CAR_Public/110824.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 24, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 167

                             Headlines

A-POWER ENERGY: Gets SEC Subpoena Over Securities Fraud Claims
ADAMS GOLF: Finally Resolves Class Suit; Pursues Insurer on Claims
ADVANCED ANALOGIC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Calif.
AFFINIA GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend S&E Quick Lube Suit
AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending

ANTERO RESOURCES: Battlement Mesa Residents File Class Action
APPLE INC: Accused of Conspiring with Publishers on eBook Pricing
APPLE REIT NINE: "Kowalski" Suit in New York Still Pending
APPLE REIT NINE: "Leff" Suit in New York Still Pending
APPLE REIT SIX: Still Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New Jersey

ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated Class Suit in California
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Settlement of Merger-Related Suits Now Final
BRUNEL ENERGY: Ex-Employee Mulls Health Insurance Class Action
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
CHINA VALVES: Bristol Has Until Aug. 29 to File Consolidated Suit

DEMAND MEDIA: California Court Approves Settlement of Class Suit
EMS TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Suit Over Merger With Honeywell Unit
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: "Quinn" Suit Still Pending in Massachusetts
ENER1 INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Holdings Merger-Related Suits Now Dismissed
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Faces Duncan Merger-Related Suits in 2 States
GENTA INC: Considering Next Move in "Collins" Suit
GRAHAM PACKAGING: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Pa.
GREEN BANKSHARES: Agrees to Settle North American-Related Suits

GREEN BANKSHARES: Plaintiff Has Until Aug. 29 to Oppose Dismissal
HARMAN INT'L: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Russell" Suit
HARMAN INT'L: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
HYPERCOM CORP: Continues to Defend VeriFone-Related Suits
INSWEB CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Settlement Still Pending

INTERCLICK INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bose" Suit Remains Pending
INTERMUNE INC: Awaits Oral Argument Date on Appeal From Dismissal
INTERSECTIONS INC: Awaits Decision on Appeal From Suit Dismissal
INTERSECTIONS INC: Hearing on Motion to Stay Set for Sept. 30
INTERSECTIONS INC: Probing Claims in Suit Over Disability Program

ISTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in "Citiline" Suit in N.Y.
JACKSON NAT'L: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Policyholders
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Formal Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 8
MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: "Knight" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Consummates Shareholder Suit Settlement

MEDIACOM LLC: "Ogg" Appeal From Decertification Order Pending
MISTRAS GROUP: California Court Approves Settlement of Class Suits
MONSANTO COMPANY: Class Action to Enter First Phase on Sept. 6
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
MOTOROLA: 9th Circuit Vacates Bluetooth Headset Settlement

NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Former Players Mull Class Action
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Oral Argument on Dismissal Set for December
NORTEL NETWORKS: Awaits Deal Approval in ERISA-Violation Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Pension Class Suit Remains Stayed
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Response to Amended Complaint Due August 26

ONVIA INC: Appeal From Securities Action Settlement Still Pending
OVERHILL FARMS: Continues to Defend "Salinas" Wage Class Suit
PFIZER INC: C.A. Says Listerine Suit Can Seek Certification
PFIZER INC: Appeals $65.4 Million Judgment in Neurontin Suit
PFIZER INC: Canadian Court Certifies Class in HRT Litigation

PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Champix-Related Suits in Canada
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend ERISA MDL in New York
PFIZER INC: Expects Final Okay of AWP Settlement in Late 2011
PFIZER INC: New York Court Dismisses Suit Over Alzheimer Drug
PFIZER INC: New York Suit Over Off-Label Marketing Remains Pending

PFIZER INC: Protonix Class Suits Remain Stayed in New Jersey
PFIZER INC: Securities Class Suit vs. Wyeth Remains Pending
PFIZER INC: Securities Suit Remains Pending in New Jersey
PFIZER INC: Still Awaits Approval of Deal in King-Acquisition Suit
PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Remains Pending

PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Class Action Suit in Calif. Still Pending
SINOTECH ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
STAMPS.COM INC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Pending on Remand
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Again
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Gets Favorable Judgment in Kingston Suits

WAL-MART: Oct. 28 Deadline Set for Gender Bias Individual Claims
ZST DIGITAL: Awaits Lead Plaintiff Appointment in "Scott" Suit




                             *********

A-POWER ENERGY: Gets SEC Subpoena Over Securities Fraud Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on August 20 provided an update on the
class action lawsuit the firm filed on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of A-Power Energy Generation Systems,
Ltd. during the period from March 31, 2008 through June 27, 2011.

To join the A-Power class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also
e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

After the Rosen Law Firm filed the first class action against
A-Power, the Company announced that the SEC has initiated a formal
investigation into whether the company has violated the federal
securities laws.  To this end, A-Power announced it has received a
subpoena from the SEC.

"We believe the latest announcement of a formal SEC investigation
corroborates the securities fraud claims alleged in our class
action seeking monetary relief for shareholders," said Rosen
attorney Phillip Kim.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 31, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

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


ADAMS GOLF: Finally Resolves Class Suit; Pursues Insurer on Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams Golf, Inc., 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, that it finally resolved a class
action lawsuit in June 2011 and it continues to pursue certain
claims against its insurer.

The Company maintains directors' and officers' and corporate
liability insurance to cover certain risks associated with these
securities claims filed against it or its directors and officers.
During the period covering its initial public offering, the
Company maintained insurance from multiple carriers, each insuring
a different layer of exposure, up to a total of $50 million.  In
June 1999, a class action lawsuit, which the Company settled in
June 2010 and finally resolved in June 2011, was filed against the
Company concerning its initial public offering.  The Company has
met the financial deductible of its directors' and officers'
insurance policy for the period covered by the lawsuit.  On
March 30, 2006, Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich"),
which provided insurance coverage totaling $5 million for the
layer of exposure between $15 million and $20 million, notified
the Company that it was denying coverage of claims in the class
action lawsuit because it was allegedly not timely notified of the
class action lawsuit.  On October 11, 2007, the Company filed a
suit against its former insurance broker, Thilman & Filipini, LLC
("T&F"), asserting various causes of action arising out of T&F's
alleged failure to notify Zurich of the class action lawsuit.  T&F
moved to dismiss the Company's lawsuit on the basis that its suit
was premature in that the Company had not been damaged because the
Company had not paid any sums in satisfaction of a judgment or
settlement of the class action securities litigation.  That motion
was denied pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
September 26, 2008.  On November 16, 2009, the Company filed a
Second Amended Complaint reasserting its causes of action against
T&F and adding Zurich as a defendant to the lawsuit, asserting
various causes of action against it arising out of its denial of
coverage for the class action lawsuit.

On June 13, 2011, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the
"State Court"), among other things: (i) granted a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment filed by the Company against Zurich
finding that Zurich had breached its contract with the Company;
(ii) denied Zurich's motion for summary judgment on the Company's
claim for violations of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims
statute; and (iii) dismissed the Company's claims for
misrepresentation and unfair claims settlement practices under
Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code.  These rulings are
interlocutory, which means the State Court is free to alter or
vacate the rulings.  If the rulings stand, the Company would be
entitled to recover from Zurich the sum of: (i) $5 million, (ii)
18% interest on that amount from the date of loss through the
entry of final judgment and (iii) reasonable attorneys' fees.  The
Company is also seeking consequential damages.  The amount of
consequential damages, if any, and attorneys' fees remain to be
resolved at the time of trial.  Given the preliminary nature of
the State Court's rulings, the amount, if any, that the Company
actually recover from Zurich or its former insurance broker, T&F,
may vary materially from the amounts described.  Any final
judgment would also be subject to an appeal, and any ultimate
recovery in the case would be subject to payment of the first
$1.25 million of any sums collected, net of fees and costs of
suit, to the class action plaintiffs pursuant to the Company's
settlement agreement with them.  The case does not currently have
a trial date.  At this point in the legal proceedings, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of the matter with any certainty.


ADVANCED ANALOGIC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated is facing a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit in California over
its proposed merger with Skyworks Solutions, 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 June 6, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County (Case No.
111CV202403) (the "Bushansky action") naming AATI, the members of
AATI's board of directors, Skyworks Solutions, Inc. ("Skyworks")
and PowerCo Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") as defendants. The
complaint alleges, among other things, (1) that the members of
AATI's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by (a)
failing to take steps to maximize the value of the merger
consideration to AATI's stockholders, (b) taking steps to avoid
competitive bidding, and (c) failing to protect against conflicts
of interest resulting from change-of-control and transaction-
related benefits received by AATI directors in connection with the
merger that are not available to all stockholders, and (2) that
AATI, the members of AATI's board of directors, Skyworks and
Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary
duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin consummation of the merger
or, if the merger is completed, to recover damages caused by the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint also seeks
recovery of attorney's fees and costs of the lawsuit.

On June 7, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County (Case No.
111CV202501) (the "Venette action") naming AATI, the members of
AATI's board of directors, Skyworks and Merger Sub as defendants.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2011 (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges, among other
things, (1) that the members of AATI's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties by (a) agreeing to the merger for
inadequate consideration on unfair terms, (b) failing to protect
against conflicts of interest resulting from change-of-control and
transaction-related benefits received by AATI directors in
connection with the merger that are not available to all
stockholders, (c) selling the company in response to alleged
pressure from Dialectic Capital Partners, LP ("Dialectic"), (d)
taking steps to avoid competitive bidding (including the entry by
certain AATI officers and directors into agreements with Skyworks
relating to voting commitments and inclusion in the merger
agreement of nonsolicitation provisions and a termination fee),
and (e) by causing the issuance of a materially misleading Form S-
4 Registration Statement which, inter alia, purportedly fails to
disclose material facts surrounding (i) Dialectic's impact on the
proposed merger process, (ii) the AATI board of directors'
evaluation of Skyworks and its offer for the Company, and (iii)
supporting figures and analysis regarding the fairness opinion
that the AATI Board obtained from its financial advisor, Needham &
Company, LLC, in connection with the transaction and (2) that
AATI, the members of AATI's board of directors, Skyworks and
Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary
duties. The Amended Complaint seeks to enjoin consummation of the
merger, and to have the court direct the defendants to implement
procedures and processes to maximize shareholder value. The
Amended Complaint also seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs
of the lawsuit.

On July 26, 2011, the Court issued an order consolidating the
Bushansky action and Venette action into a single, consolidated
action captioned In re Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 111CV202403, and designating
the Amended Complaint as the operative complaint in the
litigation.

AATI and AATI's board of directors believe that the claims in the
consolidated action are without merit and intend to defend against
such claims vigorously. Further, the Company does not believe that
it is probable that a liability has been incurred as of the date
of the financial statements or that a loss can be reasonably
estimated. Accordingly, no liability has been recorded as of the
date of the financial statements for the shareholder class action
lawsuits.


AFFINIA GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend S&E Quick Lube Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
One of Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc.'s subsidiaries,
Wix Filtration Corp LLC, continues to defend itself in a
consolidated Multi-District Litigation Proceeding in Chicago,
according to the Company's August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On March 31, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed by S&E Quick
Lube Distributors, Inc., of Utah against several auto parts
manufacturers for allegedly conspiring to fix prices for
replacement oil, air, fuel and transmission filters. Several auto
parts companies are named as defendants, including Champion
Laboratories, Inc., Purolator Filters NA LLC, Honeywell
International Inc., Cummins Filtration Inc., Donaldson Company,
Baldwin Filters Inc., Bosch USA., Mann + Hummel USA Inc.,
ArvinMeritor Inc., United Components Inc. and Wix Filtration Corp
LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit is currently
pending as a consolidated Multi-District Litigation Proceeding in
Chicago, Illinois because of multiple "tag-along" filings in
several jurisdictions. Two suits have also been filed in the
Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Wix Filtration, along
with other named defendants, have filed various motions to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaints, which were denied by the court in December
2009. Several defendants, including Wix Filtration, refiled
motions to dismiss based upon plaintiff's most recent amended
complaint. The court denied those motions in September 2010.
Discovery in the action continues. In June 2011, the U.S.
Department of Justice indicted the plaintiffs' main witness,
William Burch, for making false statements in connection with the
litigation. Burch pleaded guilty and the parties are now
considering the implications. The Company continues to believe
that Wix Filtration did not engage in any improper conduct and in
any event did not have significant sales in this particular market
at the relevant time periods so the Company does not expect the
lawsuit to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition or results of operations. The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend the matter.


AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Between July 2, 2001 and November 7, 2001, purported class action
lawsuits seeking monetary damages were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Akamai
Technologies, Inc., as well as against the underwriters of its
October 28, 1999 initial public offering of common stock. The
complaints were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock during different time periods, all
beginning on October 28, 1999 and ending on various dates. The
complaints are similar and allege violations of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, primarily based on the allegation that the underwriters
received undisclosed compensation in connection with the Company's
initial public offering. On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated
amended complaint was filed, reiterating in one pleading the
allegations contained in the previously filed separate actions.
The consolidated amended complaint defines the alleged class
period as October 28, 1999 through December 6, 2000. A Special
Litigation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors
authorized management to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding
that was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants
and their insurers. The parties negotiated a settlement that was
subject to approval by the District Court. On February 15, 2005,
the Court issued an Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the
settlement, provided that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a
modification narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the
original settlement agreement. On June 25, 2007, the District
Court signed an order terminating the settlement. On August 25,
2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of a
new proposed settlement (among plaintiffs, the underwriter
defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer
defendants), plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and
certification of the settlement classes. On October 5, 2009, the
District Court issued an opinion and order granting the lead
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, approval
of the plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and
certification of the settlement classes. An order and final
judgment was entered on November 4, 2009. Notices of appeal of the
District Court's October 5, 2009 opinion and order have been filed
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by
certain objecting plaintiffs. If the District Court's order is
upheld on appeal, the Company would have no material liability in
connection with this litigation, and the litigation would be
resolved. The Company has recorded no liability for this matter as
of June 30, 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.


ANTERO RESOURCES: Battlement Mesa Residents File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Wyrick, writing for Vail Daily, reports that a Denver
company dumping waste soil in the Eagle County landfill from its
oil and gas drilling operations in Garfield County, was hit with a
class action lawsuit that alleges health threats.

Antero Resources was sued in Denver District Court on behalf of
all 5,000 residents of Battlement Mesa, in western Garfield
County.  The lawsuit alleges that Antero's drilling operations
threaten their health and well being.

The lawsuit is the second filed against Antero by residents of
that area.  A Silt Mesa family sued Antero in March, contending
that Antero's contaminants and fumes drove them from their home.

Antero has been disposing of its exploration and production soils
in the Eagle County landfill since 2010, says Kris Friel, Eagle
County's communications director.

"Antero is still bringing (exploration and production) soils to
the landfill, but is and has been the only company to do so,"
Mr. Friel said in a written statement.

The county decided to accept the soil because it's essentially the
same kind of waste they're already accepting, such as soil from
excavating companies.

"These soils do go through a number of tests before acceptance,"
Mr. Friel said.  "We have not accepted, nor have we been asked to
consider accepting, other kinds of (exploration and production)
waste such as used pit liners."

Pit liners line holding ponds where things like fluids used in
drilling oil and gas wells are stored.  That's usually a mixture
of water and chemicals used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing,
or fracking, a way to tap gas trapped in rock formations deep
underground.

Garfield County stopped accepting pit liners in its landfill in
2009, saying they're too potentially toxic.

Antero has long argued that their activities are not hazardous to
residents' health.

The Battlement Mesa class action suit asks the court to force
Antero to establish a medical monitoring fund to cover research
and treatment of any illnesses that can be linked to drilling
activities.  It calls for Antero to use state-of-the-art safety
measures to safeguard the health of those living near the drilling
rigs.

It also asks for compensation to homeowners for lost property
values related to the presence of drilling rigs in the
neighborhood, according to the report.


APPLE INC: Accused of Conspiring with Publishers on eBook Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Gilstrap, Cynthia J. Tyler, Thomas Friedman, Jeremy
Sheppeck, Aloysius J. Brown, III, Anne M. Rinaldi, Laura J.
Warner, Barbara Heath, Kathleen Linda Pitlock, Kathleen Weiss,
Matthew A. Hosking, Diane Urbanec, Ed Macauley, Ronna Hamelin,
James L. Nesmith, Lauren Albert, Sue Roberts, Shane S. Davis, Sue
Ellen Gordon, Charles Leonard Pelton, Sr., Kimberly Whiteside
Brooks, Steven D. Campbell, and Jessica Moyer Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Apple, Inc.; Hachette
Book Group, Inc.; Harpercollins Publishers, Inc.; Macmillan
Publishers, Inc.; Penguin Group (USA) Inc.; and Simon & Schuster,
Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-04035 (N.D. Calif., August 18, 2011),
alleges that that the Publisher Defendants have restrained trade
of eBooks by coordinating their pricing to directly set retail
prices higher than had existed in the previously competitive
market.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Publisher Defendants' unlawful
combination and pricing agreement would not have succeeded without
the active participation of Apple, which facilitated the changing
of eBook pricing model in conspiracy with the Publisher
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are residents of different states of the United
States of America.  They have purchased eBooks for use on their
Amazon Kindle, Barnes and Noble Nook, or Apple iPad from the
Publisher Defendants and were injured as a result of the
Defendants' conduct.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


APPLE REIT NINE: "Kowalski" Suit in New York Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Nine, Inc., continues to defend itself from a putative
class action lawsuit filed by a shareholder in New York, according
to the Company's August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On June 17, 2011, one shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action captioned Nancy Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et
al, Case No. 1:11-cv-2919, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its
directors and certain of its officers, Apple REIT Ten, Inc., its
directors and certain of its officers, and David Lerner
Associates, Inc. and David Lerner.  The complaint, purportedly
brought on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and
Apple REIT Ten Inc. from June 16, 2008 through and including
June 17, 2011, asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things,
certification of the class, damages, rescission of share purchases
and other costs and expenses.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that: (1) the registration statements and prospectuses of
the Company and Apple REIT Ten, Inc. failed to disclose material
information concerning the value of the Units of the prior Apple
REIT companies, (2) the operations and investment model
implemented by the Company and Apple REIT Ten, Inc. are determined
to lose investors' capital, and (3) David Lerner Associates, Inc.
solicited purchases of the Company and Apple REIT Ten, Inc. by
means of false and misleading statements concerning the
distributions paid by prior Apple REIT companies.  The Company
believes that these claims against the Company and its officers
and directors are without merit, and the Company intends to defend
against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings.


APPLE REIT NINE: "Leff" Suit in New York Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed by a shareholder against
Apple REIT Nine, Inc. in New York is pending, according to the
Company's August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On June 28, 2011, a shareholder of the Company and Apple REIT Ten,
Inc. filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Marvin Leff
v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:11-cv-03094, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company, its directors and certain of its officers,
Apple REIT Ten, Inc., its directors and certain of its officers,
and David Lerner Associates, Inc. and David Lerner.  The
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Units in the Company and Apple REIT Ten, Inc. from June 17, 2008
through and including June 28, 2011, asserts claims under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other
things, certification of the class, damages, rescission of share
purchases and other costs and expenses.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that: (1) the registration statements and
prospectuses of the Company and Apple REIT Ten, Inc. failed to
disclose material information concerning the value of the Units of
the prior Apple REIT Companies, and (2) David Lerner Associates,
Inc. solicited purchases of the Company and Apple REIT Ten, Inc.
by means of false and misleading statements concerning the
distributions paid by prior Apple REIT Companies.  The Company
believes that these claims against the Company and its officers
and directors are without merit, and the Company intends to defend
against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings.


APPLE REIT SIX: Still Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., and Apple REIT Nine,
Inc., are still facing a putative shareholder class action in New
Jersey, according to the Company's August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On June 20, 2011, two shareholders of the Apple REIT Companies
filed a putative class action captioned Kronberg et al. v. David
Lerner Associates Inc., et al, Case No. 2:11-cv-03558, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against David Lerner Associates, Inc. and certain of its officers,
and the Apple REIT Companies and Glade M. Knight. The complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of Units in the Apple
REIT Companies, asserts claims and seeks, among other things,
certification of the class, compensatory, special and general
damages, and other costs and expenses. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that: (1) David Lerner Associates, Inc. made
false and misleading misrepresentations about (a) the value of the
Units of the Apple REIT Companies, (b) previous distribution
payments made by the Apple REIT Companies, and (c) the operations
of the Apple REIT Companies, (2) the significant risks associated
with the illiquid investment in the Apple REIT Companies were not
properly disclosed to investors, and (3) under the various agency
agreements between David Lerner Associates, Inc. and the Apple
REIT Companies, the Apple REIT Companies and Glade M. Knight are
responsible for the actions and representations of David Lerner
Associates, Inc. and its certain officers regarding the sale of
Units of the Apple REIT Companies.

The Company believes that these claims against the Apple REIT
Companies and Glade M. Knight are without merit, and the Company
intends to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the
Company says it cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these
proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss
or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit 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.

Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock. The complaints have been brought as
purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include
allegations that the Company and certain of its current and former
employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
lorcaserin program, thereby artificially inflating the price of
its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. On November 19, 2010, eight prospective
lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, appoint a lead
plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel. The Court took the motions to
consolidate under submission on January 14, 2011. On August 8,
2011, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  The Company expects the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint. In addition to the
class actions, a complaint involving similar legal and factual
issues has been brought by at least one individual stockholder.
The Company intends to defend against the claims advanced and to
seek dismissal of these complaints. Due to the early stage of
these proceedings, the Company is not able to predict or
reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Settlement of Merger-Related Suits Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc., obtained in July 2011 final court
approval of its settlement of class action lawsuits challenging
its merger with Rome Bancorp, 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.

Following the public announcement of the execution of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 12, 2010 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among the Company and Rome Bancorp, Inc.
("Rome Bancorp"), on October 18, 2010, Stephen Bushansky filed a
stockholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of the Bronx, on October 27, 2010, James and
LilianaDiCastro filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the
Chancery Court of the State of Delaware, and on November 15, 2010,
Samuel S. Rapasodi filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Oneida, each
against Rome Bancorp, the Directors of Rome Bancorp, and the
Company.  The lawsuit filed in Delaware was subsequently withdrawn
voluntarily.  The active lawsuits in New York state (collectively,
the "Rome shareholder litigation") purported to be brought on
behalf of all of Rome Bancorp's public stockholders and alleged
that the directors of Rome Bancorp breached their fiduciary duties
to Rome Bancorp's stockholders by failing to take steps necessary
to obtain a fair and adequate price for Rome Bancorp's common
stock and that the Company knowingly aided and abetted Rome
Bancorp directors' breach of fiduciary duty.

On February 23, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow Rome Bancorp's
stockholders to vote on the proposals required in connection with
the merger, Rome Bancorp entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs' counsel and other named defendants
regarding the settlement of the Rome shareholder litigation.
Under the terms of the memorandum negotiated by Rome Bancorp, Rome
Bancorp, the other named defendants and the plaintiffs agreed to
settle the two lawsuits subject to court approval. The Company and
the other defendants vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously
deny, that they committed or aided and abetted in the commission
of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts
that were or could have been alleged in the Rome shareholder
litigation, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable,
they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and
other legal burdens and entered into the contemplated settlement
solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation,
to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest,
and to avoid any possible delay in the consummation of the merger.

In connection with the settlement, plaintiffs sought an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $395,000, subject to
court approval.  Rome Bancorp's insurance carrier agreed to pay
the legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, in an amount
not to exceed $395,000 and ultimately to be determined by the
court. This payment will not be made by the Company and did not
affect the amount of merger consideration paid in the merger.

On July 18, 2011, the New York trial court gave final approval of
the parties' proposed settlement of the Rome shareholder
litigation.  The court's order and final judgment approving the
settlement dismissed with prejudice all claims in all actions that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law). As a result
of the settlement, the Rome shareholder litigation had no material
adverse effect on the financial condition or operations of the
Company.


BRUNEL ENERGY: Ex-Employee Mulls Health Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Management Daily Reports that a former employee of Brunel
Energy Inc. is suing the company for failing to notify her of her
right to maintain her health insurance coverage after she quit in
2010 -- and she has proposed making the case a class-action
lawsuit that could involve hundreds of other former employees.

Tamara Slipchenko alleges that Houston-based Brunel Energy --
which provides staffing services for the oil and natural gas
industry -- never informed her that the federal Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Recon-ciliation Act (COBRA) allowed her to continue
buying health insurance under the company's plan following
termination.  That became a real problem for Ms. Slipchenko when
she developed Hodgkin's lymphoma several months after her
employment with Brunel Energy ended.

Although Brunel Energy supplies specialized personnel to oil and
gas companies, the workers are considered employees of Brunel
Energy and are eligible to participate in its employee benefit
plans.

Following Ms. Slipchenko's initial complaint, the U.S. Department
of Labor ordered Brunel Energy to provide her with COBRA benefits.
However, according to Ms. Slipchenko's lawsuit, the company never
contacted her about her COBRA rights.

She suspects that other former employees found themselves in the
same boat.  That's why she says she is seeking to represent a
class of all Brunel Energy employees who allegedly were denied a
right to COBRA benefits.

Her suit also alleges that Brunel Energy failed to provide COBRA
insurance premium subsidies enacted as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, otherwise known as
the stimulus bill.

She is seeking a court order that would require the company, which
employs approximately 4,000 workers, to allow former employees to
elect COBRA continuation coverage from the company's health plan
at the ARRA reduced rate retroactive to their eligibility date.

Ms. Slipchenko's lawsuit also asks the court to order Brunel
Energy to reimburse all class members for any medical expenses or
insurance premiums that would otherwise have been covered
following the termination of their employment.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation is still awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by
customers seeking recovery for lack of Fox programming.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.  On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks and
carriage was restored.  Several class action lawsuits were
subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking
recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those lawsuits were
consolidated in an action before the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York and a consolidated complaint
was filed in that court on February 22, 2011.  The plaintiffs have
asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
consumer fraud.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously.  The Company has filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint.

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.


CHINA VALVES: Bristol Has Until Aug. 29 to File Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol Investment Fund, Ltd., the lead plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit against China Valves Technology, Inc., has until
August 29, 2011, to file a consolidated complaint, 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 4, 2011, a plaintiff filed a purported class action
naming the Company, its Chairman and certain present and former
senior executives as defendants, asserting claims for certain
violations of the securities laws and seeking unspecified damages.
The complaint, which is styled Donald Foster, et al. v. China
Valves Technology, Inc., et al., is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Substantially identical complaints, styled Donald London, et. al.
v. China Valves Technology, Inc., et. al., and Elliott Greenberg,
et. al. v. China Valves Technology, Inc. et al., were filed in the
same court on February 17, 2011 and March 8, 2011, respectively.
The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of a purported
class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the
Company's common stock at allegedly artificially high prices
during the period between January 12, 2010 and January 13, 2011
and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The
allegations in the complaints relate to the Company's acquisitions
of Changsha Valve and Hanwei Valve and include allegations
regarding the Company's financial statements and press releases.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company's
statements about the nature and quality of the Company's
acquisition of Changsha Valve were materially false and misleading
and that the Company's statements failed to describe the role in
the transaction of an alleged related party. In addition, the
complaints allege that the Company's statements about the Hanwei
Valve acquisition were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose the alleged involvement of certain related
parties and allegedly misdescribed the transaction as a purchase
of assets rather than as a purchase of an entity. The Company has
not yet responded to any complaint, but intends to contest the
allegations and to defend itself vigorously.

On June 28, 2011, the court has designated Bristol Investment
Fund, Ltd. as the lead plaintiff in the securities class actions
and its counsel, the Ball Law Firm, as the lead plaintiff's
counsel and further consolidated all previously filed and related
cases. Bristol Investment Fund, Ltd. has until August 29, 2011 to
file a consolidated complaint -- thus, presumably the plaintiffs'
want to amend the complaint on file at its earliest convenience.
The Company believes the class action lawsuits are still too
preliminary to make any reasonable determination about a range of
possible losses.


DEMAND MEDIA: California Court Approves Settlement of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Media Inc. obtained in June 2011 a court order approving
the settlement of a putative class action lawsuit filed against
the Company in California, according to the Company's August 12,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On August 10, 2010, the Company, Clearspring Technologies, Inc.,
or Clearspring, and six other defendants were named in a putative
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California.  The lawsuit alleged a variety of causes
of action, including violations of privacy and consumer rights.
The parties to the litigation entered into an agreement to settle
this matter with no monetary liability on the part of the Company.
This settlement was submitted to the court for approval in
December 2010 and court approval was granted in June 2011.


EMS TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Suit Over Merger With Honeywell Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMS Technologies, Inc., is defending a putative class action
lawsuit arising from its proposed merger with a subsidiary of
Honeywell International Inc., according to the Company's
August 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

On June 13, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with Honeywell International Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Egret Acquisition Corp., a Georgia corporation
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Honeywell ("Purchaser").  Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Purchaser agreed to commence a
tender offer to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares
of common stock, $0.10 par value, of the Company (the "Shares") at
a price of $33.00 per share (the "Offer Price") in cash.  Upon
successful completion of the Offer, the Purchaser will merge with
and into the Company (the "Merger") and the Company will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell.

On July 8, 2011, Victoria Shaev, filed a complaint (the "Shaev
Complaint") on behalf of herself and as a putative class action on
behalf of the Company's public shareholders against EMS, certain
members of the Board of Directors (the "Individual Defendants"),
certain members of management, Honeywell and Purchaser in the
Superior Court of Fulton County of the State of Georgia.  In the
Shaev Complaint, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Offer and Merger by failing to engage in a
fair sale process and by providing materially misleading and
incomplete information regarding the transaction.  The plaintiff
also alleges that the Company, Parent and Purchaser have aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The Shaev
Complaint seeks judicial action, among other things, (i) declaring
that the action is properly maintainable as a class action and
certifying plaintiff as class representative and plaintiff's
counsel as class counsel, (ii) preliminary and permanently
enjoining defendants from effectuating the transaction, (iii)
declaring the transaction void and ordering rescission if the
transaction is consummated, (iv) requiring disgorgement and
imposing a constructive trust on all property and profits that the
defendants receive as a result of their wrongful conduct, and (v)
awarding damages, including rescissory damages, and reasonable
fees and expenses.

The Company and the other defendants believe the plaintiff's
allegations lack merit, and are contesting them vigorously.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: "Quinn" Suit Still Pending in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A number of pharmaceutical companies are defendants in litigation
brought by their own current and former pharmaceutical sales
representatives, alleging that the companies violated wage and
hour laws by misclassifying the sales representatives as "exempt"
employees, and by failing to pay overtime compensation. Endo
Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. is subject to one such case, Susan
S. Quinn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., which was conditionally certified as
an "opt-in" class action on June 1, 2011, and is currently pending
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

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.


ENER1 INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Ener1, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action (Civil Action No. 11 Civ. 5795) in the United States
Southern District Court of New York is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Ener1
securities between January 10, 2011, and August 15, 2011, both
dates inclusive.  The Complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ener1 securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 17, 2011, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.

The Complaint charges Ener1 and certain of its executive officers
and/or directors with violations of federal securities laws.
Ener1 designs, develops and manufactures high-performance
batteries and battery pack systems.  In 2009 and 2010, Ener1 made
separate investments in electric-vehicle manufacturer Think
Global, AS and its majority owner Think Holdings, AS.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that, among other things: (1) Think Global lacked adequate
operating capital, and the ability to raise capital, to continue
operations; (2) as a result, Ener1 failed to timely impair the
value of its Think Holdings investments; (3) as a result, the
outstanding loans receivable and accounts receivable due from
Think Holdings and Think Global were uncollectible; (4) as such,
the Company's financial statements were misstated and its
financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles; and (5), as a result, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 22, 2011, the Company disclosed that a material charge was
required under GAAP applicable to Ener1 related to the loans
receivable of Think Holdings and accounts receivable of Think
Global held by Ener1, based on the announcement by Think Global
that, following an extended and ultimately unsuccessful search for
long-term financing, it would be filing for bankruptcy proceedings
in the Norwegian courts on June 22, 2011.  Ener1 estimated the
amount of the charge would be $35.4 million, subject to change to
the extent that the Company received any recovery as a result of
the liquidation of Think Global, but any recovery, to the extent
it occurred, would not likely be significant.

On this news, shares of Ener1 declined $0.07 per share, more than
5%, on unusually heavy volume, and further declined $0.16 per
share, or 12.4%, to close on June 23, 2011, at $1.13 per share,
also on unusually heavy volume.

Subsequently, on August 15, 2011, Ener1 disclosed that the
Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2010 and for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, should no
longer be relied upon and should be restated.  The determination
was made following an assessment of certain accounting matters
related to the loans receivable owed to Ener1 by Think Holdings
and accounts receivable owed to Ener1 by Think Global held by the
Company, and the timing of the recognition of the impairment
charge related to the Company's investment in Think Holdings
originally recorded during the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On this news, shares of Ener1 declined $0.33 per share, or 42.31%,
to close on August 16, 2011, at $0.45 per share, on unusually
heavy volume.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The law firm has offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.'s motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in the class action lawsuit over the Company's merger
with TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and Texas Eastern Products Pipeline
Company, LLC, is 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.

TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company,
LLC, which is the general partner of TEPPCO, merged with the
Company's subsidiaries on October 26, 2009.

On November 15, 2010, Joel A. Gerber filed a class action and
derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The complaint asserts claims against Enterprise GP
Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Enterprise Products
Company and the then directors of EPE Holdings LLC for breach of
express and implied duties in connection with Holdings' sale of
TEPPCO GP to the Company in October 2009 (the "2009 Sale
Transaction") and the Holdings Merger in November 2010.  The
complaint also asserts claims against Mr. Duncan's estate, EPCO
and the Company for tortious interference and unjust enrichment in
connection with the transactions.  The complaint alleges that
Holdings sold TEPPCO GP to the Company in the 2009 Sale
Transaction at an unfair price to Holdings and that the members of
EPE Holdings' ACG Committee, which approved the 2009 Sale
Transaction, were not independent because of their relationship
with Mr. Duncan.  The complaint also alleges that the terms of the
Holdings Merger were unfair to Holdings' unitholders and that
members of EPE Holdings' ACG committee, which approved the
Holdings Merger, were not independent because of their
relationship with Mr. Duncan.  On December 13, 2010, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit with the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.  In response to the motion to dismiss,
on March 18, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On
April 1, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Holdings Merger-Related Suits Now Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
All three class action lawsuits challenging Enterprise Products
Partners L.P.'s merger with Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. have been
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 June 30, 2011.

On September 3, 2010, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. ("Holdings"),
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., its general partner Enterprise
Products Holdings LLC, Enterprise Products GP, LLC ("EPGP," the
former general partner of Enterprise) and Enterprise ETE LLC
("Holdings MergerCo," a Delaware limited liability company and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise) entered into a merger
agreement (the "Holdings Merger Agreement").  On November 22,
2010, the Holdings Merger Agreement was approved by the
unitholders of Holdings and the merger of Holdings with and into
Holdings MergerCo and related transactions were completed, with
Holdings MergerCo surviving such merger (collectively, the
"Holdings Merger").  Enterprise's membership interests in Holdings
MergerCo were subsequently contributed to EPO or Enterprise
Products Operating LLC.

On September 9, 2010, Sanjay Israni, a purported unitholder of
Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Holdings, captioned Sanjay Israni v. EPE Holdings
LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products Company,
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S.
Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon M.
Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster
(the "Israni Complaint").  The Israni Complaint alleges, among
other things, that Enterprise along with the named directors and
EPCO have breached fiduciary duties in connection with the
Holdings Merger and that Holdings aided and abetted in these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On October 18, 2010,
Enterprise filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On March 18, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal of
all claims pending in that action without prejudice, with each
party to bear its own costs and fees.  The Court granted the
Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal on March 18, 2011.

On September 29, 2010, Eugene Lonergan, Sr., a purported
unitholder of Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of
the unitholders of Holdings, captioned Eugene Lonergan, Sr. v. EPE
Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Oscar S. Andras, Ralph
S. Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon
M. Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster
(the "Lonergan Complaint").  The Lonergan Complaint alleges that
the named directors and EPE Holdings breached the implied
contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing, including
failing to make adequate disclosures, in connection with the
Holdings Merger.  On October 8, 2010, the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware held a hearing on a motion by the plaintiff to
expedite the proceedings.  On October 11, 2010, the motion was
denied.  On October 18, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  On March 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Stipulation
and Proposed Order of Dismissal of all claims pending in that
action without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs
and fees.  The Court granted the Stipulation and Proposed Order of
Dismissal on March 18, 2011.

Additionally, on September 23, 2010, Richard Fouke, a purported
unitholder of Holdings, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of
the unitholders of Holdings, captioned Richard Fouke v. EPE
Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products
Company, Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products
GP, LLC, Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S. Cunningham, Richard H.
Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon M. Andress, Charles E.
McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster (the "Fouke
Complaint").  The Fouke Complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company, along with the named directors, EPE Holdings,
EPGP and EPCO breached the implied contractual covenant of good
faith and fair dealing in connection with the Holdings Merger and
that Holdings and the other defendants aided and abetted in the
alleged breach.  On October 18, 2010, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the lawsuit with the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  On July 12, 2011, the Court of Chancery entered
stipulation and order of dismissal of the Fouke Complaint filed by
the parties dismissing the claims without prejudice.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Faces Duncan Merger-Related Suits in 2 States
------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., is facing class action lawsuits
pending in Delaware and Texas over its proposed merger with Duncan
Energy Partners, 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 28, 2011, Enterprise Products Partners L.P. entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Duncan Merger Agreement"),
by and among Enterprise, its general partner Enterprise Products
Holdings LLC, EPD MergerCo LLC ("Duncan MergerCo," a Delaware
limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Enterprise), Duncan Energy Partners and DEP GP.  At the effective
time of the merger, Duncan MergerCo will merge with and into
Duncan Energy Partners, pursuant to the Duncan Merger Agreement,
with Duncan Energy Partners surviving the merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Enterprise (the "Duncan Merger"), and all of the
outstanding Duncan Energy Partners common units at the effective
time of the merger will be cancelled and converted into the right
to receive common units representing limited partner interests in
Enterprise based on an exchange rate of 1.01 Enterprise common
units for each Duncan Energy Partners common unit.

On September 7, 2011, Duncan Energy Partners will host a special
meeting of its unitholders to consider and vote upon approval of
the Duncan Merger Agreement and the Duncan Merger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


GENTA INC: Considering Next Move in "Collins" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Genta Incorporated is currently considering its options with
respect to the New Jersey Appellate Division's ruling to remand
the lawsuit Collins v. Warrell back to the Superior 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.

In September 2008, several stockholders, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the Company, the Board of Directors, and certain of its
executive officers in Superior Court of New Jersey, captioned
Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08.  The complaint alleged
that in issuing convertible notes in June 2008, the Board of
Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties,
and the Company aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty.
On March 20, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the class action complaint and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  On April 30, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division.
On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
judgment based on a claim of new evidence, which was denied on
June 12, 2009.  The plaintiffs also asked the Appellate Division
for a temporary remand to permit the Superior Court judge to
resolve the issues of the new evidence plaintiffs sought to raise
and the Appellate Division granted the motion for temporary
remand.  Following the briefing and a hearing, the Superior Court
denied the motion for relief from judgment on August 28, 2009.
Thus, this matter proceeded in the Appellate Division.
Plaintiffs' brief before the Appellate Division was filed on
October 28, 2009, and the Company's responsive brief was filed on
January 27, 2010.  The plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on
March 15, 2010.

On August 3, 2011, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of
the Superior Court in part and reversed the decision of the
Superior Court in part.  The Appellate Division held that the
Superior Court properly dismissed the complaint, but should have
permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  The
Appellate Division remanded the case to the Superior Court.  The
parties have twenty days in which to move for reconsideration by
the Appellate Division or to seek certification to the New Jersey
Supreme Court.  The Company says it is currently considering these
options.  The Company, Board of Directors and Officers deny these
allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


GRAHAM PACKAGING: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Packaging Company Inc. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit challenging its merger agreement
with Silgan Holdings Inc., according to the Company's August 12,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On April 25, 2011, James Gipson, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania against the Company, its
directors and Silgan challenging the proposed merger between
Silgan and the Company.  On June 1, 2011, Phyllis Sciborowski, a
purported stockholder of the Company, filed a purported class
action and derivative lawsuit relating to the merger agreement
with Silgan in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Pennsylvania against the Company, its directors and Silgan.  On
July 21, 2011, the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Pennsylvania consolidated the Gipson and Sciborowski lawsuits.  On
August 2, 2011, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended
complaint. The proposed amended complaint asserts claims against
the Company, its directors, Silgan, Reynolds and Bucephalas
Acquisition Corp.  The proposed amended complaint alleges that the
directors of the Company have breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders by, among other things (i) failing to
fully inform themselves of the Company's market value; (ii)
failing to act in the best interests of the Company's
stockholders; (iii) failing to maximize stockholder value; and
(iv) failing to act in accordance with their duties of good faith,
due care, and loyalty.  The proposed amended complaint also
alleges that the Company's information statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission contains material omissions.
The proposed amended complaint alleges that Silgan, Reynolds and
Bucephalas Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the Company's
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The
proposed amended complaint also alleges that Silgan was unjustly
enriched by the Company's payment of a termination fee to Silgan.
The proposed amended complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the
merger agreement with Reynolds is a breach of fiduciary duties and
thus unenforceable; (ii) injunctive relief to prevent the
defendants from consummating the merger between the Company and
Reynolds unless and until the Company adopts and implements a
procedure or process to obtain a merger agreement providing the
best available terms for the Company's stockholders and provides
all material disclosures to the Company's stockholders; (iii)
recission, to the extent already implemented, of the terms of the
merger agreement with Reynolds; (iv) disgorgement from the
defendants of, and a constructive trust over, the termination fee
paid to Silgan, as well as legal, accounting, and other
professional fees paid in connection with the Silgan merger
agreement; and (v) the costs and disbursements of the purported
class and derivative action, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend the action vigorously.


GREEN BANKSHARES: Agrees to Settle North American-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the four class action lawsuits relating to Green
Bankshares, Inc.'s investment agreement with North American
Financial Holdings, Inc., reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the lawsuits, 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 5, 2011, Green Bankshares, Inc. (the "Company") and its
wholly owned subsidiary, GreenBank (the "Bank"), entered into an
Investment Agreement with North American Financial Holdings, Inc.
("North American") pursuant to which North American has agreed to
acquire approximately 120 million shares of the Company's common
stock at a per share purchase price of $1.81, for a total
investment of approximately $217 million.  The transaction, which
is subject to shareholder and regulatory approval, as well as the
satisfaction of other customary closing conditions, is expected to
be consummated in the third quarter of 2011.

On May 12, 2011, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action lawsuit (styled Betty Smith v. Green Bankshares, Inc.
et al., Case No. 11-625-III, Davidson County, Tennessee, Chancery
Court) against the Company, the Bank, the Company's Board of
Directors (Steven M. Rownd, Robert K. Leonard, Martha M. Bachman,
Bruce Campbell, W.T. Daniels, Samuel E. Lynch, Bill Mooningham,
John Tolsma, Kenneth R. Vaught, and Charles E. Whitfield, Jr., and
North American on behalf of all persons holding common stock of
the Company.  This complaint, which has been subsequently amended,
was filed following the Company's public announcement on May 5,
2011 of its entering into the Investment Agreement with North
American and relates to the proposed investment in the Company by
North American.

The amended complaint alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by accepting a sale price for the
shares to be sold to North American that was unfair to the
Company's shareholders and by issuing a proxy statement that
contained material omissions.  The complaint also alleges that the
Company, the Bank and North American aided and abetted these
breaches of fiduciary duty.  It seeks injunctive relief and/or
rescission of the proposed investment by North American and fees
and expenses in an unspecified amount.

On May 25, 2011, another shareholder of the Company filed a
similar putative class action lawsuit (styled Mark McClinton v.
Green Bankshares, Inc. et al., Case No. 11-CV-284ktl, Greene
County Circuit Court, Greeneville, Tennessee) against the Company,
the Company's Board of Directors and North American on behalf of
all persons holding the Company's common stock.  The complaint
similarly alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company by agreeing to sell shares to
North American at a price unfair to the Company's shareholders.
The complaint also alleges that the Company and North American
aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty.  It seeks and
injunction and/or rescission of North American's investment in the
Company and fees and expenses in an unspecified amount.

On June 16, 2011, another shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit (styled Thomas W. Cook Jr. v. Green
Bankshares, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00176, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Greeneville) against the Company, the Company's Board of Directors
and North American on behalf of all persons holding the Company's
common stock.  The complaint alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by
failing to maximize shareholder value in the proposed transaction
with North American.  The complaint also alleges that the Company
and the individual defendants violated the securities laws by
issuing a Preliminary Proxy Statement that contains alleged
material misstatements and omissions.  The complaint also alleges
that the Company and North American aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty.  It seeks an injunction and/or rescission of
North American's investment in the Company, monetary damages and
fees and expenses in an unspecified amount.

On July 6, 2011, another shareholder of the Company filed a
lawsuit (styledBarbara N. Ballard v. Stephen M. Rownd, et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00201, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville)against the
Company, the Company's Board of Directors and North American
asserting an individual claim that alleges that the individual
defendants violated the securities laws by issuing a Preliminary
Proxy Statement that contains alleged material misstatements and
omissions.  The complaint also alleges a class action claim on
behalf of all persons holding the Company's common stock against
the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty based on
these same alleged material misstatements and omissions.  The
complaint also alleges that the Company and North American aided
and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty.  It seeks an
injunction and/or rescission of North American's investment in the
Company and fees and expenses in an unspecified amount.

On July 26, 2011, the parties to the four North American
transaction-related class action lawsuits reached an agreement in
principle to resolve those four lawsuits on the basis of the
inclusion of certain additional disclosures regarding the North
American transaction in the proxy statement in connection with the
proposed North American transaction.  The proposed settlement is
subject to, among other things, court approval.

The Company and the individual defendants collectively intend to
vigorously defend themselves against these class action
allegations.


GREEN BANKSHARES: Plaintiff Has Until Aug. 29 to Oppose Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff has until August 29, 2011, to file an opposition to
Green Bankshares, Inc. and other defendants' motion to dismiss its
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, 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 November 18, 2010, a shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit (styled Bill Burgraff v. Green
Bankshares, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Tennessee, Northeastern Division, Case No. 2:10-cv-00253) against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
in Greeneville, Tennessee, on behalf of all persons that acquired
shares of the Company's common stock between January 19, 2010, and
November 9, 2010.  On January 18, 2011, a separate shareholder of
the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled Brian
Molnar v. Green Bankshares, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division, Case No.
2:11-cv-00014) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the same court on behalf of all persons that
acquired shares of the Company's common stock between January 19,
2010, and October 20, 2010.  These lawsuits were filed following,
and relate to the drop in value of the Company's common stock
price after, the Company announced its third quarter performance
results on October 20, 2010.  The Burgraff case also complains of
the Company's decision on November 9, 2010, to suspend payment of
certain quarterly cash dividends.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements or failed to disclose that the Company was purportedly
overvaluing collateral of certain loans; failing to timely take
impairment charges of these certain loans; failing to properly
account for loan charge-offs; lacking adequate internal and
financial controls; and providing false and misleading financial
results.  The plaintiffs have asserted federal securities laws
claims against all defendants for alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs have also asserted control
person liability claims against the individual defendants named in
the complaints pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
two cases were consolidated on February 4, 2011.  On February 11,
2011, the Court appointed movant Jeffrey Blomgren as lead
plaintiff.  On May 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended and
consolidated complaint alleging a class period of January 19,
2010, to November 9, 2010.  On July 11, 2011, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiff
has until August 29, 2011 to file an opposition to that motion.

The Company and the individual named defendants collectively
intend to vigorously defend themselves against these allegations.


HARMAN INT'L: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Russell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, is still awaiting a
court decision on its motion to dismiss a putative class action
lawsuit commenced by Patrick Russell, 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.

Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on
December 7, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class
action complaint on June 2, 2008, against Harman and certain of
its officers and directors alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and seeking, on
behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman
International Industries, Incorporated Retirement Savings Plan
(the "Plan"), compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well
as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust,
restitution, and other monetary relief.  The amended complaint
alleges that from April 26, 2007, to the present, defendants
failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's assets, thereby
breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing
the Plan to invest in the Company's common stock notwithstanding
that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for
the Participants' retirement savings."  The amended complaint
further claims that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to
monitor the Plan fiduciaries, failed to provide the Plan
fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan participants, adverse
facts regarding Harman and its businesses and prospects.  The
Russell Plaintiff also contends that defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty.  As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the
amended complaint asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial
losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Plan's
Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
August 5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on
October 20, 2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company says the case remained open with
no new developments.


HARMAN INT'L: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, is still awaiting a
court decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in the District of Columbia,
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 October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia (the "Court") seeking compensatory damages and costs
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between April 26, 2007, and September 24, 2007 (the "Class
Period").  The original complaint alleged claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects.  The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. ("KKR") and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners
was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or
it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the
Company's common stock therefore would not have been artificially
inflated during the Class Period.  The Kim Plaintiff alleged that,
following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be
completed, the price of the Company's common stock declined,
causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan (the "Boca Raton Plaintiff") filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Harman and certain of its officers in the Court
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between April 26, 2007,
and September 24, 2007.  The allegations in the Boca Raton
complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the
original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the
Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through
January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations
alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant
problems" relating to its Personal Navigation Device ("PND") sales
forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January
14, 2008.  The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants
revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND
sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00
per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the
Company's share value and additional losses to the plaintiff
class.

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR).  That
same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as
lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint").  The Consolidated
Complaint, which extends the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contends that Harman and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding the Company's financial condition
in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.  In particular, the
Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants knowingly or
recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG
radios, PNDs and the Company's capital expenditures.  The
Consolidated Complaint alleges that when Harman's true financial
condition became known to the market, the price of the Company's
common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the
plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company says the case remained open with
no new developments.


HYPERCOM CORP: Continues to Defend VeriFone-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Hypercom Corporation continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits related to its merger with VeriFone Systems, 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 August 4, 2011, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated November 17, 2010, among VeriFone Systems, Inc.
("VeriFone"), Hypercom, and Honey Acquisition Co., a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of VeriFone ("Merger
Sub"), Merger Sub merged with and into Hypercom with Hypercom
continuing as the surviving entity and wholly owned subsidiary of
VeriFone (the "Merger").

Commencing shortly after VeriFone publicly announced on
September 30, 2010 that it had made an offer to acquire Hypercom
and continuing following the announcement by the Company and
VeriFone on November 17, 2010 that the Company had entered into a
definitive merger agreement, certain putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Arizona and Delaware state courts alleging
variously, among other things, that the board of directors of
Hypercom breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger and that VeriFone, Honey Acquisition Co., Hypercom, FP
Hypercom Holdco, LLC, and Francisco Partners II, L.P. aided and
abetted that alleged breach. These actions include: Gerber v.
Hypercom, Delaware Court of Chancery, Case no. CA5868 ("Gerber");
Anarkat v. Hypercom, Maricopa County Superior Court, CV2010-032482
("Anarkat"); Small v. Hypercom Corporation, Delaware Court of
Chancery, Case no. CA6031 (Small"); Grayson v. Hypercom
Corporation, Delaware Court of Chancery, Case no. CA6044
(Grayson"); and The Silverstein Living Trust v. Hypercom
Corporation, Maricopa County Superior Court, Case no. CV2010-
030941 (Silverstein"). The Anarkat and Silverstein cases have been
consolidated in Maricopa County Superior Court as In Re Hypercom
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2010-032482,
and the Small and Grayson cases have been consolidated in the
Delaware Court of Chancery as In Re Hypercom Corporation
Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6031-VCL (the
"Actions"). The Gerber case is dormant as the plaintiffs in that
case have not prosecuted it since it was filed. On February 14,
2011, counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants in the Actions
executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the "Memorandum") pursuant
to which (i) the Company provided additional disclosures
recommended by the plaintiffs to supplement its proxy statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (ii) the
defendants agreed to provide plaintiffs' counsel with reasonable
confirmatory discovery regarding the fairness and adequacy of the
settlement and the additional disclosures, and (iii) the parties
agreed to use their best efforts to execute and present to the
court a formal stipulation of settlement within 45 days seeking
court approval of (a) the settlement and dismissal of the Actions
with prejudice, (b) the stay of all proceedings in the Actions,
(c) the conditional certification of the Actions as a class action
under Arizona law, (d) the release of all claims against the
parties, (e) the defendants' payment of $510,000 to the
plaintiffs' counsel for their fees and expenses, (f) the
defendants' responsibility for providing notice of the settlement
to members of the class, and (g) the dismissal of the Delaware
actions following the court's final approval of the settlement.
While the defendants deny that they have committed any violations
of law or breaches of duties to the plaintiffs, the class or
anyone else, and believe that their disclosures in the proxy
statement regarding the merger were appropriate and adequate under
applicable law, the defendants are entering into the settlement
solely to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and
expense of further litigation and to lessen the risk of any delay
of the closing of the merger as a result of the litigation. The
defendants have agreed that the payment to the plaintiffs' counsel
will be jointly funded equally by VeriFone and the carrier of
Hypercom's directors and officers liability insurance policy,
while the Company will bear the cost of the $250,000 deductible
amount under the insurance policy.


INSWEB CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal lodged from a trial court's approval of a settlement
resolving a securities class action complaint against Insweb
Corporation remains pending, according to the Company's
August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from July 22, 1999 through December 6,
2000.  The complaint named as defendants InsWeb, certain current
and former officers and directors, and three investment banking
firms that served as underwriters for InsWeb's initial public
offering in July 1999.  The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the
registration statements for the offering failed to disclose, among
other things, that (i) the underwriters had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors
material portions of the shares of the Company's stock sold in the
offerings and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocated shares
of the stock sold in the offering to those customers in exchange
for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of
InsWeb stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  No
specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations have been made
in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In October 2002, all claims
against the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court dismissed the claims in
the InsWeb action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with the
remaining claims.  In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the
cases presented a settlement proposal to all of the issuer
defendants.  Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs would
dismiss and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all
the related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.  InsWeb and most of the other issuer
defendants have accepted the settlement proposal.  While the
District Court was considering final approval of the settlement,
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the class
certification of plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters in
six cases designated as focus or test cases.  On December 14,
2006, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all
of the lawsuits pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the
Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class
certification issue.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but clarified that the
plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the
District Court.  Because of the significant technical barriers
presented by the Court's decision, the parties withdrew the
proposed settlement and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Representatives of all of the parties to the IPO litigation agreed
to a revised settlement; as with the earlier settlement proposal,
the revised settlement proposal does not require InsWeb to
contribute any cash.  The revised settlement was approved by the
District Court on October 5, 2009, but a number of plaintiffs
appealed the approval to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
There is no assurance that the new settlement will be upheld on
appeal.  If the settlement is not upheld, InsWeb intends to defend
the lawsuit vigorously.  The litigation and settlement process is
inherently uncertain and management cannot predict the outcome,
though, if unfavorable, it could have a material adverse effect on
InsWeb's financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.

InsWeb Corporation operates an insurance lead generation business
that provides consumer leads to insurance companies, insurance
agents and other providers of automobile, property, health, term
life, and small business insurance.  On October 1, 2010, InsWeb
acquired Potrero Media Corporation, which operated a complementary
lead generation business focused on the health and term life
insurance markets.  InsWeb's principal source of revenues is
transaction fees from participating insurance providers, either
directly from an insurance company or from a local insurance
agent.


INTERCLICK INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bose" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Interclick, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the lawsuit commenced by
Sonal Bose 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 December 8, 2010, Sonal Bose commenced an action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sonal
Bose v. Interclick, Inc., Case No. 10 Civ. 9183-DAB (S.D.N.Y.))
alleging that interclick engaged in certain activities that
plaintiff claims violate electronic privacy and computer use laws.
The plaintiff asserts federal and state law claims, and seeks
compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, and
reimbursement of expenses and attorney's fees.  The plaintiff also
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and class action
certification.

Plaintiff also had brought a related action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
certain of the Company's advertisers, which has been voluntarily
dismissed as a separate action now that plaintiff has filed an
Amended Complaint naming the advertisers as defendants in the
action against the Company.  The Company is providing for the
defense of the advertisers.

Motions to dismiss the lawsuit by the Company and by the
advertisers are pending.  As noted in the motions to dismiss,
interclick believes the case is entirely without merit and
interclick intends to vigorously defend its prior practices and
technology.

There are no proceedings in which any of the Company's directors,
officers or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial
shareholder, is an adverse party or has a material interest
adverse to the Company's interest.


INTERMUNE INC: Awaits Oral Argument Date on Appeal From Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
InterMune, Inc., is awaiting scheduling of oral argument regarding
plaintiffs' appeals from the dismissal of their 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 May 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah
Jane Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v.
InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No.
C-08-02376. Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered
Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of
consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged
that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits
of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for
IPF. The complaint asserted various claims against the Company,
including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various
state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The
complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount,
including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs'
legal fees and costs, as well as equitable relief. Between June
2008 and September 2008, three additional complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging similar facts. In February 2009, the Court
consolidated the four complaints for pretrial purposes.
On September 1, 2010, after two rounds of motions to dismiss, the
Court granted defendants' third motions to dismiss, dismissing all
remaining claims in all consolidated cases with prejudice and
entered judgment accordingly. On October 1, 2010, the remaining
plaintiffs in all cases filed notices of appeal, appealing the
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. That appeal is fully briefed as of May 2011 and awaiting
scheduling of oral argument before the Ninth Circuit.

The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses
to the claims at issue and intends to defend the actions
vigorously. The Company may enter into discussions regarding
settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement
agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interests of
its stockholders. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Awaits Decision on Appeal From Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections Inc. is awaiting a court decision on an appeal from
the dismissal of a class action complaint pending in Texas,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On September 11, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections, Inc., Intersections Insurance Services
Inc., Loeb Holding Corp., Bank of America, NA, Banc of America
Insurance Services, Inc., BA Insurance Services, Inc., American
International Group, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, PA, and Global Contact Services, LLC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint
alleges various claims based on telemarketing of an accidental
death and disability program. On February 22, 2011, the U.S.
District Court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims against the
Company and the other defendants. The plaintiff has appealed the
District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. The parties have filed their briefs with the Court of
Appeals and a decision is pending.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Hearing on Motion to Stay Set for Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider Intersections Inc.'s motion to stay a class
action litigation is set for September 30, 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.

On February 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, and FIA
Card Services, N.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint alleges various claims based
on the provision of identity protection services to the named
plaintiff. Defendants filed answers to the complaint on May 24,
2010. On April 19, 2011, an amended complaint was filed. In the
amended complaint, the original named plaintiff was withdrawn from
the case, and three new plaintiffs were added. On June 10, 2011,
Intersections filed a motion to stay the litigation pursuant to
arbitration agreements with each of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
have opposed the Company's motion. A hearing on the Motion will be
held on September 30, 2011, with a ruling to be issued sometime
thereafter.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Probing Claims in Suit Over Disability Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 19, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections Inc., Intersections Insurance Services Inc.
and Bank of America Corporation in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleging various claims based on the sale of an accidental death
and disability program. "We currently are investigating the new
claims. We believe that it is too early to make a determination of
the likelihood of success in defeating the claims," Intersections
Inc. 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.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in "Citiline" Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the consolidated class action lawsuit
captioned Citiline Holdings, Inc., et al. v. iStar Financial,
Inc., et al., according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In April 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York naming the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers as defendants and alleging violations of
federal securities laws. Both suits were purportedly filed on
behalf of the same putative class of investors who purchased
Common Stock in the Company's December 13, 2007 public offering
(the "Company's Offering"). The two complaints were consolidated
in a single proceeding (the "Citiline Action") on April 30, 2008.

On November 17, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings, Inc. were appointed Lead Plaintiffs to pursue
the Citiline Action. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on February 2, 2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between December 6, 2007 and March 6, 2008 (the "Complaint"). The
Complaint named as defendants the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers, and certain investment banks who
served as underwriters in the Company's Offering. The Complaint
reasserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act, and added claims for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs allege the defendants made certain material
misstatements and omissions relating to the Company's continuing
operations, including the value of the Company's loan portfolio
and certain debt securities held by the Company. The Complaint
seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys fees, and rescission of the
public offering. No class has been certified. The Company and its
current and former officers filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint on April 27, 2009 and, on March 26, 2010, the Court
issued its order granting, in part, the dismissal of certain
Securities Act claims against certain of the Company's current and
former officers, but denying the motion as to all claims asserted
against the Company. Accordingly, the discovery process has
commenced. The Company believes the Citiline Action has no merit
and intends to continue defending itself vigorously against it.


JACKSON NAT'L: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Policyholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Westlaw Journals reports that Jackson National Life Insurance
misleads customers about how it calculates death benefits and
defrauds beneficiaries out of thousands of dollars, a life
insurance beneficiary alleges in a California state court class
action.

When plaintiff David Young's mother passed away, he received
benefits from her single-premium whole life policy with Jackson
National, he says in the complaint filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court.

The benefits Mr. Young received, however, did not equal the
benefits promised under the policy's terms, the suit says.

After Mr. Young questioned the discrepancy, Jackson National
admitted that it used a different method to calculate death
benefits than the one it included in its policy.

The complaint, filed on behalf of Mr. Young and other
beneficiaries of similar policies, alleges that the insurer:

    * Breached its contract.

    * Acted in bad faith.

    * Negligently and intentionally misrepresented its
      responsibilities to policyholders.

    * Conspired to defraud policyholders.

According to the complaint, Jackson National's policies promised
"a guaranteed 6 percent minimum accrual of interest and "the
insured's ability to borrow against the policy at zero cost."

Based on these representations, Mr. Young's mother took out a life
insurance policy Jan. 20, 1998, with an initial value of about
$114,800.  She borrowed against the policy several times, the
complaint says.

When Mr. Young's mother died June 29, 2008, the insurer sent a
letter to Mr. Young stating that he would receive $106,400 in
benefits, the suit says.

This represented the policy benefits minus the loan payouts plus a
little money in interest, the complaint says, but the letter did
not explain how Jackson National calculated the policy benefits or
loan payouts.

In November 2009, the insurer sent Mr. Young a letter itemizing
the value accumulated on the policy in each year, according to the
complaint.

To calculate the value accumulated, Jackson National explained, it
credited the interest accrued on the policy with the amount of
loan interest the policyholder paid each year in order to provide
"net zero cost" loans, the suit says.

Mr. Young says he noticed that the insurer failed to do this for
the year in which his mother died.  Instead, it used the value
accumulation as of the date of the loan's anniversary in January,
six months before her death, the complaint notes.

When Mr. Young told Jackson National about the discrepancy, which
totaled almost $10,000, the company said it calculates the death
benefits for the entire year on the anniversary date of the
policy, the complaint alleges.

"Jackson's policy of predetermining death benefits for the entire
year is not supported or authorized by the terms of the policy,"
the suit says.

The policy explicitly states that it operates "on the assumption
that deaths during a policy year occur at the end of such year."

According to the complaint, National's practice of predetermining
death benefits for the year contradicts the policy's guarantees of
6 percent interest accrual on the policy and an ability to borrow
against the policy at zero cost.

The suit says the insurer conspires to defraud policyholders by
failing to disclose the true method of calculation.  It seeks
declaratory relief and monetary and punitive damages.

Young v. Jackson National Life Insurance, No. BC466944, complaint
filed (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County, Aug. 8, 2011).


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Formal Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware court has set a formal settlement hearing for
September 8, 2011, to resolve all remaining issues to the
settlement of class action lawsuits that challenged Kindred
Healthcare, Inc.'s acquisition of RehabCare Group, Inc., according
to Kindred'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 1, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of
RehabCare Group, Inc. ("RehabCare") (the "Merger"). Upon
consummation of the Merger, each issued and outstanding share of
RehabCare common stock was converted into the right to receive
0.471 of a share of Kindred common stock and $26 per share in
cash, without interest (the "Merger Consideration"). Kindred
issued approximately 12 million shares of its common stock in
connection with the Merger. The purchase price totaled $963
million and was comprised of $662 million in cash and $301 million
of Kindred common stock at fair value. The Company also assumed
$356 million of long-term debt in the Merger, of which $345
million was refinanced on June 1, 2011.

On February 10, 2011, Arthur I. Murphy, Jr., a purported
stockholder of RehabCare, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri ("Circuit
Court") against RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred
("Murphy litigation"); and on March 2, 2011, Alfred T. Kowalewski,
a purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court, Missouri against RehabCare,
RehabCare's directors and Kindred ("Kowalewski litigation" and,
together with the Murphy litigation, the "Missouri litigation").
On February 15, 2011, the Norfolk County Retirement System, a
purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery against RehabCare,
RehabCare's directors and Kindred ("Norfolk County litigation");
on February 28, 2011, City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System, a purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery against
RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred ("City of Pontiac
litigation"); and on March 4, 2011, Plumbers & Pipefitters
National Pension Fund, a purported stockholder of RehabCare, filed
a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery against
RehabCare, RehabCare's directors and Kindred ("Plumbers &
Pipefitters litigation" and, together with the Norfolk County
litigation and the City of Pontiac litigation, the "Delaware
litigation").

The complaints in the Missouri litigation and Delaware litigation
contain similar allegations, including among other things, that
RehabCare's directors' breached their fiduciary duties to the
RehabCare stockholders, including their duties of loyalty, due
care, independence, good faith and fair dealing, by entering into
a merger agreement which provides for inadequate consideration to
RehabCare stockholders, and that RehabCare and Kindred aided and
abetted RehabCare's directors alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing the
defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement, or in the event the defendants consummate the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of
such transactions and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Kowalewski litigation
filed a motion with the Circuit Court to consolidate the Missouri
litigation and to appoint lead counsel. On March 31, 2011, the
plaintiffs in the Kowalewski litigation filed an amended complaint
and a motion for expedited discovery and on April 11, 2011, the
plaintiffs in the Murphy litigation filed an amended complaint and
a motion for expedited discovery. This April 11, 2011 amended
complaint in the Murphy litigation also added Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. as a named defendant in the litigation. On April 7,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or stay the
Missouri litigation. After holding hearings on April 8 and
April 22, 2011, the Circuit Court stayed the Missouri litigation
by Order dated April 25, 2011.

On March 9, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware
litigation under the caption "In Re RehabCare Group, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation" and plaintiffs filed a verified
consolidated class action complaint on April 5, 2011. Defendants
commenced document production on March 30, 2011 and substantially
completed it by April 22, 2011. Depositions took place between
April 28, 2011 and May 11, 2011.

On May 12, 2011, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation
regarding the settlement of the Delaware litigation. In connection
with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, (i) Kindred and RehabCare agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which were
contained in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 12, 2011, (ii)
RehabCare agreed to make the payment, at and subject to the
closing of the merger between Kindred and RehabCare, of $2.5
million in cash into a settlement pool for the benefit of the
plaintiff class in In re RehabCare Group, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, to be distributed after final approval of the
settlement of the Delaware Litigation and (iii) Kindred, Kindred
Healthcare Development, Inc. and RehabCare agreed to enter into an
amendment, dated May 12, 2011, to the merger agreement, dated as
of February 7, 2011, among Kindred, Kindred Healthcare
Development, Inc. and RehabCare, the material terms of which are:

   * inclusion of an acknowledgement by Kindred and RehabCare of
     the waiver of any existing standstill undertakings for the
     benefit of RehabCare;

   * change of the definition of "Company Termination Fee" to mean
     an amount equal to $13 million; and

   * modification of the agreement to eliminate the requirement
     for a three-business day period during which Kindred has the
     right to match a superior proposal.

On June 29, 2011, the parties submitted to the Court of Chancery a
proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal, which the Court
granted on July 1, 2011. Additionally, the Court set a formal
settlement hearing for Thursday, September 8, 2011. The purpose of
the hearing is for the Court to resolve all remaining issues
surrounding the settlement including the application by the
plaintiffs' counsel for the award of reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses for prosecuting this action.


MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: "Knight" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Knight voluntarily terminated his consumer class action
complaint against Mediacom Communications Corp., according to
Mediacom, LLC's August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

A purported class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled Jim Knight v. Mediacom
Communications Corp., in which MCC is named as the defendant, was
filed on March 4, 2010.  The complaint asserts that the potential
class is comprised of all persons who purchased premium cable
services from MCC and rented a cable box distributed by MCC.  The
plaintiff alleges that MCC improperly "ties" the rental of cable
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The plaintiff also
alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive relief
and unspecified damages.  MCC was served with the complaint on
April 16, 2010.  On August 8, 2011, Mr. Knight dismissed his claim
with prejudice and the case was closed.

Mediacom Communications Corporation is a local cable company
serving more than 1,500 communities throughout the U.S.  It
provides a wide array of products and services including digital
cable TV and 12Mbps high-speed Internet and phone service.


MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Consummates Shareholder Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A million dollar settlement agreement resolving shareholder class
action lawsuits against Mediacom Communications Corp. has been
consummated, according to Mediacom, LLC's August 12, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Between June 3, 2010 and June 10, 2010, three purported class
actions lawsuits were filed against MCC and its individual
directors, including chief executive officer Rocco B. Commisso,
all in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, under the
captions Colleen Witmer v. Mediacom Communications Corporation, et
al., J. Malcolm Gray v. Mediacom Communications Corporation, et
al. and Haverhill Retirement System v. Mediacom Communications
Corporation, et al.  The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated
for all purposes in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the
caption In Re Mediacom Communications Corporation Shareholders
Litigation.  On January 4, 2011, a Second Verified Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint was filed that alleged, among other
things, that the defendant directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders of MCC in connection with Mr.
Commisso's proposal to take MCC private, including among other
things their fiduciary duty of disclosure, and that MCC, Mr.
Commisso and JMC Communications LLC aided and abetted such
breaches.  The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, rescission of
the transaction or rescissory damages, and an accounting of all
damages.

On November 18, 2010, another purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MCC and its individual directors, including Mr.
Commisso, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange
County, under the caption Wendy Kwait v. Mediacom Communications
Corporation, et al.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that
the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of MCC in connection with Mr. Commisso's proposal to
take MCC private and that MCC and Mr. Commisso aided and abetted
such breaches.  The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages.

On November 29, 2010, another purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MCC and its individual directors, including Mr.
Commisso, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption Thomas Turberg v. Mediacom
Communications Corporation, et al. The lawsuit alleged, among
other things, that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the stockholders of MCC in connection with Mr.
Commisso's proposal to take MCC private and that MCC and JMC
Communications LLC aided and abetted such breaches.  The
plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages.

On December 10, 2010, another purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MCC and its individual directors, including Mr.
Commisso, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption Ella Mae Pease v. Rocco
Commisso, et al.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that
the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of MCC in connection with Mr. Commisso's proposal to
take MCC private; that MCC, Mr. Commisso and JMC Communications
LLC aided and abetted such breaches; and that the defendants
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs sought declaratory and
injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction or rescissory
damages, and an accounting of all damages, profits and special
benefits.

The director defendants, MCC, JMC Communications LLC and Mr.
Commisso, as defendants in the foregoing actions, reached
agreement with the plaintiffs in all of the foregoing actions
providing for the settlement of the actions on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in a settlement agreement,
which terms included, but were not limited to, a settlement
payment made by MCC on behalf of and for the benefit of the
parties to the actions in the amount of $0.25 per share for each
share of MCC common stock held by the plaintiff class as of
March 4, 2011.  The settlement payment to the plaintiff class was
reduced by any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to plaintiffs'
counsel.  On June 6, 2011, the Agreement was approved by the
Delaware Court.  All litigation related to the going private
transaction has been dismissed with prejudice.  As of July 25,
2011, all of the conditions to the Agreement had been satisfied.
A settlement payment of $10.3 million was subsequently made, of
which Mediacom LLC and its affiliates funded $4.6 million through
a capital distribution to MCC, with the remainder funded by
Mediacom Broadband.

Mediacom Communications Corporation is a local cable company
serving more than 1,500 communities throughout the U.S.  It
provides a wide array of products and services including digital
cable TV and 12Mbps high-speed Internet and phone service.


MEDIACOM LLC: "Ogg" Appeal From Decertification Order Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order of a Missouri court decertifying the
class in the class action complaint commenced by Gary and Janice
Ogg against Mediacom LLC remains pending, according to the
Company's August 12, 2011, for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company is named as a defendant in a putative class action,
captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April
2001.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company, in areas where there
was no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from
landowners to place the Company's fiber interconnection cable
notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from
other third parties.  While the parties continue to contest
liability, there also remains a dispute as to the proper measure
of damages.  Based on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs
claim compensatory damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal
fees, prejudgment interest, potential punitive damages and other
costs could increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.
Before trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory
of $42.0 million in compensatory damages.  Notwithstanding the
verdict in the trial, the Company remains unable to reasonably
determine the amount of its final liability in the lawsuit.  Prior
to trial, the Company's experts estimated the Company's liability
to be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to $2.3
million.  This estimate did not include any estimate of damages
for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.  On
March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary and
Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and punitive
damages of $35,000.  The Court did not enter a final judgment on
this verdict and therefore the amount of the verdict could not at
that time be judicially collected.  Although the Company believes
the particular circumstances of each class member may result in a
different measure of damages for each member, if the same measure
of compensatory damages was used for each member, the aggregate
compensatory damages would be approximately $16.2 million plus the
possibility of an award of attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest,
and punitive damages.

On April 22, 2011, the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri,
issued an opinion and order decertifying the class in the putative
class action.  A notice of appeal was filed by the plaintiff on
May 2, 2011, regarding the court's decertification of the class
and the court's refusal to award prejudgment interest on the Gary
and Janice Ogg judgment.  The Company says it will vigorously
defend the appeal as well as any claims made by the other members
of the purported class.

The Company believes that the amount of actual liability would not
have a significant effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations, cash flows or business.  There can be no
assurance, however, if the decision of the Circuit Court of Clay
County, Missouri is reversed, that the actual liability ultimately
determined for all members of the class would not exceed the
Company's estimated range or any amount derived from the verdict
rendered on March 18, 2009.  The Company has tendered the lawsuit
to its insurance carrier for defense and indemnification.  The
carrier has agreed to defend the Company under a reservation of
rights, and a declaratory judgment action is pending regarding the
carrier's defense and coverage responsibilities.

Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company wholly owned by
Mediacom Communications Corporation, is involved in the
acquisition and operation of cable systems serving smaller cities
and towns in the United States.  The Company's principal operating
subsidiaries conduct all of its consolidated operations and own
substantially all of its consolidated assets.  The Company's
operating subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities
and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to make funds
available to the Company.


MISTRAS GROUP: California Court Approves Settlement of Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc., obtained final court approval of its
agreement to settle two class action lawsuits in California,
according to the Company's August 12, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in two related class action lawsuits in
California, based upon alleged violations of California labor and
employment law: Quiroz v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al, U.S.
District Court, Central District of California (Case No. CV09-7146
PSG), filed in September 2009, and Ballard v. Mistras Group, Inc.,
et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Case
No. 2:10-cv-03186 (PSG)), filed in March 2010.  Both of these
cases were brought on behalf of existing and former California
employees of the Company and its subsidiaries for alleged
violation of various labor and employment laws, primarily for
failure to pay wages timely and for having defective wage
statements, as well as other claims, and sought penalties under
the California Private Attorneys General Act.  The Ballard case
was filed shortly after the plaintiff's request to certify the
Quiroz case as a class action suit was denied by the same attorney
representing the plaintiff in the Quiroz case.

The Company and counsel for the plaintiffs in both the Quiroz and
Ballard cases have agreed upon a combined settlement, which
received final court approval on August 1, 2011.  The Company has
reserved approximately $0.2 million in connection with this
settlement, the charges for which were taken in fiscal 2011.  This
reserve represents the Company's estimate of its total liability
related to the approved settlement of these cases, net of
insurance reimbursements.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Class Action to Enter First Phase on Sept. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Caswell, writing for Daily Mail, reports that Putnam County
is gearing up for a lengthy class action trial that will require
additional staff and support at the courthouse for months.

The case, labeled Bibb vs. Monsanto Company, will enter its first
phase Sept. 6 with jury selection.

But already, several hundred county residents were called in the
initial cast for jurors and asked to report to Winfield High
School on Aug. 15.  The pool was asked to complete a survey to aid
in a first round of elimination.

The case involves alleged contamination to properties in the Nitro
area and injuries to people who lived near the Monsanto plant or
attended school full-time near the plant between 1948 and the
present.

Putnam Circuit Judge O.C. Spaulding will preside over the case,
which he said would last at least two months.  Others have
estimated it could take up to six months.

"There's never been a trial lasting that long here, not since I've
been on the bench," Judge Spaulding said.  "Not even close.

"And it's the first class action to be held in Putnam County,
ever," he said.

The logistics of such a lengthy trial, involving many attorneys,
staffers, plaintiffs and spectators will require some
accommodations.

"While I'm doing Monsanto, the Supreme Court has appointed Judge
James Holliday to handle my regular docket," the judge said.  "I
didn't want my normal cases to stop."

Mr. Holliday is a retired Putnam Circuit Court judge.  He and
Putnam's other circuit judge, Philip Stowers, will take turns
hearing cases in Mr. Stowers' courtroom.  If necessary, hearings
will spill over to an unused magistrate courtroom or be conducted
in chambers.

The addition of Mr. Holliday will keep criminal proceedings from
being delayed, according to the prosecutor's office.

Also, Circuit Clerk Ronnie Matthews recently appealed to county
commissioners to fund an additional clerk during the trial.
Mr. Matthews said his staff was already overwhelmed and had no
budget allowance for extra hires.

Judge Spaulding said he believed Mr. Matthews' request was
granted.

"We anticipate lots of papers and lots of exhibits," Judge
Spaulding said.  "And he needs help to keep track of that."

There are about 100 plaintiffs in the class action suit,
represented by Zina G. Bibb of Ohio and 13 other named persons.
At least 28 expert witnesses are expected to testify.

Charleston attorneys of record for the case are Stuart Calwell,
representing the class, and Charles Love, for the former Monsanto
Company.

Mr. Calwell did not respond to phone calls about the trial, and
Mr. Love said he couldn't discuss it since he was placed under a
gag order.

Monsanto owned and operated the Nitro plant from 1934 to 2000.
According to the complaint, the chemical company produced an
agricultural herbicide called 245-T from 1949 to 1971.

The plaintiffs contend 245-T was contaminated with dibenzo dioxins
and furans that caused property and health damages.

Also named as defendants are Monsanto's successors, Pharmacia
Corporation, Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Flexsys.

On Aug. 15, the initial pool of potential jurors filled out a
questionnaire to discover their backgrounds, including if they
ever worked at those companies, Judge Spaulding said.

"Part of the problem is much of the county is in the class area
around Nitro," Judge Spaulding said.  "So they are possible
plaintiffs.  We had to random draw a lot to get those who are not
in the class area."

The judge said the first elimination, based on those surveys, has
not been completed.

"We know some will be eliminated from that first consideration,"
he said.  "So rather than bring jurors in over a period of time,
we went the survey route."

Judge Spaulding said he couldn't guess how long it would take to
seat a jury of Putnam residents who are not plaintiffs, had no
Monsanto connection and who would be able to serve for the
duration of the trial.

Steve Canterbury, administrator of the West Virginia Supreme
Court, said he is often asked to provide support during big
circuit court trials.  When Putnam County held a trial for former
physician Jon King, the Winfield courtroom couldn't hold all of
the interested spectators.

"There were many plaintiffs, lots of patients and former patients,
and the courtroom could only hold so many," Mr. Canterbury said.
"We set up in a much larger facility with a closed circuit TV
system so they could see everything going on."

Mr. Canterbury said there haven't been indications that the
Monsanto trial will attract that kind of audience.  But if it
does, he is prepared to help.

"We believe there needs to be access to that," he said.  "We are
sensitive that the public who is interested could follow the
trial.  If the judge lets us know, we'll have it set up by the
next day."

But it's likely that the courtroom for the Monsanto trial will be
filled mostly with attorneys.

"The lead plaintiffs will be there and a couple of other
interested parties, but the courtroom is usually filled with
professionals, he said.  "The big corporations bring in a busload
of attorneys."


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Gary Cinotto, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc., Sanjay K. Jha,
Anthony J. Vinciquerra, Jon E. Barfield, William R. Hambrecht,
Jeanne P. Jackson, Keith A. Meister, Daniel A. Ninivaggi, Thomas
J. Meredith, James R. Stengel, Andrew J. Viterbi, and Google Inc.,
Case No. 2011-CH-29297 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August 18, 2011)
is a class action lawsuit allegedly brought on behalf of publicly-
traded company's common stockholders against the individuals and
entities that are trying to divest the stockholders of their
shares without adequate procedure, compensation, or disclosure.

The Plaintiff alleges that Motorola Mobility and its Board of
Directors are attempting to sell the Company to Google Inc.
pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' actions are substantially
unfair to Motorola Mobility's public shareholders and have caused
and will continue to cause significant damage to the Company and
its shareholders.

Mr. Cinotto is a shareholder of Motorola Mobility.

Motorola Mobility is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Libertyville, Illinois, and whose portfolio includes converged
mobile devices like smartphones and tablets; wireless accessories;
end-to-end video and data delivery; and management solutions.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Motorola
Mobility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Keith M. Cochran, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856


MOTOROLA: 9th Circuit Vacates Bluetooth Headset Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that lawyers may have
sold out their clients in negotiating a settlement for consumers
who suffered noise-induced hearing loss from using Bluetooth
headsets, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
ruled on Aug. 19, tossing the deal that would have given attorneys
eight times as much as the plaintiffs.

The consolidated class action against Motorola, Plantronics and GN
Netcom is derived from 26 lawsuits around the country.  Millions
of consumers had claimed that the companies failed to disclose
that extended use of their Bluetooth headsets could lead to noise-
induced hearing loss.

As the case proceeded in California's Central District Court, the
class sought actual damages in the amount paid for the product --
between $70 and $150 per headset -- an injunction, restitution,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Lawyers eventually reached a settlement that would award the class
$100,000 to be split among four nonprofits working to prevent
hearing loss, and $12,000 to divide among nine class
representatives.

Their attorneys, however, stood to take home as much as $850,000,
plus more than $1 million to notify consumers about the agreement.

These terms outraged at least 50 of the "millions of potential
class members," but U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer found nothing
amiss in the huge gulf between the class award and the attorneys'
fee set-aside.

The objectors then appealed to the 9th Circuit, which reversed and
vacated the settlement.

"We agree that the disparity between the value of the class
recovery and class counsel's compensation raises at least an
inference of unfairness, and that the current record does not
adequately dispel the possibility that class counsel bargained
away a benefit to the class in exchange for their own interests,"
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the unanimous three-judge
panel sitting in Pasadena.

The federal appeals court found that the lower court had failed,
in essence, to show its work, lamenting the "absence of explicit
calculation or explanation of the district court's result."

Also, the agreement contains all the "warning signs" of predatory
counsel, according to the panel.

"The settlement's provision for attorneys' fees is apparently
disproportionate to the class reward, which includes no monetary
distribution," Judge Hawkins wrote.  "The settlement included a
'clear sailing agreement' in which defendants agreed not to object
to an award of attorneys' fees up to eight times the monetary cy
pres relief afforded the class.  Moreover, the settlement also
contained a 'kicker': all fees not awarded would revert to
defendants rather than be added to the cy pres fund or otherwise
benefit the class."

"Given the questionable features of the fee provision here, the
court was required to examine the negotiation process with even
greater scrutiny than is ordinarily demanded, and approval of the
settlement had to be supported by a clear explanation of why the
disproportionate fee is justified and does not betray the class's
interests," Judge Hawkins added.

The panel sent the settlement agreement back to the District Court
to recalculate attorneys' fees.

A copy of the Opinion in In re: Bluetooth Headset Products
Liability Litigation, 09-56683 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/lR7Ap6


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Former Players Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that seven former players sued the
NFL in Philadelphia over the league's handling of concussion-
related injuries, the first potential class-action lawsuit of its
kind.

The players accuse the league of training players to lead with
their heads, failing to properly treat them for concussions and
trying to conceal links between football and brain injuries.

The plaintiffs include two-time Super Bowl champion Jim McMahon,
who has said he played through five concussions but now frequently
walks around "in a daze."

The suit accuses the NFL of negligence and intentional misconduct
in its response to the headaches, dizziness and dementia that
former players have reported.  The suit, filed on Aug. 17, seeks
medical monitoring along with funds to pay for the care of injured
players.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the league had not seen the
lawsuit but would vigorously contest any such claims.

Larry Coben of Philadelphia, an attorney for the former players,
said one client might soon lose his home because of his health-
related financial problems.

"The big issue, for us, is they were told for decades to lead with
their heads," Mr. Coben told the Associated Press.  "The NFL would
never admit that there's any correlation" to later health
problems.

Seventy-five retired players sued the NFL last month in Los
Angeles, alleging the league has known since the 1920s about the
harmful effects of concussions but concealed them from players,
coaches, trainers and the public until June 2010.  That suit also
names helmet-maker Riddell, the NFL's official supplier, as a
defendant.

The federal suit filed in Philadelphia, though, is the first to
seek class-action status and potentially include anyone who had
played in the league and suffered a concussion or head injury.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Oral Argument on Dismissal Set for December
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the third amended consolidated class action
complaint against Nextwave Wireless Inc. is set for oral argument
in December, according to the Company's August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2011.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers.  The suit alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit seeks unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive, equitable or
other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from March 30, 2007 to
August 7, 2008.  A second putative class action lawsuit captioned
"Benjamin et al. v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on
October 21, 2008 alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during an extended class period,
from November 27, 2006 through August 7, 2008.  On February 24,
2009, the Court issued an Order consolidating the two cases and
appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint, and on June 29, 2009, the Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss that Amended Complaint.  On March 5, 2010, the
Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice,
permitting the lead plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint.  On
March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint, and the Company subsequently filed a
Motion to Dismiss.  On March 16, 2011, the Court granted the
Company's Motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
On May 5, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a Third Amended
Complaint, and the Company again filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The
Motion now has been fully briefed and oral argument is scheduled
for December of 2011.  At this time, there can be no assurance as
to the ultimate outcome of this litigation.  The Company has not
recorded any significant accruals for contingent liabilities
associated with this matter based on its belief that a liability,
while possible, is not probable.  Further, any possible range of
loss cannot be estimated at this time.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Awaits Deal Approval in ERISA-Violation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation is awaiting court approval of a
stipulation in settlement of a consolidated action brought by
participants of its investment plan, 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.

Beginning in December 2001, Nortel Networks Corporation ("Nortel"
or "NNC"), Nortel Networks Limited ("NNL"), Nortel's principal
direct operating subsidiary, and Nortel Networks Inc. ("NNI"),
together with certain of its then-current and former directors,
officers and employees, were named as defendants in several
purported class action lawsuits pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated into a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee (the "U.S. District Court").
This lawsuit is on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
Nortel Networks Inc. Long-Term Investment Plan, who held shares of
the Nortel Networks Stock Fund during the class period.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, material misrepresentations
and omissions to induce participants and beneficiaries to continue
to invest in and maintain investments in NNC common shares through
the investment plan.  The court has not yet ruled as to whether
the plaintiff's proposed class action should be certified.  As a
result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings, on September 25,
2009, the district court ordered the case administratively closed.
The parties to the action agreed to a final form of Stipulation of
Settlement ("the Stipulation") whereby the defendants will cause
their underwriter, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada ("Chubb"), to
pay $21.5 million into an escrow account on behalf of the
defendants as full and final settlement of the action and in
consideration for the releases and discharges provided under the
Stipulation.  Such settlement amount will be distributed in
accordance with the terms of the Stipulation.  In a side
agreement, NNC, NNL, NNI and Chubb stipulated that existing claims
filed by Chubb in the Creditor Protection Proceedings in Canada
and in the U.S. will be reduced and allowed as general unsecured
claims upon deposit by Chubb of the final settlement payments.
The Stipulation is subject to, among other things, approvals of
the Canadian Court, the U.S. Court and the U.S. District Court.
Nortel has recorded a provision to reflect its best estimate of an
allowed claim amount.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Pension Class Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 24, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Nortel Networks Corporation and its subsidiary, Nortel
Networks Limited, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
Ottawa, Canada, alleging, among other things, that certain recent
changes related to Nortel's pension plan did not comply with the
Pension Benefits Act (Ontario) or common law notification
requirements.  The plaintiffs seek declaratory and equitable
relief, and unspecified monetary damages.  As a result of the
Creditor Protection Proceedings, this lawsuit has been stayed.

No further updates were reported in 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.


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Response to Amended Complaint Due August 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Novelos Therapeutics, Inc.'s response to a second amended
complaint in a purported class action lawsuit filed by an alleged
shareholder is due August 26, 2011, according to the Company's
August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A putative federal securities class action complaint was filed on
March 5, 2010 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts by an alleged shareholder of Novelos, on behalf
of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired
Novelos common stock in the period between December 14, 2009 and
February 24, 2010, against Novelos and its President and Chief
Executive Officer, Harry S. Palmin. On October 1, 2010, the court
appointed lead plaintiffs (Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald) and
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel. On October 22, 2010, an
amended complaint was filed. The amended complaint claims, among
other things, that Novelos violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged misleading
disclosures related to the progress of the Phase 3 clinical trial
of NOV-002 for non-small cell lung cancer. On December 6, 2010,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice. On January 20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the Company's motion and on March 3, 2011, the
defendants filed their response to the opposition. On June 23,
2011, the motion to dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed
without prejudice. On August 5, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint realleging that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in connection
with alleged misleading disclosures related to the Phase 3
clinical trial for NOV-002 in non-small cell lung cancer. The
defendants' responsive pleading is due by August 26, 2011. The
Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against them.


ONVIA INC: Appeal From Securities Action Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York district court has yet to rule on whether a movant has
standing to file a motion to appeal the final approval of a
settlement resolving a securities class action complaint against
Onvia Inc., the Company disclosed in its August 12, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In 2001, five securities class action suits were filed against
Onvia, certain former executive officers, and the lead underwriter
of Onvia's Initial Public Offering, or IPO, Credit Suisse First
Boston, or CSFB.   The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
acquired securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000 and December 6,
2000.  In 2002, a consolidated complaint was filed.  The complaint
charged defendants with 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, for issuing a Registration Statement and
Prospectus that failed to disclose and contained false and
misleading statements regarding certain commissions purported to
have been received by the underwriters, and other purported
underwriter practices in connection with their allocation of
shares in the offering.  The complaint sought an undisclosed
amount of damages, as well as attorneys' fees.  This action is
being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  At the Court's request,
plaintiffs selected six "focus" cases, which do not include Onvia.
The Court indicated that its decisions in the six focus cases are
intended to provide strong guidance for the parties in the
remaining cases.

The parties in the coordinated cases, including Onvia's case,
reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Onvia.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.  Judgment was entered.
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, Onvia cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.  If the
settlement does not survive appeal and Onvia is found liable,
Onvia is unable to estimate or predict the potential damages that
might be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than
Onvia's insurance coverage, and whether such damages would have a
material impact on its results of operations or financial
condition in any future period.

Onvia, Inc., is a provider of business information and research
solutions that help companies plan, market and sell to targeted
public sector buyers throughout the United States.


OVERHILL FARMS: Continues to Defend "Salinas" Wage Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Overhill Farms, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action complaint by Alma Salinas alleging labor law violations,
according to the Company's August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 3, 2011.

On July 1, 2009, Bohemia Agustiana, Isela Hernandez, and Ana Munoz
filed a purported "class action" against the Company in which they
asserted claims for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to
furnish wage and hour statements, waiting time penalties,
conversion and unfair business practices.  The plaintiffs are
former employees who had been terminated one month earlier because
they had used invalid social security numbers in connection with
their employment with the Company.  They filed the case in Los
Angeles County on behalf of themselves and a class which they say
includes all non-exempt production and quality control workers who
were employed in California during the four-year period prior to
filing their complaint.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the conversion claim, and
the motion was granted by the court on February 2, 2010.

On May 12, 2010, Alma Salinas filed a separate purported "class
action" in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company
in which she asserted claims on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated current and former production workers for
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to make payments within the
required time, unfair business practice in violation of Section
17200 of the California Business and Professions Code and Labor
Code Section 2698 (known as the Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA")).  Ms. Salinas is a former employee who had been
terminated because she had used an invalid social security number
in connection with her employment with the Company.  Ms. Salinas
seeks allegedly unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, PAGA
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees, the amounts of which are
unspecified.  The Salinas action has been consolidated with the
Agustiana action.

The parties are engaged in the discovery phase of the case.  The
Company believes it has valid defenses to the plaintiffs'
remaining claims and that the Company paid all wages due to these
employees.

Overhill Farms, Inc., is a manufacturer of high quality, prepared
frozen food products for branded retail, private label,
foodservice and airline customers.  The Company's product line
includes entrees, plated meals, bulk-packed meal components,
pastas, soups, sauces, poultry, meat and fish specialties, and
organic and vegetarian offerings.  Its customers include prominent
nationally recognized names such as Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.,
Jenny Craig, Inc., Safeway Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Pinnacle
Foods Group LLC and Target Corporation.  The Company also sells
frozen foods under the Boston Market brand, under exclusive
license with Boston Market Corporation.


PFIZER INC: C.A. Says Listerine Suit Can Seek Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that a consumer accusing the
maker of Listerine mouthwash of false advertising was wrongly
denied the opportunity to seek certification of a class action, a
court of appeal ruled on Aug. 18.

Div. Three held that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J.
West, whose earlier class certification order was reversed as
overbroad, erred in terminating the certification proceedings on
remand.  The judge should instead have considered certifying a
narrower class, Presiding Justice Joan Dempsey Klein concluded.

In a suit that is now more than six years old, Steve Galfano
alleged that Pfizer Inc. violated the unfair competition and false
advertising laws by representing that Listerine was just as
effective as dental floss in reducing plaque and preventing
gingivitis.

Judge West initially certified a class made up of all Listerine
purchasers in California from June 2004 through Jan. 7, 2005.  The
Court of Appeal ruled in 2006 that the class was overbroad, but
the California Supreme Court sent the case back so that the panel
could reconsider it in light of In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46
Cal.4th 298.

Tobacco II held that Proposition 64's limitation of standing to
sue for UCL violations to those actually injured by the violation
does not apply to unnamed class members.  But Div. Three ruled in
Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 622 that
Tobacco II does not compel a different result in Mr. Galfano's
case than the one the court reached four years earlier.

The Supreme Court ruling allows a trial court to certify a class
whose members were exposed to false or deceptive advertising
"without individualized proof of deception, reliance, and injury,"
Justice Klein acknowledged.  "Be that as it may," the presiding
justice explained, "one who was not exposed to the alleged
misrepresentations and therefore could not possibly have lost
money or property as a result of the unfair competition is not
entitled to restitution."

When the case returned to the Superior Court, Mr. Galfano moved to
redefine the class as one consisting of California residents who,
between the same dates as set forth in the earlier ruling,
purchased specified flavors and sizes of Listerine with labels
bearing specific representations.

Judge West declined to allow further certification proceedings,
saying they would be "inconsistent with the directive of the Court
of Appeal."

But Justice Klein, in her unpublished opinion on Aug. 18, said the
two prior decisions established the plaintiff's right to seek
certification of a narrower class.

She distinguished prior cases holding that there is no right to
renew a certification motion once the time to appeal its denial
has expired.  That rule "has no application to this case,"
Justice Klein said, in which the trial court granted certification
and the appellate panel's reversal of that order was expressly
without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to bring a new motion.

The jurist also rejected, as premature, Pfizer's arguments that
Mr. Galfano cannot adequately represent a class and that the
proposed redefined class could not be ascertained.

The case is Galfano v. Pfizer Inc., B227121.


PFIZER INC: Appeals $65.4 Million Judgment in Neurontin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. appealed a $65.4 million judgment handed down by a
Massachusetts court over its Neurontin product to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit, according to the Company's
August 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been
filed against the Company in various federal and state courts
alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin.
The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent
nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of persons,
including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and
other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications
other than those included in the product labeling approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  In 2004, many of the lawsuits
pending in federal courts, including individual actions as well as
purported class actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin
Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-
1629) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  Purported class actions also have been filed
against the Company in various Canadian provincial courts alleging
claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin and
generic gabapentin.

In the Multi-District Litigation, in 2009, the court denied the
plaintiffs' renewed motion for certification of a nationwide class
of all consumers and third-party payers who allegedly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for off-label
uses from 1994 through 2004.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion
for reconsideration.  Although the court has not yet ruled on the
motion for reconsideration, in December 2010, the court partially
granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the
claims of all of the proposed class representatives for third-
party payers and two of the six proposed class representatives for
individual consumers.  One of the proposed class representatives
for third-party payers has filed a motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification of statewide classes of
Neurontin purchasers in actions pending in California, Illinois
and Oklahoma.  State courts in New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri
and New Mexico have declined to certify statewide classes of
Neurontin purchasers.

In January 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered an order affirming a jury verdict against
the Company in an action by a third-party payer seeking damages
for the alleged off-label promotion of Neurontin in violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and
California's Unfair Trade Practices law.  The verdict was for
$47.4 million, which is subject to automatic trebling to $142.2
million under the RICO Act.  In November 2010, the court had
entered a separate verdict against the Company in the amount of
$65.4 million under California's Unfair Trade Practices law
relating to the same alleged conduct, which amount is included
within and is not additional to the $142.2 million trebled amount
of the jury verdict.  In August 2011, the Company appealed the
District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.

A number of individual lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in various U.S. federal and state courts and in certain
other countries alleging suicide, attempted suicide and other
personal injuries as a result of the purported ingesting of
Neurontin.  Certain of the U.S. federal actions have been
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to the
Multi-District Litigation.  In addition, in February 2010 in a
proceeding pending in Ontario, Canada, the court certified a class
consisting of all persons in Canada, except in Quebec, who
purchased and ingested Neurontin prior to August 2004.  The
plaintiffs claim that Pfizer failed to provide adequate warning of
the alleged risks of personal injury associated with Neurontin.
The parties have jointly sought court approval to include in this
proceeding two purported province-wide class actions pending in
Quebec that include substantially similar allegations.

In January 2011, in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin
Antitrust Litigation MDL-1479) that consolidates three actions,
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a
nationwide class consisting of wholesalers and other entities who
purchased Neurontin directly from Pfizer and Warner-Lambert during
the period from December 11, 2002, to August 31, 2008, and who
also purchased generic gabapentin after it became available.  The
complaints allege that Pfizer and Warner-Lambert engaged in
anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act that
included, among other things, submitting applications for listing
in the Orange Book and prosecuting and enforcing certain patents
relating to Neurontin, as well as engaging in off-label marketing
of Neurontin.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, which may be
subject to trebling.


PFIZER INC: Canadian Court Certifies Class in HRT Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a class consisting
of all Canadian women, who were prescribed Premplus or Premarin in
a certain period, who thereafter were diagnosed with breast
cancer, in connection with the hormone-replacement therapy
litigation against Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiaries, according to
the Company's August 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2011.

Pfizer and certain wholly owned subsidiaries and limited liability
companies, including Wyeth and King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., along
with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named
as defendants in numerous lawsuits in various federal and state
courts alleging personal injury or economic loss related the use
or purchase of certain estrogen and progestin medications
prescribed for women to treat the symptoms of menopause.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege a variety of personal
injuries, including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, stroke and
heart disease.  Certain co-defendants in some of these actions
have asserted indemnification rights against Pfizer and its
affiliated companies.  The cases against Pfizer and its affiliated
companies involve one or more of the following products, all of
which remain approved by the FDA: femhrt (which Pfizer divested in
2003); Activella and Vagifem (which are Novo Nordisk products that
were marketed by a Pfizer affiliate from 2000 to 2004); Premarin,
Prempro, Aygestin, Cycrin and Premphase (which are legacy Wyeth
products); and Provera, Ogen, Depo-Estradiol, Estring and generic
MPA (which are legacy Pharmacia & Upjohn products).  The federal
cases have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings
to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Prempro Products Liability
Litigation MDL-1507) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.  Certain of the federal cases have been
remanded to their respective District Courts for further
proceedings including, if necessary, trial.

This litigation consists of individual actions, a few purported
statewide class actions, a statewide class action in California
and a nationwide class action in Canada.  In March 2011, in an
action against Wyeth seeking the refund of the purchase price paid
for Wyeth's hormone-replacement therapy products by individuals in
the State of California during the period from January 1995 to
January 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California certified a class consisting of all individual
purchasers of such products in California who actually heard or
read Wyeth's alleged misrepresentations regarding such products.
This is the only hormone-replacement therapy action to date
against Pfizer and its affiliated companies in the U.S. in which a
class has been certified.  In addition, in August 2011, in an
action against Wyeth seeking damages for personal injury, the
Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a class consisting of
all women who were prescribed Premplus and/or Premarin in
combination with progestin in Canada between January 1, 1997, and
December 1, 2003, and who thereafter were diagnosed with breast
cancer.

Pfizer and its affiliated companies have prevailed in many of the
hormone-replacement therapy actions that have been resolved to
date, whether by voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs, summary
judgment, defense verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict;
a number of these cases have been appealed by the plaintiffs.
Certain other hormone-replacement therapy actions have resulted in
verdicts for the plaintiffs and have included the award of
compensatory and, in some instances, punitive damages; each of
these cases has been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated
companies.  The decisions in a few of the cases that had been
appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies or by the
plaintiffs have been upheld by the appellate courts, while several
other cases that had been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated
companies or by the plaintiffs have been remanded by the appellate
courts to their respective trial courts for further proceedings.
Trials of additional hormone-replacement therapy actions are
scheduled for 2011.

As of July 3, 2011, Pfizer and its affiliated companies had
settled, or entered into definitive agreements or agreements-in-
principle to settle, approximately 41% of the hormone-replacement
therapy actions pending against the Company and its affiliated
companies.  The Company has recorded aggregate charges with
respect to those actions, as well as with respect to the actions
that have resulted in verdicts against the Company or its
affiliated companies, of approximately $250 million in the first
six months of 2011 and $300 million in prior years.  In addition,
the Company has recorded a charge of approximately $280 million in
the first six months of 2011 that provides for the minimum
expected costs to resolve all of the other outstanding hormone-
replacement therapy actions against Pfizer and its affiliated
companies, consistent with the Company's current ability to
quantify such future costs.  The charges are estimates and, while
the Company cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential
exposure or the range of possible loss in excess of amounts
accrued for these contingencies given the uncertainties inherent
in product liability litigation, additional charges may be
required in the future.

Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies also have received
inquiries from various federal and state agencies and officials
relating to the marketing of their hormone-replacement products.
In November 2008, the State of Nevada filed an action against
Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company and Wyeth in state court in
Nevada alleging that they had engaged in deceptive marketing of
their respective hormone-replacement therapy medications in Nevada
in violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The
action seeks monetary relief, including civil penalties and treble
damages.  In February 2010, the action was dismissed by the court
on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.  In
July 2011, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Champix-Related Suits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed
against Pfizer Inc. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of
Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial
District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia
(Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party
payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix.  Each of these
actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law,
including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and,
on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including
punitive damages.  The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British
Columbia have been stayed pending the decision regarding class
certification in the Ontario action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 11, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend ERISA MDL in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Beginning in late 2004, actions, including purported class
actions, were filed in various federal and state courts against
Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia Corporation and certain current and former
officers, directors and employees of Pfizer and Pharmacia, which
merged in 2003.  These actions include (i) purported class actions
alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former officers of
Pfizer violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the
safety of Celebrex and Bextra, and (ii) purported class actions
filed by persons who claim to be participants in the Pfizer or
Pharmacia Savings Plan alleging that Pfizer and certain current
and former officers, directors and employees of Pfizer or, where
applicable, Pharmacia and certain former officers, directors and
employees of Pharmacia, violated certain provisions of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by
selecting and maintaining Pfizer stock as an investment
alternative when it allegedly no longer was a suitable or prudent
investment option.  In June 2005, the federal securities and ERISA
actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to
a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities,
Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 11, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.


PFIZER INC: Expects Final Okay of AWP Settlement in Late 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. expects a court to consider final approval of a
settlement later this year in connection with the average
wholesale price litigation, according to the Company's August 11,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

A number of states as well as most counties in New York have sued
Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia Corporation, which merged in 2003, and
other pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that they provided
average wholesale price (AWP) information for certain of their
products that was higher than the actual prices at which those
products were sold.  The AWP is used to determine reimbursement
levels under Medicare Part B and Medicaid and in many private-
sector insurance policies and medical plans.  The plaintiffs claim
that the alleged spread between the AWPs at which purchasers were
reimbursed and the actual sale prices was promoted by the
defendants as an incentive to purchase certain of their products.
In addition to suing on their own behalf, many of the plaintiff
states seek to recover on behalf of individual Medicare Part B co-
payers and private-sector insurance companies and medical plans in
their states.  These various actions generally assert fraud claims
as well as claims under state deceptive trade practice laws, and
seek monetary and other relief, including civil penalties and
treble damages.  Several of the lawsuits also allege that
Pharmacia and/or Pfizer did not report to the states their best
price for certain products under the Medicaid program.

In addition, Pharmacia, Pfizer and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers are defendants in a number of purported class action
lawsuits in various federal and state courts brought by employee
benefit plans and other third-party payers that assert claims
similar to those in the state and county actions.  These lawsuits
allege, among other things, fraud, unfair competition and unfair
trade practices, and seek monetary and other relief, including
civil penalties and treble damages.

All of these state, county and purported class action lawsuits
were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average
Wholesale Price Litigation MDL-1456) in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  Certain of the state and
private lawsuits have been remanded to their respective state
courts.  In 2006, the claims against Pfizer in the Multi-District
Litigation were dismissed with prejudice; the claims against
Pharmacia are still pending.

In 2008, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted
preliminary approval with respect to the fairness of a proposed
settlement of the claims against 11 defendants, including
Pharmacia, for a total of $125 million.  It is expected that the
court will consider final approval of the settlement later this
year.  If the settlement is approved, Pharmacia's contribution
would not be material.

In addition, Wyeth is a defendant in AWP actions brought by
certain states, which are not included in the Multi-District
Litigation, as well as AWP actions brought by most counties in New
York, almost all of which are included in the Multi-District
Litigation.  Wyeth also is a defendant in a purported class action
in state court in New Jersey brought by two union health and
welfare plans on behalf of a putative class consisting of third-
party payers, certain consumers and Medicare beneficiaries.  These
actions against Wyeth would not be included in the proposed
settlement of Pharmacia.


PFIZER INC: New York Court Dismisses Suit Over Alzheimer Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a purported class action lawsuit over Pfizer Inc.'s
bapineuzumab, a product in development for the treatment of
Alzheimer's disease, according to the Company's August 11, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

In June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer Inc.,
as successor to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth.  The
complaint alleges that Wyeth and the individual defendants
violated federal securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to
make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose
or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material information,
concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab,
a product in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased Wyeth securities from May 21, 2007, through July
2008 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the
purported class.

In July 2010, a related action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Elan
Corporation (Elan), certain directors and officers of Elan, and
Pfizer, as successor to Wyeth.  Elan participated in the
development of bapineuzumab until September 2009.  The complaint
alleges that Elan, Wyeth and the individual defendants violated
federal securities laws by making or causing Elan to make false
and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose or causing
Elan to fail to disclose material information, concerning the
results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab.  The plaintiff
seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased
Elan call options from June 17, 2008, through July 29, 2008, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the purported
class.  In June 2011, the court granted Pfizer's and Elan's
motions to dismiss the complaint.  In July 2011, the plaintiffs
filed a supplemental memorandum setting forth the bases that they
believed supported amendment of the complaint.  In August 2011,
the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.


PFIZER INC: New York Suit Over Off-Label Marketing Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Pfizer Inc. and several of its current and former officers.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by failing to disclose that Pfizer was engaged in off-label
marketing of certain drugs.  Plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 11, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.


PFIZER INC: Protonix Class Suits Remain Stayed in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported antitrust class action lawsuits against a subsidiary
of Pfizer Inc. over Protonix remain stayed in New Jersey,
according to the Company's August 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 3, 2011.

The Company' subsidiary, Wyeth, and Nycomed GmbH, the owner of the
patents relating to Protonix, are defendants in purported class
actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers of Protonix in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Plaintiffs seek damages, on behalf of the respective putative
classes, for the alleged violation of antitrust laws in connection
with the procurement and enforcement of the patents for Protonix.
These purported class actions have been stayed pending resolution
of the underlying patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.


PFIZER INC: Securities Class Suit vs. Wyeth Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities class action lawsuit against a Pfizer Inc.
subsidiary 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 July 3, 2011.

In late 2007 and early 2008, these actions were filed in various
federal courts: (i) a purported class action alleging that Wyeth
and certain former officers of Wyeth violated federal securities
laws by misrepresenting the safety of Pristiq during the period
before the FDA's issuance in July 2007 of an "approvable letter"
for Pristiq for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, which
allegedly caused a decline in the price of Wyeth stock; (ii) a
shareholder derivative action alleging that certain former
officers of Wyeth and certain former directors of Wyeth, two of
whom are now directors of Pfizer, breached fiduciary duties and
violated federal securities laws by virtue of the aforementioned
alleged misrepresentation; and (iii) a purported class action
against Wyeth, the Wyeth Savings Plan Committee, the Wyeth Savings
Plan-Puerto Rico Committee, the Wyeth Retirement Committee and
certain former Wyeth officers and committee members alleging that
they violated certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 by maintaining Wyeth stock as an investment
alternative under certain Wyeth plans notwithstanding their
alleged knowledge of the aforementioned alleged misrepresentation.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the ERISA action and denied the plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint in March and August 2010, respectively.  In
September 2010, the plaintiff appealed both of those rulings to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  In November
2010, the plaintiff withdrew the appeal, but reserved the right to
reinstate the appeal by September 2011.  In addition, in January
2011, the shareholder derivative action was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff.  The purported securities class action remains
pending.


PFIZER INC: Securities Suit Remains Pending in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, several purported class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia Corporation, which merged in 2003, and
certain former officers of Pharmacia.  The complaints allege that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting
the data from a study concerning the gastrointestinal effects of
Celebrex.  These cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings
in the District of New Jersey (Alaska Electrical Pension Fund et
al. v. Pharmacia Corporation et al.).  In January 2007, the court
certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased
Pharmacia securities from April 17, 2000, through February 6,
2001, and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of
Pharmacia's securities allegedly attributable to the
misrepresentations.  Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified
amount.

In October 2007, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.  In November 2007,
the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.  In January 2009, the Third Circuit vacated
the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
defendants and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.  The Third Circuit also held that the District Court
erred in determining that the class period ended on February 6,
2001, and directed that the class period end on August 5, 2001.
In June 2009, the District Court stayed proceedings in the case
pending a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to
defendants' petition for certiorari seeking reversal of the Third
Circuit's decision.  In May 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied
defendants' petition for certiorari, and the case has been
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 11, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.


PFIZER INC: Still Awaits Approval of Deal in King-Acquisition Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is still awaiting court approval of its settlement to
resolve a consolidated lawsuit over its acquisition of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's August 11, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

In October 2010, several purported class action complaints were
filed in federal and state court in Tennessee by shareholders of
King challenging Pfizer's acquisition of King.  King and the
individuals, who served as the members of King's Board of
Directors at the time of the execution of the merger agreement,
are named as defendants in all of these actions.  Pfizer and
Parker Tennessee Corp., a subsidiary of Pfizer, also are named as
defendants in most of these actions.

In November 2010, all of the actions filed in state court were
consolidated in the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, Tennessee
Second Judicial District, at Bristol.  The parties to the
consolidated state court action have reached an agreement in
principle to resolve that action as a result of certain
disclosures regarding the transaction made by King in its amended
Schedule 14D-9 recommendation statement for the tender offer dated
January 21, 2011.  The proposed settlement is subject to, among
other things, court approval.

In April 2011, the plaintiff in the federal action filed a motion
to dismiss that action as moot.

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


PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against PNM
Resources, Inc., captioned Begay v. PNM et al., 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.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
on February 11, 2009 in the United States District Court in
Albuquerque. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the
Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation.
Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general
assertions that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way
grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are
either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of
rights-of-way or both.  The plaintiffs, who have sued the
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive
trust. They have also included a breach of trust claim against the
United States and its Secretary of the Interior.  PNM and the
other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action.  On
March 31, 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. PNM intends to participate in order to
preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way
implicated in the appeal. As the administrative appeal process is
in its initial stages, PNM cannot predict the outcome of the
proceeding at this time or the range of potential outcomes.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Class Action Suit in Calif. Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace Inc. continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed in California, according to the Company's
August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs, Christian Hellum, William
Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company, certain of its executive officers and its
directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, California.  The suit was brought on behalf of all loan
note purchasers in the Company's online lending platform from
January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges
that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and unregistered
securities in violation of the California and federal securities
laws.  The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages and the
right of rescission against Prosper and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against Prosper and the
award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest.

Some of the individual defendants filed a demurrer to the First
Amended Complaint, which was heard on June 11, 2009 and sustained
by the court with leave to amend until July 10, 2009.  The
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2009, to
which the same individual defendants demurred.  On September 15,
2009, this demurrer was sustained by the court without leave to
amend.  On February 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint, which removed David Booth as a plaintiff and added
Brian Russom and Michael Del Greco as plaintiffs.  The new
plaintiffs are representing the same putative class and
prosecuting the same claims as the previously named plaintiffs. On
April 29, 2011, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's decision sustaining the individual defendants' demurrer to
the Second Amended Complaint. On June 9, 2011, the individual
defendants filed a petition before the California Supreme Court
seeking review of the Court of Appeal's opinion.

Prosper's insurance carrier with respect to the class action
lawsuit, Greenwich Insurance Company has denied coverage.  On
August 21, 2009, Prosper filed suit against Greenwich in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Prosper is entitled to
coverage under its policy with Greenwich for losses arising out of
the class action lawsuit as well as damages and the award of
attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On January 26, 2011, the court issued a final statement of
decision finding that Greenwich has a duty to defend the class
action lawsuit, and requiring that Greenwich pay Prosper's past
and future defense costs in the class action suit up to $2
million.  As of June 30, 2011, Greenwich made payments to Prosper
in the amount of $1,896,844 to reimburse Prosper for the defense
costs it had already incurred in the class action suit.  Greenwich
is required to reimburse Prosper for up to an additional $103,156
in defense costs for the class action suit going forward.  Each
such reimbursement will be due within 30 days of Prosper incurring
any such costs and presenting the applicable invoice to Greenwich.
Greenwich is also required to pay Prosper pre-judgment interest on
the defense costs incurred by Prosper in the class action suit
prior to the Court's decision.  The amount of this pre-judgment
interest is $142,584.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the class action lawsuit.
It cannot, however, presently determine or estimate the final
outcome of the lawsuit, and there can be no assurance that it will
be finally resolved in its favor.  If the class action lawsuit is
not resolved in its favor, the Company might be obliged to pay
damages, and might be subject to such equitable relief as a court
may determine.


SINOTECH ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on August 19 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of SinoTech Energy Limited during the period from
November 3, 2010, through and including August 16, 2011, seeking
to recover damages for violations of federal securities laws.

To join the SinoTech Energy class action, visit the firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-
free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.   The case filed by the Rosen Law
Firm is pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern District
of New York.

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

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against SinoTech Energy, its officers and directors, and
underwriters for issuing materially inaccurate information about
the Company's financial performance.  On August 16, 2011, a report
was issued by the Alfred Little Web site demonstrating that the
Company's business was smaller than it had represented to
investors in its SEC filings.  Namely, that (a) SinoTech Energy's
five largest subcontracting customers appear to be shell companies
with unverifiable operations and minimal revenues; (b) SinoTech
Energy's sole chemical supplier appears to be an empty shell, with
little or no revenues, a deserted office and no signs of
production activity; (c) SinoTech's audited financial statements
filed with Chinese authorities confirm the Company's negligible
business operations; and (d) other facts showing that Company's
business operations are smaller than it represents in SEC filings.
Later on August 16, 2011, NASDAQ halted trading in the Company's
stock, pending further information requested by the exchange. The
Complaint alleges that as a result of these adverse disclosures,
investors have been damaged.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 18, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com

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


STAMPS.COM INC: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Pending on Remand
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, Stamps.com Inc., was named, together with certain of its
current and former board members and/or officers, as a defendant
in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits
allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and a secondary offering of its common stock.
Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation, including
interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). In
October 2009, the court approved a settlement of this action,
which does not require the Company to make any payments. The court
approval has been appealed. In May 2011, the Second Circuit
dismissed the appeals of certain objectors to the settlement, and
remanded the appeals of another back to the District Court for
further proceedings.

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


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Again
------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority is facing again a lawsuit stemming from
Hurricane Katrina after the plaintiffs re-filed the previously
dismissed case, 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.

In April 2006, TVA was added as a defendant to a class action
lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi residents
allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina.  The plaintiffs sued seven
large oil companies and an oil company trade association, three
large chemical companies and a chemical trade association, and 31
large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal,
alleging that the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed
to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of
Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force.  Action by the
United States Supreme Court on January 10, 2011, ended this case
in a manner favorable to TVA.

On May 27, 2011, under a Mississippi state statute that permits
the re-filing of lawsuits that were dismissed on procedural
grounds, the plaintiffs filed another lawsuit against the same and
additional defendants, again alleging that the defendants'
greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming and were a
proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased
destructive force.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Gets Favorable Judgment in Kingston Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Tennessee court granted summary judgment in Tennessee Valley
Authority's favor with respect to plaintiffs' personal injury,
emotional distress and inverse condemnation claims in the lawsuits
arising from the Kingston Ash Spill, 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.

Sixty-one lawsuits based on the ash spill in TVA's Kingston Fossil
Plant in December 2008 have been filed in the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  Eight of those actions have been voluntarily
dismissed.  The lawsuits, filed by residents, businesses, and
property owners in the Kingston area, allege various causes of
action in tort -- including nuisance, strict liability, personal
injury, and property damage -- as well as inverse condemnation,
and generally seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
court orders to clean up the plaintiffs' properties and
surrounding properties, and other relief.  The lawsuits seeking
class certification have been voluntarily consolidated so there is
now only one complaint, Chesney, seeking class certification.  The
court has denied the request for class certification.  TVA is the
sole defendant in all actions, since the two non-TVA defendants in
Chesney have been dismissed from the lawsuit.  On March 26, 2010,
the court issued a decision finding (1) the discretionary function
doctrine is applicable to TVA's ash pond design decisions and its
spill response activities, (2) plaintiffs cannot recover punitive
damages against TVA, and (3) plaintiffs have no right to a jury
trial against TVA.  The court denied TVA's motions with regard to
plaintiffs' tort claims concerning TVA's maintenance and upkeep of
the ash pond, along with the inverse condemnation claims raised by
certain plaintiffs.  The court has scheduled the seven earliest-
filed cases for trial beginning on September 13, 2011, and the
remaining cases for trial beginning November 1, 2011.

On March 22, 2011, the court issued decisions on two motions filed
by TVA.  With respect to the TVA motions, the court held that (1)
a plaintiff could not bring a claim for TVA's allegedly having
caused a nuisance with regard to property if the plaintiff did not
have a valid property interest in that property, and (2) a
plaintiff who filed for bankruptcy after bringing lawsuit against
TVA but did not include the lawsuit in the bankruptcy proceeding
was barred from pursuing the lawsuit against TVA.

On March 24, 2011, the court issued a decision which granted TVA's
motion for summary judgment on any claim related to activities the
court had previously ruled as being protected by the discretionary
function doctrine (ash pond design and spill response activities).
The court denied TVA's motion with regard to any alleged failures
to adequately inform or train personnel in applicable policies or
procedures or negligent maintenance.  The court also held that
while TVA's design and construction decisions concerning the ash
pond were protected by the discretionary function doctrine, the
court would not grant summary judgment on claims related to
alleged negligence in carrying out such design and construction
decisions.

On April 19, 2011, plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits requested
permission from the court to file an amended complaint which
asserts only claims based on alleged property damage, including
nuisance and trespass.  The court allowed the amended complaint
and the case with regard to these plaintiffs will proceed on the
property damage claims and not on any personal injury or related
claims, including requests for medical monitoring.

On August 2, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
TVA on plaintiffs' personal injury, emotional distress, and
inverse condemnation claims.  The court denied summary judgment on
the trespass, nuisance, and property injury claims, and the
litigation now will proceed to the scheduled bench trial on those
claims.

TVA says it has received several notices of intent to sue under
various environmental statutes from both individuals and
environmental groups.  In addition, TVA has received substantial
other claims from individuals and companies allegedly affected by
the ash spill and may receive additional claims.


WAL-MART: Oct. 28 Deadline Set for Gender Bias Individual Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that women who had
comprised a massive class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. must begin filing individual claims against the company in
the coming months, a U.S. judge ruled.

Women alleging that the company denied them pay raises and
promotions because of gender bias are regrouping after the U.S.
Supreme Court dismantled a class of up to 1.5 million current and
former Wal-Mart workers in June.

Attorneys for the women are expected to try to fashion smaller
class actions as the litigation moves forward.

In an order issued on August 18, U.S. District Judge Charles
Breyer in San Francisco gave women who were part of the large
class, and who had received permission to sue from the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, until October 28 to file
lawsuits.

Plaintiffs must first take up claims with the EEOC before being
able to file a lawsuit in federal court.

"We believe the October deadline will affect a very small number
of women," said plaintiff attorney Jocelyn Larkin.

Other potential plaintiffs who never filed a charge with the EEOC
against Wal-Mart have until next year to do that.

"The court agreed with us that there needed to be a consistent,
common date that applies to all claims of former class members,"
Ms. Larkin said.

"This is a fair approach that is very similar to what we
proposed," said Wal-Mart attorney, Theodore Boutrous, Jr.

Other motions have been filed regarding how the case will proceed,
but no court dates have been set.

The case is Betty Dukes et al v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, 01-cv-
02252.


ZST DIGITAL: Awaits Lead Plaintiff Appointment in "Scott" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZST Digital Networks, Inc., is awaiting appointment of lead
plaintiff in the purported securities class action lawsuit filed
by Robert Scott, 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.

The Company and several of its directors and officers have been
named as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The complaint was filed on April 25, 2011, and is
captioned Robert Scott v. ZST Digital Networks, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges that Company and the director and officer
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts about the Company's business and prospects
in violation of Federal securities laws.  Specifically, the
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the Company
pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
filed in connection with the Company's October 20, 2009 public
offering, and claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period October
20, 2009, to April 21, 2011.  The plaintiff has also asserted
claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) against the underwriters of
the Company's public offering, who are also named as defendants to
the action.  The plaintiff seeks damages for the purported class.

Three lead plaintiff motions were filed in June 2011.  Because two
of those lead plaintiff candidates subsequently withdrew their
motions, there currently is only one lead plaintiff candidate
motion pending.  After the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and
sets a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint, if any,
the Company expects to file a motion to dismiss all of the claims
asserted in the complaint.

The Company strongly disputes the merits of the claims asserted
against it in each of these lawsuits and intends to vigorously
defend against them.  At this moment, the Company is unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters and
consequently has not recorded a contingent liability as of
June 30, 2011, with regard to this lawsuit.


                            *********

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  * * *