branches in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Montana and California.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Plea to Dismiss ERISA Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation continues to await a ruling on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated ERISA class action lawsuit in
Washington, 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 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling Financial Corporation and
Sterling Savings Bank, as well as certain of Sterling's current
and former officers and directors.  The two complaints were merged
in a Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 16, 2010 in the
same court.  The Complaint does not name all of individuals named
in the prior complaints, but it is expected that additional
defendants will be added.  The Complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under sections 404 and
405 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended ("ERISA"), with respect to the Sterling Savings Bank
Employee Savings and Investment Plan (the "401(k) Plan") and the
FirstBank Northwest Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP")
(collectively, the "Plans").  Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the defendants breached their duties by investing assets of
the Plans in Sterling's securities when it was imprudent to do so,
and by investing such assets in Sterling securities when
defendants knew or should have known that the price of those
securities was inflated due to misrepresentations and omissions
about Sterling's business practices.  The business practices at
issue include alleged over-reliance on risky construction loans;
alleged inadequate loan reserves; alleged spiking increases in
nonperforming assets, nonperforming loans, classified assets, and
90+-day delinquent loans; alleged inadequate accounting for rising
loan payment shortfalls; alleged unsafe and unsound banking
practices; and a capital base that was allegedly inadequate to
withstand the significant deterioration in the real estate
markets.  The putative class periods are October 22, 2007, to the
present for the 401(k) Plan class, and October 22, 2007 to
November 14, 2008 for the ESOP class.  The Complaint seeks damages
of an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs.  Sterling
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss
occurred on March 22, 2011, with the court indicating that it
would take the motion under submission.  The court has not yet
issued an order on the motion.

Failure by Sterling to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims
set forth in the Complaint could have a material adverse effect on
Sterling's business, results of operations, and financial
condition.  Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not
considered probable or reasonably estimable in amount.

Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is the
bank holding company for Sterling Savings Bank, a commercial bank.
Sterling Savings Bank is a large commercial bank headquartered in
Washington state.  Sterling Savings Bank serves more than 25,000
small and medium-sized businesses and nearly 200,000 retail
accounts throughout the Pacific Northwest in a network of branches
that span from northern California to the Canadian border and from
the Pacific coast to central Montana.
Sterling operates 178 deposit-taking branches in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Montana and California.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation continues to defend itself from a
shareholder derivative 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 February 10, 2010, a shareholder derivative action was filed in
the Superior Court for Spokane County, Washington, purportedly on
behalf of and for the benefit of Sterling, against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors.  On August 2,
2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging, among other
claims, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.  The Complaint alleges that
the individual defendants failed to prevent Sterling from issuing
improper financial statements, maintain a sufficient allowance for
loan and lease losses, and establish effective credit risk
management and oversight mechanisms regarding Sterling's
commercial real estate, construction and land development loans,
losses and reserves recorded for impaired loans, and accounting
for goodwill and deferred tax assets.  The Complaint seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits,
equitable and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, accountants' and
experts' fees, costs, and expenses.  Because the Complaint is
derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from
Sterling.  However, Sterling may be required throughout the
pendency of the action to advance the legal fees and costs
incurred by the defendant officers and directors.  On September
13, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint.  The hearing on
Sterling's motion to dismiss was held on January 14, 2011.  On
February 25, 2011, the court issued an order denying Sterling's
motion to dismiss in its entirety.  On April 12, 2011, Sterling
filed a request for discretionary review with the Washington Court
of Appeals, which was denied on June 1, 2011.

Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered
probable or reasonably estimable in amount, and, due to the nature
of the claim, any such loss would be payable, in part, to
Sterling.

Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is the
bank holding company for Sterling Savings Bank, a commercial bank.
Sterling Savings Bank is a large commercial bank headquartered in
Washington state.  Sterling Savings Bank serves more than 25,000
small and medium-sized businesses and nearly 200,000 retail
accounts throughout the Pacific Northwest in a network of branches
that span from northern California to the Canadian border and from
the Pacific coast to central Montana.
Sterling operates 178 deposit-taking branches in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Montana and California.


STEVEN MADDEN: Court Approves "Tahvilian" Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
A California court has granted final approval to a settlement
resolving a labor class action complaint against Steven Madden,
Ltd., 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 June 24, 2009, a class action lawsuit, Shahrzad Tahvilian, et
al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc. and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case No.
BC 414217, was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, against the Company and its wholly owned
subsidiary alleging violations of California labor laws.  The
parties submitted the dispute to private mediation and, on
August 31, 2010, reached a settlement on all claims.  Based on the
proposed settlement, the Company increased its reserve for this
claim from $1,000,000 to $2,750,000 in the third quarter of 2010.
In June 2011, the court approved the final settlement for
$1,968,000. The payment of the final settlement did not have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

Steven Madden, Ltd., designs, sources, markets and sells footwear
for women, men and children. The Company also designs, sources,
markets and retails name brand and private label fashion handbags
and accessories, through its Accessories Division. The Company
distributes products, through its retail stores, its e-commerce
Website, department and specialty stores throughout the United
States and through distribution arrangements in Asia, Canada,
Europe, Central and South America, Australia and Africa. It
operates in five segments: Wholesale Footwear, Wholesale
Accessories, Retail, First Cost and Licensing.


SUNOPTA INC: Paid $700,000 Wage Class Settlement in July 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta Inc. fully paid a $700,000 settlement resolving a wage
class action complaint in July 2011, according to the Company's
August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

In September 2008, a single plaintiff and a former employee filed
a wage and hour dispute against SunOpta Fruit Group, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as a class action alleging
various violations of California's labour laws.  A tentative
settlement of all claims was reached at mediation on January 15,
2010, subject to final court approval, and the parties executed a
settlement agreement resolving all claims of the class.  As a
result of the tentative settlement, the Company accrued a
liability of $1,200,000 as at December 31, 2009.  Final approval
of the settlement was received from the court on May 20, 2011, and
the final settlement amount was reduced to approximately $700,000.
Included in "other income" in the Company's recent financial
report for the last quarter and two quarters ended July 2, 2011,
is $500,000, which represents the difference between the tentative
and final settlement amounts.  The Company paid the settlement in
cash in July 2011.

SunOpta Inc. is a company focused on natural, organic and
specialty foods.  The Company specializes in sourcing, processing
and packaging of natural and organic food products, integrated
from seed through packaged products; with a focus on strategically
significant vertically integrated business models. The Company's
core natural and organic food operations focus on value-added
grains, fiber and fruit based product offerings, supported by a
global infrastructure.  The Company has two non-core holdings, a
66.4% ownership position in Opta Minerals Inc., a producer,
distributor, and recycler of environmentally friendly industrial
materials, and a minority ownership position in Mascoma
Corporation, an innovative biofuels company.


SUNPOWER CORP: Court Hears Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard Sunpower Corporation and other defendants' motion
to dismiss a class action complaint filed by a group of investors
on August 11, 2011, 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 July 3, 2011.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008 through
November 16, 2009. The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010.
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010.
The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009 regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries. The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and
2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.
The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010. The court dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on March 1, 2011.
An amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2011. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 23, 2011. The
motion to dismiss the amended complaint was scheduled to be heard
by the court on August 11, 2011. The Company is currently unable
to determine if the resolution of these matters will have an
adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity or
results of operations.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Suits Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on an appeal from
the dismissal of class action complaints relating to
certain "1031 exchange transactions," 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 putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company by former customers of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services,
Inc, ("LES"), a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.
("LFG").  The first of these actions, Arthur et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al., was filed on January 14, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California. The second
of these cases, Terry et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was
filed on February 2, 2009 in the Court of Common Pleas, Tenth
Judicial Circuit, County of Anderson, South Carolina, and
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina.  On June 12, 2009, the Multi-District
Litigation ("MDL") Panel issued a transfer order designating the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Anderson
Division, as MDL Court for IRS Section 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange
Litigation (MDL 2054).  Plaintiffs' allegations in these cases are
that LES and certain of its officers caused them to suffer damages
in connection with potential 1031 exchange transactions that were
pending at the time that LES filed for bankruptcy.  Essentially,
Plaintiffs' core allegation is that their damages are the result
of breaches of fiduciary and other duties owed to them by LES and
others, fraud, and other improper acts committed by LES and
certain of its officers, and that the Company is partially or
entirely responsible for such damages because it knew or should
have known about the alleged wrongdoing and failed to take
appropriate steps to stop the same.  The Company believes that the
allegations and claims made against it in these actions are both
factually and legally unsupported and has filed a motion to
dismiss all claims. The Court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice on
June 15, 2011.  Plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://www.suntrust.com/-- with total
assets of more than $170, is a financial services holding company.
Through its flagship subsidiary, SunTrust Bank, the company
provides deposit, credit, trust, and investment services to a
broad range of retail, business, and institutional clients. Other
subsidiaries provide mortgage banking, brokerage, investment
management, equipment leasing, and investment banking services.
SunTrust's 1,665 retail branches and 2,924 ATMs are located
primarily in Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.  In
addition, SunTrust provides clients with a full selection of
technology-based banking channels including online, 24-hour
customer services centers, and the latest mobile devices.


THEGLOBE.COM: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remanded
------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order approving the settlement of a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit filed against
theglobe.com, Inc., was dismissed while another was remanded
back to a New York district court, according to the Company's
August 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On and after August 3, 2001 six putative shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and several investment banks
that were the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering and secondary offering. The lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed in the Southern District of New York on
April 19, 2002.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the stock of the Company during the period from
November 12, 1998 through December 6, 2000. The purported class
action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's
initial public offering and its secondary offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs
allege that the Prospectuses for the Company's initial public
offering and its secondary offering were false and misleading and
in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose
these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice. This dismissal
disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person claims without
prejudice.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the coordinated cases, including ours, reached a
settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants in the
coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including theglobe. On October 5, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement. The settlement approval
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. One appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was
remanded to the district court to determine if the appellant is a
class member with standing to appeal.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. If
the settlement does not survive appeal and the Company is found
liable, it is unable to estimate or predict the potential damages
that might be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than
the Company's insurance coverage, and whether such damages would
have a material impact on the Company's results of operations or
financial condition in any future period.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Applauds Court Decision Trimming Acceleration Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs' attorneys in the federal sudden acceleration
litigation against Toyota Motor Corp. received a second blow to
their claims for economic damages when a judge refused to certify
their request to appeal his substantial reduction of the scope of
their potential class action.

U.S. District Judge James Selna, who is overseeing the
multidistrict litigation against Toyota in Santa Ana, Calif., had
ruled on June 8 that consumers who relied upon Toyota's guarantees
of reliability and safety should not be allowed to pursue economic
damages under California's state law if they lived or purchased
their vehicles in another state.  Plaintiffs' attorneys had filed
all 200 consumer claims as a master consolidated complaint in
California, hoping to pursue economic damages for a proposed
nationwide class.  Toyota has maintained that 70% of the consumer
cases were brought in states outside California.

Plaintiffs' attorneys sought to file an interlocutory appeal of
Judge Selna's ruling -- which substantially reduced the prospect
of a large class action with huge liabilities against Toyota -- to
the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit.  In a cross-motion
filed on July 12, they argued that there was a substantial
difference of opinion regarding "choice of law" precedents in
similar cases. Toyota, in a July 28 opposition paper, disputed
that the issue was a controlling question of law or that an appeal
of Judge Selna's order would advance the litigation.

Judge Selna agreed with Toyota on Aug. 9. "Because the Court is of
the opinion that the choice-of-law is neither 'a controlling
question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
difference of opinion' or one 'that an immediate appeal from the
order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation,'" Judge Selna wrote, "the court denies Plaintiffs'
cross motion."

"We are pleased with the Court's ruling and agree that plaintiffs'
counsel failed to meet the mandatory criteria for appellate review
of the choice-of-law order," Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore
said in a prepared statement on Aug. 11.  "We look forward to this
case proceeding as efficiently as possible and remain confident
that scientifically reliable and admissible evidence will
demonstrate that no defect exists in our electronic throttle
control systems."

Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol &
Shapiro and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs' steering committee
for the economic claims, did not respond to a request for comment.

Judge Selna's denial of the plaintiffs' request for interlocutory
appeal contrasted with a separate ruling last month for Toyota.
On July 19, Judge Selna certified Toyota's request to appeal his
refusal to dismiss the sudden acceleration claims in the consumer
class action to the 9th Circuit.  He had ruled on May 13 that
economic damages could go ahead based on injuries alleged -- in
particular, that the plaintiffs relied on advertising promoting
the safety of Toyota's vehicles.  Toyota petitioned Judge Selna to
certify for interlocutory appeal whether the plaintiffs had
standing to sue if they had not experienced a defect, whether
monetary or in property damages to their cars, most of which never
experienced a sudden acceleration incident.

Judge Selna granted that request, and Toyota has brought in
appellate specialist Theodore Boutrous of Los Angeles-based
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to handle the appeal.

Neither the choice of law ruling nor the dismissal order have any
bearing on an additional 100 personal injury and wrongful death
cases filed against Toyota in the MDL.  Additional cases are
pending in state courts across the country, including another 27
cases proceeding in New York state court that include personal
injury and economic claims.  A state judge in Long Island recently
approved a management order governing discovery in the New York
state cases.


TRIBUNE CO: Seeks Court Okay of Wage Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Company and Tribune New York Newspaper Holdings, LLC, ask
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to
preliminarily approve a settlement agreement resolving all claims
under a minimum wage class action for $325,000, according to
papers filed in court.

In May 2007, James Allen filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York a complaint against Tribune
Company and Tribune NY alleging minimum wage claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law on behalf of
himself and others similarly-situated.  Plaintiffs alleged that
they and other similarly situated individuals were entitled to
minimum wage payments as "employees" for their services as
"hawkers" of amNew York, a free daily morning newspaper published
by Tribune NY, on the streets in the greater New York City area.

The Plaintiffs timely filed two class proofs of claim in the
amount of $1.5 million each against Tribune and Tribune NY, and
individual proofs of claim in the amount of $10,000 each for the
seven named plaintiffs and 11 additional claimants against
Tribune and Tribune NY.  In May 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Class Certification and Class Treatment of the Class
Proofs of Claim.

In January 2011, the Bankruptcy Court directed the parties to
mediation to attempt to reach a settlement prior to further
litigation of the Class Claims.  On March 14, 2011, the
Defendants and Class Counsel conducted an intensive, arms'-length
negotiation and mediation session with Ruth D. Raisfeld, Esq., an
independent mediator, and reached a settlement agreement in
principle.

Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement and Release fully and
finally settles and releases all claims under the Wage Action for
a total gross settlement amount of $325,000, of which $275,000
will be contributed by the Debtors and $50,000 will be
contributed by the Debtors' co-defendants.

Other salient terms of the Settlement Agreement are:

(A) The Settlement Class will be certified for settlement
    purposes only to include "all persons who promoted or
    distributed the amNew York newspaper who received an IRS Form
    1099 from the Delivery Defendants for such work performed,
    during the period from January I, 2004 through the Petition
    Date."

(B) Upon entry of an order granting final approval of the
    Settlement Agreement, the Class and Individual Claims will be
    automatically disallowed and expunged.  The Plaintiffs
    further agree not to file any other proofs of claim or to
    modify or amend the Class or Individual Claims without the
    Debtors' consent.

(C) A total gross amount of $18,000 will be paid to certain of
    the Plaintiffs as enhancement awards in consideration
    for their time and effort actively pursuing the Lawsuit and
    assisting in its resolution on behalf of the Settlement
    Class.  Distributions of the Enhanced Service Awards were
    determined by Class Counsel based on the level of involvement
    each recipient had in assisting Class Counsel in the Lawsuit.

(D) Defendants agree that Class Counsel should be awarded a sum
    equal to 33% of the Total Gross Amount after the deduction of
    litigation costs and reimbursement for litigation costs in
    the amount of $18,364 incurred by Class Counsel in connection
    with the Lawsuit.

(E) Payment of the Total Gross Amount by Defendants pursuant to
    the Settlement Agreement will constitute a full and complete
    settlement and general release of disputes and claims between
    the Settlement Class and the Defendants which relate to the
    alleged wage and hour claims and related claims for time that
    the members of the Settlement Class provided services in
    connection with the promotion or distribution of the amNew
    York newspaper while receiving an IRS Form 1099 from the
    Delivery Defendants for those services prior to and through
    the Petition Date.

James F. Conlan, Esq., at Sidley Austin LLP, in Chicago,
Illinois, stresses that the Debtors' potential liability could be
substantial if the Plaintiffs prevailed, as indicated by the
Class Proofs of Claim and Individual Claims.  More importantly,
the Settlement Agreement avoids significant litigation time and
expenses in the event the class action litigation continued
either in the Bankruptcy Court or through prosecution of a relief
from stay request by the Plaintiffs to return the dispute to the
District Court, he points out.

Following preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement,
notice will be provided to the Settlement Class members in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement by the claims
administrator, and the Settlement Class members will have a 60-
day notice period to file a claim, object to, or opt out of the
settlement, after which time, the Debtors will request final
approval of the Settlement Agreement, provided that certain
conditions are met.  This two-step approval process is
consistent with class action procedures under the Rule 7023 of
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Conlan avers.  The Debtors
thus ask the Curt to approve the noticing procedures with respect
to the Settlement Agreement.

The Debtors have stipulated to class certification for settlement
purposes only under Rules 23(a) and (b) and ask the Bankruptcy
Court to certify the Settlement Class to effectuate the
Settlement Agreement.  The Debtors also ask the Bankruptcy Court
to appoint Class Counsel to represent the Settlement Class based
on experience and adequate representation, and to appoint the
Plaintiffs as "class representatives" for the Settlement Class.

In addition, the Debtors ask the Bankruptcy Court to schedule a
final fairness hearing and establish a process for finally
approving the settlement agreement.

The Bankruptcy Court will consider the Debtors' request on
August 25, 2011.  Objections are due no later than August 18.


VAN ACKER CONSTRUCTION: Faces Suit by Ex-Employees in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dior Popko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Van Acker Construction Associates, Inc., Gary Van
Acker, Glen Sherman and Does 1 to 20, Case No. CIV 1103484 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Marin Cty., July 14, 2011) is a civil action seeking
continuing wages, restitution, injunctive relief, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs, and is brought as a collective action
on behalf of individuals who, at any time during the three years
preceding the filing of the Complaint, were or have been employed
by VAC as a project manager, an assistant project manager, among
other positions.

Mr. Popko asserts individual claims against the Defendants, which
relate to his claims for discrimination, retaliation, harassment,
impermissible non-job related inquiry, lay off and constructive
discharge.

Mr. Popko is a resident of Marin, California, and was employed by
VAC.

VAC is a California Corporation doing business within the state of
California.  Mr. Van Acker is the owner and president of VAC,
while Mr. Sherman is the general manager and senior project
manager at VAC, and Mr. Popko's direct supervisor.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff
at this time.

VAC removed the lawsuit on August 17, 2001, from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Marin to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  As the circumstances given rise to this action occur
in the County of Marin, the Defendants asked that this matter be
assigned to the District Court.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:11-cv-04034 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Dale Harris, Esq.
          David Sohn Zelenski, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  dzelenski@harrisandruble.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael T. Lucey, Esq.
          Jon C. Yonemitsu, Esq.
          Marie Amelia Trimble, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 986-5900
          Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
          E-mail: mlucey@gordonrees.com
                  jyonemitsu@gordonrees.com
                  mtrimble@gordonrees.com


WALTER ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Moore" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the putative class action titled Louise Moore
v. Walter Energy, Inc., and Walter Coke, Inc., is pending,
according to Walter Energy's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

The Company and Walter Coke have been named in a suit filed by
Louise Moore on April 26, 2011 (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy,
Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This is a
punitive civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising
from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including
arsenic, BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a
result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted
by the companies and/or their predecessors. This action is still
in the earliest stages of litigation. Based on initial evaluation,
management believes that both procedural and substantive defenses
are available to Walter Energy and Walter Coke and the companies
expect to vigorously defend this matter. No specific dollar value
has been made in the demand for monetary damages. On June 6, 2011,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as
a defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to
relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing
after March 2, 1995. On June 20, 2011, Walter Coke filed a Motion
to Dismiss, which has been set for oral argument on August 10,
2011.


WALTER ENERGY: Defends Securities Class Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc., is defending a securities class action on
behalf of its subsidiary, Western Coal Corp., in Ontario, Canada,
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 1, 2011 the Company completed the acquisition of all the
outstanding common shares of Western Coal Corp.

In November 2009, Western Coal Corp. was named as a defendant in a
statement of claim issued by a plaintiff who seeks leave of the
Ontario Courts to proceed with a securities class action. This
claim also named Western Coal Corp.'s former President and
director, John Hogg, and two of its non-executive directors, John
Brodie and Robert Chase, as defendants.

The plaintiff subsequently delivered an amended claim that added
new allegations that he seeks to have certified as a class action
separately from the proposed securities class action allegations.
The oppression allegations focused on certain transactions the
plaintiff claims were oppressive and unfair to the interests of
shareholders. The amended claim included the following additional
defendants: Western Coal Corp.'s former Chairman, John Byrne; its
remaining non-executive directors John Conlon and Charles Pitcher;
Audley European Opportunities Master Fund Limited; Audley Capital
Management Limited; and, Audley Advisors LLP.

The proposed securities claims allege that those persons who
acquired or disposed of Company shares between November 14, 2007
and December 10, 2007 should be entitled to recover $200 million
for general damages and $20 million in punitive damages. The
plaintiff alleges that Western Coal Corp. consolidated financial
statements for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and the
accompanying news release issued on November 14, 2007
misrepresented the financial condition and that Western Coal Corp.
failed to make full, plain and true disclosure of all material
facts and changes.

The plaintiff's oppression claims are advanced in respect of
security holders in the period between April 26, 2007 and July 13,
2009. The claims are that the defendants caused Western Coal Corp.
to enter transactions that had a dilutive effect on the interests
of shareholders. The damages associated with these alleged
dilutive effects have not been developed or quantified.

The plaintiff's motions to proceed with securities' claims and
also to certify the securities and oppression claims as class
actions are currently scheduled to be argued in October 2011. The
plaintiff is seeking additional time to reply to the Company's
response. It is likely the hearing dates will be rescheduled.

The Company and the other named defendants continue to and will
vigorously defend the allegations. They maintain that there is no
merit to the claims and that the damages are without foundation
and excessive. Accordingly, the Company has made no provision for
the claims in its financial statements.


YTB: Suit Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme Can Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Lynch, writing for KMOX, reports that an on-line travel
company based in Wood River, Illinois can't shake accusations it's
operating a pyramid scheme.

Your Travel Biz, also known as YTB, had gotten a case filed by
former clients kicked out of federal court, but an appeals panel
has recently ruled those plaintiffs can resume legal challenges
and even try to certify a nationwide class action.

Attorney Christian Montroy says his clients allege the only way
they could make money from their on-line business, was to recruit
new people to sell YTB's sites.

"At the core of our case, we're saying that YTB primarily made
money through its initial $500 fee to be part of YTB and it's
monthly fees that were charged," explains Mr. Montroy.

Mr. Montroy says he doesn't know how many people could eventually
be added to a class action.  "I know that YTB International
Incorporated made hundreds of millions of dollars from its
consumers, essentially, so there are many thousands of people that
at this point we haven't done discovery to find out an exact
number."

YTB officials have said the suit has no merit and they're prepared
to defend the company's operations.

Earlier this year the company agreed to settle a complaint with
the Illinois Attorney General over allegations it violated the
state's unfair competition and advertising laws.

Two years ago the company was ordered by a California court to
stop deceptive marketing, drop recruiting fees, and pay a million
dollars.

YTB reported travel sales of roughly $222 million last year.


* OKLAHOMA RESTAURANTS: Sued for Double Taxing Patrons on Liquor
----------------------------------------------------------------
News9.com reports that a lawsuit filed in Cleveland County claims
hundreds of Oklahoma businesses are breaking a tax law.

The class action lawsuit alleges 40% of the restaurants in
Oklahoma that have a liquor license are double taxing patrons.

John Truel, the man behind the lawsuit, says he's done more than
two years of research and he wants consumers to get their money
back.

"We're not trying to put anyone out of business or trying to hurt
anyone," said John Truel, liquor lawsuit plaintiff.  "We're just
saying there is the law.  A majority conforms to it and a minority
does not and it needs to be resolved."

The lawsuit seeks more than $25 million in damages.


* TRAVEL WEB SITES: N.J. Towns' Hotel Occupancy Tax Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lamendola, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that the
township, acting as a lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit of
all New Jersey towns that by ordinance charge a hotel occupancy
tax to collect revenues on rooms rented out in those towns, has
lost another battle in attempting to sue a handful of travel Web
sites, which township officials have contended circumvent the
hotel occupancy taxing process by buying rooms at wholesale rates
and then renting them back at a marked up profit.  Town officials
say they are losing approximately $50,000 a year by the travel
companies paying hotel occupancy fees on the wholesale price and
not the retail price they in turn flip the rooms at.

Towns statewide, by ordinance, have the ability to levy a hotel
occupancy fee above and beyond what the state mandates as a hotel
occupancy fee and sales tax per room.  The state imposes a 5-
percent hotel occupancy fee on rooms rented out statewide, but
towns have since 2003 had the ability to levy their own occupancy
fee up to 3-percent per room.  All towns locally, with the
exception of North Arlington, which does not have a hotel, charge
hotel occupancy fees at the 3-percent rate.

"To say we have the ability to collect taxes, but to turn around
and say they [Internet companies] are not responsible for paying
all taxes . . . come on," said Lyndhurst Mayor Richard DiLascio.
"The basic position on our behalf just makes sense."

The township appealed a decision made by a federal court judge in
March 2009 that dismissed the suit brought against 15 Internet
travel booking companies including Priceline, Travelocity, Orbitz
and Expedia in June 2008.  In the dismissal, Judge Jose L.
Linares, in his opinion, wrote that Lyndhurst had no jurisdiction
to assert its claims and bring the action, citing that the
authority in which hotel occupancy taxes are collected is through
the state and not the township.

"The power to sue for a fixed amount owed but unpaid by a customer
is not the same as saying that a party can sue to determine the
amount required to be remitted to the Director of Taxation under
statute," wrote Judge Linares.  "This later situation, what
Lyndhurst asserts it has the power to do, implicates not only the
power of enforcement, but also the administration of the tax and
the determination of tax liability."

Judge Linares' opinion was affirmed upon the township's appeal on
Aug. 2 in a third circuit federal appeals panels opinion in which
the panel wrote that the enabling legislation creating the power
of a municipality to establish its own hotel occupancy fees put
the enforcement right into the hands of the state's Director of
Taxation.

"In the end, we believe that the Enabling Act provided Lyndhurst
with the power to enact its hotel occupancy tax, but not to
enforce it directly," wrote the panel.  "This enforcement power
was given to the Director alone (though assisted by the Attorney
General), and included the exclusive right both to determine the
amount of tax due and then to collect that amount.  As such, it
was for the Director -- not Lyndhurst -- to determine whether the
difference between the wholesale rate and the retail rate was
taxable under Lyndhurst's hotel occupancy tax."

Mayor DiLascio said the original suit was filed when EnCap was
still in play in the Meadowlands and could have added additional
hotels to the township.  He said that possibility is still on the
table under the new Kingsland Redevelopment Area and said if
hotels come in, even more revenue could be lost to the practice
the town alleges that the Internet booking companies are engaging
in.

Mayor DiLascio said the case will be pursued at the Supreme Court
level.

"It's not over.  It's just a part of the procedural things that we
expected," said Mayor DiLascio.  "It will be a Supreme Court
decision."

The township, as well as the three other local municipalities that
collect hotel occupancy fees, significantly bolster their budget
revenues with the tax.  East Rutherford, which has six hotels
within its borders, reaped $701,410 in hotel occupancy fees last
year.  Lyndhurst, with three hotels, took in $260,765 last year.
Carlstadt, which has three hotels, made $211,088 and Rutherford,
with only one hotel, made $228,109.  All four towns in their 2011
budgets are anticipating the same amount in occupancy fees this
year.

Last year, after the growing amount of similar suits being filed
nationwide, heads of five travel advocacy groups including the
Interactive Travel Services Association and U.S. Tour Operators
Association sent an open letter to their "partners" in the hotel
industry.  The letter specifically addressed the strife of local
taxing laws.

"We do not ask to avoid having our services taxed.  They are today
in a variety of ways.  Nor do we think municipalities should
attempt to shift any additional tax burden to hotels, and we will
work with you to fight any such efforts aggressively," reads the
letter.  "Working together, we can help municipalities increase
revenue by increasing visitors, not squeezing their travel
partners with higher taxes."


                            *********

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  * * *