CAR_Public/110825.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 25, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 168

                             Headlines

3M CO: Settles Age-Discrimination Class Action for $3 Million
AMERILOSS PUBLIC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fla. Class Action
APPLE INC: Accused of Conspiring With Publishers Over eBooks
ATRINSIC INC: Results on Mobile Messenger Arbitration Pending
AUSTRALIA: Ordered by Judge to Produce Bushfire Documents

CANCER CHECK: Las Vegas Attorney Mulls Fraud Class Action
CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
CHEMED CORP: New York Court Certified Class in Workers' Suit
CHEMED CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in Workers' Suit Reversed
CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES: Propane Suit Class Distribution Done in May

COMMENCE CORP: Software Users' Suit Gets Class Action Status
CONMED HEALTHCARE: Defends Class Suit Over Ayelet Merger
CUMULUS MEDIA: Citadel Merger-Related Suit in Del. Dismissed
CUMULUS MEDIA: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit in Nevada
DIRECTV: To Seek Arbitration in Early Cancellation Fee Suits

GENERAL MOTORS: Continues to Defend Canadian Dealer Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Healthcare Suit Hearings Set this Month
GENTIVA HEALTH: "Rindfleisch" Suit Still in Preliminary Stage
GENTIVA HEALTH: "Wilkie" Suit Remains in Preliminary Stage
GENTIVA HEALTH: Awaits OK of Settlement in Odyssey Merger Suit

GENTIVA HEALTH: "Endress" Suit Still in Preliminary Stage in N.Y.
GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Hydroxycut-Related Class Suits
GOV'T OF GUAM: Three Officials Added in Tax Refund Class Action
IMH FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Pending
JBI INC: Sept. 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Antitrust Suits Remains Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Bear Stearns Securities Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal on Enron-related Suit Remains Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Interchange Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Madoff-related Lawsuits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Still Ongoing MBS-Related Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Mortgage Foreclosure Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Municipal Derivatives Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Mandamus Petition in Ala. Suit Remains Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Overdraft Fee Class Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Securities Lending Suits Remain Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Final Approval of SCRA Suit Settlement
LADUE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Teachers File Class Action Over New Law
LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Settles Missouri Class Action

LIVEDEAL INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Fraud Class Suit
MAGNUM D'OR RESOURCES: Law Firms Dismiss Florida Class Action
MILLER ENERGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Plea to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
NIGERIA: Faces Class Action Over April Election Violence

PARTNER COMMS: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Customers
PEET'S COFFEE: California Wage Violation Suit Remains Pending
PROGRESS ENERGY: Awaits Court Approval of N.C. Suit Settlement
PROGRESS ENERGY: Units Continue to Defend Hurricane Katrina Suit
RADIO ONE: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending

SKY-MOBI LIMITED: "Vandevelde" Suit Vs. CFO Remains Pending
SONY COMPUTER: Accused of Illegally Keeping Customer Information
TICKETMASTER: 9th Cir. Revives Portions of Two Class Actions
TREE.COM INC: Class Certification Denial of "Schnee" Suit Upheld
WEB.COM GROUP: Appeals on IPO Settlement Pact Remains Pending




                             *********

3M CO: Settles Age-Discrimination Class Action for $3 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joan E. Solsman, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that 3M
Co. agreed to pay $3 million to former workers to resolve an
age-discrimination lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission said on Aug. 22.

In a statement, 3M said the settlement wasn't an admission or any
liability, reiterating that it denies the charges in the case
stemming back to a class-action suit first filed in Minnesota in
2004.

"3M's human resources practices are fair, comply with federal and
state laws, and are widely recognized as 'best in class,'" the
company said.

The Aug. 22 agreement -- a consent decree that still needs
judicial approval -- includes a $3 million payment to about 290
former 3M employees.  The company also agreed to institute a
review process for termination decisions and a training program on
how to prevent age bias, as well as agreeing to post openings for
positions it hadn't advertised before to allow older workers the
chance to apply, according to a release from the commission.

Commission attorney William R. Tamayo said the consent decree was
the result of "productive and thoughtful negotiations with 3M."

"In addition to providing meaningful monetary relief for hundreds
of former 3M employees, the settlement contains important
preventive measures, including company policy changes and training
designed to provide older people equal opportunities in the
workplace," he said.

In its suit against 3M, the commission had claimed the company
unlawfully laid off hundreds of employees over the age of 45
during a series of reductions in force from July 2003 through
December 2006.  The suit alleged 3M laid off many highly paid
older employees, apparently to save money and cut workers in
salaried positions.  The commission also claimed that older
employees were denied leadership training and laid off to make way
for younger leaders.

In its response to the settlement announcement, 3M said it "needs
and values contributions from all of its employees."


AMERILOSS PUBLIC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fla. Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shalack, President of AmeriLoss Public Adjusting Corp., on
Aug. 22 disclosed that AmeriLoss has emerged victorious in the
class action filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court by Clyde
Lightbourn, alleging that Florida law limited fees that public
adjusters could charge to 10 on reopened claims (Case #09-38884 CM
13).  After two-and-a-half years of litigation, the Court ruled in
favor of AmeriLoss.  The case ended with Lightbourn paying
AmeriLoss with respect to a re-opened claim emanating from
Hurricane Katrina.

"AmeriLoss has always been at the forefront of compliance," said
Mr. Shalack.  "We are grateful that we have been completely
vindicated on a professional and ethical level."


APPLE INC: Accused of Conspiring With Publishers Over eBooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Albeck, 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. 4:11-cv-04110 (N.D.
Calif., August 19, 2011) asserts claims under federal and state
antitrust laws to enjoin Apple and the other Defendants' alleged
illegal conduct, and to obtain damages from these parties.

The Plaintiff alleges that under the Publisher Defendants' new
pricing model, known as the "Agency model", they have restrained
trade by coordinating their pricing to directly set retail prices
higher than had existed in the previously competitive market.  He
contends that the Publisher Defendants' unlawful combination and
pricing agreement would not have succeeded without the active
participation of Apple, which facilitated changing the eBook
pricing model and conspired with the Publisher Defendants to do
so.  Because of the Defendants' conspiracy and agreements, they
increased and stabilized eBook pricing, and forced Amazon to stop
discounting eBook prices on Publisher Defendants' titles, the
lawsuit adds.

Mr. Albeck is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.  He purchased at
least one eBook at a price above $9.99 from a Publisher Defendant
for use on his Amazon Kindle.  He asserts that he paid higher
prices for his eBooks as a direct and foreseeable result of the
unlawful conduct of the Defendants.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey F. Keller, Esq.
          Jade Butman, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: jfkeller@kellergrover.com
                  jbutman@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
          MURRAY FRANK LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 3300
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212 )682-1818
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com
                  lalbert@murrayfrank.com
                  gfrank@murrayfrank.com


ATRINSIC INC: Results on Mobile Messenger Arbitration Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Results of the arbitration Atrinsic, Inc., participated in
relating to a lawsuit it filed against Mobile Messenger Americas,
Inc., and Mobile Messenger Americas Pty, Ltd. are not yet out,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In November, 2009, the Company reached a settlement regarding a
suit it had filed earlier that year against Mobile Messenger
Americas, Inc. and Mobile Messenger Americas Pty, Ltd. to recover
monies owed to the Company in connection with transaction activity
incurred in the ordinary and normal course of business.  The
complaint also sought declaratory relief concerning demands made
by Mobile Messenger for indemnification for amounts paid by Mobile
Messenger in late 2008 in settlement of a class action lawsuit in
Florida, Grey v. Mobile Messenger, et al.  Mobile Messenger
brought upon the Company a cross complaint, seeking injunctive
relief, indemnification for the settlement of the Florida Class
Action and other matters.  The terms of the settlement are
confidential, but in general, resulted in a complete dismissal of
the entire action, including the cross-complaint, with prejudice.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, independent auditors
conducted an accounting of payments made to the Company by Mobile
Messenger.  In August 2010, the independent auditors issued their
report detailing their findings which Mobile Messenger disputed,
and as dictated by the terms of the settlement agreement, the
parties have engaged in arbitration.  The Company expects the
matter to be finalized in the second half of 2011.  Any payments
arising out of the settlement are not expected to have a material
impact on the Company's financial condition or results from
operations, beyond what has already been expensed and accrued for.

Atrinsic, Inc.'s business is focused on two key segments: (1)
Direct to consumer subscriptions, built around the Kazaa brand,
and (2) Transactional services, built around search and affiliate
marketing, within the Atrinsic Interactive brand.


AUSTRALIA: Ordered by Judge to Produce Bushfire Documents
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bachelard, writing for The Age, reports that state
government lawyers say the evidence from the Bushfires Royal
Commission is irrelevant to the class action.

The judge hearing a class action into Black Saturday's deadliest
blaze has impatiently ordered the Baillieu government to allow the
court to read documents from the AUD90 million Bushfires Royal
Commission.

Lawyers for the state government insisted on Aug. 19 that the
material produced by the royal commission after months of
painstaking evidence was "incomplete", irrelevant to the class
action and might be "counterproductive or misleading".

But Justice Jack Forrest overruled them, saying, "I don't accept
the submissions made by the state."

He foreshadowed that this week he would order them to produce the
material "forthwith".

It is believed the state government is unlikely to appeal against
the decision.

But on Aug. 19, Justice Forrest said he was "bemused" by the
government's position.

"Surely material about the causes and circumstances of the Kilmore
East fire is relevant [to the class action] . . . If that is not
relevant, what is?" he asked.

When the government's counsel, Wendy Harris, SC, said there was no
proof of its relevance, Justice Forrest snapped: "At times I apply
common sense."

The Kinglake fire killed 119 people and caused hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of damage.  More than 1,000 people have
now joined the class action.  The state had wanted Associate
Justice Rita Zammit, who is assisting the judge with organizing
the case, to read only very limited portions of the royal
commission's final report.

Justice Forrest's order means Justice Zammit will be able to read
several chapters as well as the legal submissions of the counsel
assisting and other parties.

All parties to the case except the government were happy for
Justice Zammit to read the papers, believing it would help her
work out which documents should be subject to "discovery" in the
long and complex case, which is due to start next year.

But the state, which represents the government as well as the
Country Fire Authority and the Department of Sustainability and
Environment, argued that the documents might be
"counterproductive" because, "the [royal commission] evidence is,
of itself, an incomplete record of what occurred on that day".

In June, Justice Forrest said the state's position on the royal
commission documents made him feel like he was "going down a mine
without a light".

And on Aug. 20, he said the government wanted Justice Zammit to
make important decisions "in a vacuum".

Bushfire Response Minister Peter Ryan has promised to implement
all the royal commission's recommendations.

The government will assess the order before responding next week,
but is understood to have ruled out appealing.

The plaintiffs' representative, Rory Walsh, of Maurice Blackburn,
said the court should have the "relevant and valuable background
material" from the royal commission.

"We did not understand [the] state's desire to limit access to
this material and we welcome Justice Forrest's decision [Sun]
day," he said.


CANCER CHECK: Las Vegas Attorney Mulls Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Barton, writing for The Island Packet, reports that an
attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit in Nevada claiming Heart
Check America defrauded customers by offering CT scans without a
referral from a licensed physician is considering a similar suit
against Cancer Check America, a defunct Hilton Head Island
company.

That could be good news for frustrated Cancer Check America
customers here who signed contracts for up to five years for CT
scans, costing about $4,000 to $5,000, only to see the company
shut down.

Heart Check America suddenly closed its Las Vegas office in May,
about the same time Cancer Check America quit operating on Hilton
Head amid questions about its link to Heart Check America.

Cancer Check America officials, though, have said they plan to
reopen in the Hilton Head area next year, either at a permanent
location or with a mobile scanner.

Attempts on Aug. 18 and Aug. 19 to reach company representatives
for comment were unsuccessful.

Some Cancer Check America customers have tried getting their money
back through their banks.  At least one has been successful.
Others are still trying to recover money paid in advance for
services never received.

Several say bills kept coming even after the business closed.

In some cases, the money is being collected by a third party that
financed the scanning packages.

Those who have sought mediation through the S.C. Department of
Consumer Affairs to get the money refunded and have the contracts
voided have been told there's nothing they can do because the
business has closed.  They were advised to hire an attorney.

Mike Platt of Bluffton, for example, signed a five-year retail
installment contract with Cancer Check America to perform annual
studies, including scans of the heart, lungs and pelvis, and one
annual full-body scan, for a total of $3,995.

He signed the contract May 11, days before the company ceased
operating, making a $400 down payment and paying a $399 enrollment
fee on top of monthly payments of $149.

He disputed the first monthly payment, which his bank credited
back to his account, but is still out about $800.

Mr. Platt filed a complaint with the Department of Consumer
Affairs, which said it appears Cancer Check America "substantially
complied with the law."

"It seems Mr. Platt's course for action would be (to sue) for
breach of contract and unfair trade practices, especially seeing
as he entered into the contract so close to them shutting their
doors," said Carri Grube Lybarker, the department's acting
administrator.  "He may also want to file a complaint with the
local police department, as the company may have obtained goods
under false pretenses."

Fellow Bluffton resident and Cancer Check America customer Beverly
Youngblood said she cannot pay an attorney and is near her wits
end trying to figure out how she can prevent Cancer Check America
from ruining her credit rating.

"I have no intention of paying," Ms. Youngblood said.  "I am
stressed.  All my life I worked to keep a good credit rating.  . .
.  I'm on a fixed income, and when you don't have a lot of cash on
hand, you need that credit to live on."

              ATTORNEY: S.C. SCAM SAME AS IN NEVADA

George O. West III, the Las Vegas attorney who filed the class-
action suit against Heart Check America, said he believes Cancer
Check America customers suffered the same scam as those in Nevada
and would be best served filing their own class-action suit.

Doing so would allow CCA customers to share the cost of
litigation, but pay nothing out of pocket, as attorney fees are
usually awarded by the court and paid by the defendant, Mr. West
said.  Additionally, attorneys may not be willing to pursue
individual claims because the pay-out would be small, he said.

"These were illegal contracts deceptively entered into because
they were selling services that couldn't be performed without the
authorization from a licensed medical practitioner, which was not
done in Nevada and seems to be questionable in South Carolina,"
Mr. West said.

The Nevada complaint charges that Heart Check America breached its
contract and owes customers damages.

Mr. Platt and Ms. Youngblood say Cancer Check America preyed on
their health worries -- pressuring them to quickly decide on
signing a contract for five years' worth of scans while making
misleading claims.

Both made follow-up appointments with their primary doctor, and in
one case, with a cardiologist, who said the scan results were
useless for diagnosing illnesses.

Heart Check America and Cancer Check America primarily screened
patients with no symptoms using CT scanning to detect and measure
heart and lung disease and colon and other cancers.

Some medical experts have said both companies market the
preventive scans to people who don't need them, with little proof
the benefits outweigh potential harm from radiation from the
scanning devices.  Scans can result in false positives, leading to
unnecessary, costly and invasive treatments, they argue.

Ms. Youngblood puts it more simply.

"I was duped," she said.

Her doctor, Brian Anderson of St. Joseph's Candler Medical Group
in Bluffton, wrote a letter on her behalf to help her contest the
payments.  "People are being scared and coerced into making poor
judgments about medical testing that may actually be harmful to
them" by needlessly exposing them to radiation, Mr. Anderson
wrote.

Cancer Check America owner Sheila Haddad has maintained the
screenings are "a very good service for the public" and "saved 18
lives in nine weeks and found other carcinogens and heart disease
that would have never been found without the technology."

                          THE BACKGROUND

Heart Check America began closing centers across the country this
spring after Colorado and Nevada health officials ordered the
company to stop scanning patients without a doctor's order, a
violation of their states' laws.

The S.C. Board of Medical Examiners is gathering information and
looking into the claims to see whether Dr. Paul Long, a longtime
physician on Hilton Head Island who served as medical director for
Cancer Check America, violated the state's Medical Practice Act,
according to subpoenas and Cancer Check America customers.

About a dozen people who signed up for scans have told The Island
Packet and The Beaufort Gazette they had no contact at all with
Dr. Long or his office before being scanned. They said they
received no consultation from a physician nor did Cancer Check
America disclose that the CT scans could not be performed unless
first authorized by doctor referral.

Dr. Long has disputed such accounts, telling the Packet and
Gazette, "I met with almost all of them."

Reports given to some patients from a Savannah radiologist who
read the scans identify the referring physician as Cancer Check
America.

                       SUIT ALSO NAMES BANK

The Nevada lawsuit names Heart Check America, a California-based
privately held group of medical imaging centers, as well as Chase
Bank and Conrad Acceptance Corp., two consumer finance companies
that provided loans to Heart Check America customers.

Chase Bank also provided financing for some Cancer Check America
patients, including Ms. Youngblood.

The arrangements were similar to buying a car and having it
financed through the dealership.

Cancer Check America sold customers long-term contracts and lined
up financing through Chase Bank or other lenders.  Customers then
signed a separate credit agreement with Chase.

The scanning packages were often financed through a Chase product
known as ChaseHealthAdvance, a revolving consumer credit account,
with consumers obligated to make monthly payments directly to
Chase.

"Consumers' best and only way to get any type of recovery under
the contract is to go after the bank that financed the contracts,"
Mr. West said.  "Finding Cancer Check America owners and their
assets will be a difficult endeavor since they closed their doors.
There's a better chance of getting a monetary judgment against
Chase Bank, which is as liable as Cancer Check America because
they financed the contracts and are still forcing people to pay
even though clients are not getting services from Cancer Check
America."


CEPHALON INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc. continues to defend itself in an antitrust class
action filed on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of PROVIGIL
before a Pennsylvania district court, according to the Company's
August 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Numerous private antitrust complaints have been filed in and/or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, each naming the Company, Barr Laboratories, Inc.,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals and Ranbaxy
Laboratories Limited as co-defendants and claiming, among other
things, that the PROVIGIL settlements violate the antitrust laws
of the United States and, in some cases, certain state laws.

The PROVIGIL Settlements refer to settlement agreements entered by
the Company with each of Teva, Mylan, Ranxaby, Barr, Carlsbad and
its development partner, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  As part of
these separate settlements, the Company agreed to grant to each of
these parties a non-exclusive royalty-bearing license to market
and sell a generic version of PROVIGIL in the United States,
effective in April 2012, subject to applicable regulatory
considerations.  The Company filed each of the PROVIGIL
settlements with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice, as required
by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization
Act of 2003.  The FTC conducted an investigation of each of the
PROVIGIL settlements and, in February 2008, filed lawsuit against
the Company challenging the validity of the settlements and
related agreements.

The actions have been consolidated into an action on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers of PROVIGIL and a separate action on
behalf of a class of consumers and other indirect purchasers of
PROVIGIL.  The plaintiffs in all of these actions are seeking
monetary damages and/or equitable relief. In addition, in December
2009, the Company entered a tolling agreement with the Attorneys
General of Arkansas, California, Florida, New York and
Pennsylvania to suspend the running of the statute of limitations
to any claims or causes of action relating to the PROVIGIL
settlements pending the resolution of the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission litigation.

Cephalon, Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company.


CHEMED CORP: New York Court Certified Class in Workers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A court in New York granted certification to a class of
technicians of Chemed Corporation in a lawsuit seeking unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation, according to the
Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 1, 2010, Anthony Morangelli and Frank Ercole filed a
class action lawsuit in federal district court for the Eastern
District of New York seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime
service technician compensation from Roto-Rooter and Chemed.  They
also seek payment of penalties, interest and plaintiffs' attorney
fees.  The Company contests these allegations.  In September 2010,
the Court conditionally certified a class of service technicians,
excluding those who signed dispute resolution agreements in which
they agreed to arbitrate claims arising out of their employment.
In June 2011, the Court granted certification of a class of
technicians in 14 states on certain claims.  The Company is unable
to estimate its potential liability, if any, with respect to this
case.


CHEMED CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in Workers' Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court in California reversed a trial court's denial
of class certification on off-the-clock and sales representation
exemption claims filed by workers of Chemed Corporation's VITAS
segment, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The VITAS segment of the Company is party to a class action
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, in September 2006 by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and
Joyce White.  This case alleges failure to pay overtime and
failure to provide meal and rest periods to California admissions
nurses, chaplains and sales representatives.  The case seeks
payment of penalties, interest and Plaintiffs' attorney fees.
VITAS contests these allegations.  In December 2009, the trial
court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In July
2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of class certification
on the travel time, meal and rest period claims, and reversed the
trial court's denial on the off-the-clock and sales representation
exemption claims.  The Company is unable to estimate its potential
liability, if any, with respect to this case.


CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES: Propane Suit Class Distribution Done in May
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2010, a propane customer filed a class action complaint
against Florida Public Utilities Company in Palm Beach County,
Florida, alleging, among other things, that FPU acted in a
deceptive and unfair manner related to a particular charge by FPU
on its bills to propane customers and the description of such
charge.  The suit sought to certify a class comprised of FPU
propane customers to whom such charge was assessed since May 2006
and requested damages and statutory remedies based on the amounts
paid by FPU customers for such charge.  FPU vigorously denied any
wrongdoing and maintained that the particular charge at issue is
customary, proper and fair.  Without admitting any wrongdoing,
validity of the claims or a properly certifiable class for the
complaint, FPU entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiff in September 2010 to avoid the burden and expenses of
continued litigation.  The court approved the final settlement
agreement, and the judgment became final on March 13, 2011.  In
2010, the Company recorded $1.2 million of the total estimated
costs related to this litigation.  Pursuant to the final
settlement agreement, the distribution to the class was made by
May 13, 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing, according to Chesapeake Utilities Corporation's August 5,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


COMMENCE CORP: Software Users' Suit Gets Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Trenton on Aug. 15 breathed new life into a law
firm's class-action suit that alleges there was a deliberately
placed "time bomb" in its calendaring and billing software.

Reconsidering an earlier ruling, District Judge Freda Wolfson
certified a class of software users in Kalow & Springut v.
Commence Corp., 07-cv-03442, based on claims under the federal
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Judge Wolfson found that the suit, alleging that software made by
Commence Corp. of Tinton Falls was designed to shut down
automatically so users would be compelled to buy upgrades, met the
class criteria under the CFAA but not the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act.

Kalow & Springut, an 11-lawyer intellectual property boutique in
New York, began using the software in 2000 for timekeeping, client
records, patent docketing and calendaring.  Data entered is
converted into a proprietary format that cannot be readily
converted for use in other programs, the suit claims.

Kalow & Springut says the software stopped working on March 20,
2006, and thousands of other users suffered crashes on the same
date.

In February, Judge Wolfson denied the motion to certify a
nationwide class, saying Kalow & Springut had failed to meet the
Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that questions of law or fact common to
class members predominate over questions affecting individual
members.  The firm fell short because it had not carried out a
choice of law analysis as to whether the consumer fraud statute
should apply to a nationwide class, she said.

Kalow & Springut then moved for reconsideration, asking the court
to certify a class based only on the CFAA claim.

Commence Corp. argued that Kalow & Springut had failed to make a
sufficient showing that certification based on only the CFAA claim
was appropriate.  The company cited Hohider v. United Parcel
Service, 574 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009), which found a District Court
had wrongly granted partial certification to an Americans with
Disabilities Act claim.

The Hohider court said additional criteria that should be
considered to partially certify a class based on Rule 23,
including the type of claim, the case's overall complexity and
efficiencies to be gained by granting partial certification.

But Judge Wolfson said the reliance on Hohider was misplaced,
because that case focused on when it is proper to partially
certify a class based on a particular issue within an ADA claim.
"[T]he inquiry here is not whether specific elements or issues
within a claim should be partially certified, but rather, whether
partial certification of a single cause of action, or a claim, is
suitable," she said.

In the current case, the asserted violations of the state CFA and
the federal CFAA are distinct.  Judge Wolfson said that since the
plaintiff now seeks only to certify a class as to the CFAA claim,
it need only demonstrate that the claim meets the numerosity,
commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23 (a)
and the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b),
and those hurdles have been surmounted.

Peter Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf in
Saddle Brook -- psp@njlawfirm.com -- representing Kalow &
Springut, says he will provide additional information to Judge
Wolfson on application of the Consumer Fraud Act, in the hopes of
obtaining certification under that cause of action as well as
under the CFAA.

The lawyer for Commence Corp., Bruce Barrett of Margolis Edelstein
in Mount Laurel -- bbarrett@margolisedelstein.com -- did not
return a call.


CONMED HEALTHCARE: Defends Class Suit Over Ayelet Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc., is defending itself against a
class action complaint related to its merger transaction with
Ayelet Investments LLC, 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 July 11, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Ayelet Investments LLC, a parent limited liability
company, and Ayelet Merger Subsidiary, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Ayelet.  Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of
James H. Desnick, M.D.  The aggregate merger consideration is
approximately $57.2 million.

On July 14, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, State of Maryland,
captioned Noble Equity Fund, LP v. Conmed Healthcare Management,
Inc., et. al., Case No.:  02-C-11-162695 on behalf of a putative
class of Company stockholders and naming as defendants the
Company, all the members of the Company's Board of Directors,
Ayelet Investments LLC and Ayelet Merger Subsidiary, Inc.  The
plaintiffs generally allege that, in connection with the approval
of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, the members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Company
stockholders by, among other things, (i) failing to take steps to
maximize the value of the Company to its stockholders because the
merger consideration of $3.85 per share allegedly does not reflect
the true value of Company stock, and (ii) creating supposedly
preclusive deal protection devices in the Agreement and Plan of
Merger.  The plaintiffs further allege that Ayelet Investments LLC
and Ayelet Merger Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted the members
of the Board of Directors in the alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a
declaration that the members of the Board of Directors have
breached their fiduciary duties and that the stockholder vote
should be enjoined, an injunction barring consummation of the
merger or rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
merger, and damages and attorneys' fees.  On August 5, 2011, the
plaintiffs served document requests on all defendants.  On August
9, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint,
adding additional allegations that, among other things, (i) the
sales process purportedly favored James Desnick over other
bidders; (ii) the members of the Board of Directors were allegedly
acting to advance their own interests at the expense of Company
stockholders; and (iii) the members of the Board of Directors
purportedly failed to comply with their disclosure obligations in
the preliminary proxy statement filed on July 21, 2011.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Citadel Merger-Related Suit in Del. Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware class action complaint relating to Cumulus Media Inc.'s
merger transaction with Citadel Broadcasting Corporation has been
dismissed, according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 9, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, Cumulus Media
Holdings Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
and Cadet Merger Corporation, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary
of the Company.

On May 6, 2011, two purported common stockholders of Citadel filed
a putative class action complaint against Citadel, its board of
directors, Cumulus Media, Holdco, and Merger Sub in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On July 19, 2011, the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an amended complaint
alleging that Citadel's directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Citadel's stockholders by approving the merger for allegedly
inadequate consideration, following an allegedly unfair sale
process, and by failing to disclose material information related
to the merger.  The amended complaint further alleges that
Citadel, Cumulus Media, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted
these alleged fiduciary breaches.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, an order enjoining the merger, a declaration that
the action is properly maintainable as a class action, and
rescission of the merger agreement, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  Also on July 19, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Delaware
action filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings.  On July 20,
2011, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, seeking an order preliminarily enjoining
the merger.  On August 1, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Delaware
action filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Court of Chancery
Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissing their claims against all the
defendants without prejudice.  On August 3, 2011, the plaintiffs
in the Delaware action filed a revised notice and proposed Order
of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) seeking dismissal of
their claims against all defendants without prejudice.  This Order
of Dismissal was granted on August 5, 2011, dismissing all claims.

Cumulus Media Inc. is the second largest radio broadcasting
company in the United States based on the number of stations owned
or managed.  As of June 30, 2011, the Company owned or managed 312
radio stations in 60 mid-sized United States media markets and
operated 34 radio stations in eight markets, including San
Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta that are owned by Cumulus
Media Partners, LLC.  The Company also provided sales and
marketing services to 9 radio stations in the United States under
LMAs.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action complaint in Nevada over its merger transaction with
Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 14, 2011, Citadel, its board of directors and Cumulus
Media were named in a putative stockholder class action complaint
filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, by a
purported Citadel stockholder.  On March 23, 2011, these same
defendants, as well as Holdco and Merger Sub, were named in a
second putative stockholder class action complaint filed in the
same court by another purported Citadel stockholder.  The
complaints allege that Citadel's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the merger for allegedly inadequate
consideration and following an allegedly unfair sale process.  The
complaint in the first action also alleges that Citadel's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly withholding
material information relating to the merger.  The two complaints
further allege that Citadel and Cumulus Media aided and abetted
the Citadel directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and
the complaint filed in the second action alleges, additionally,
that Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The complaints seek, among other
things, a declaration that the action can proceed as a class
action, an order enjoining the completion of the merger,
rescission of the merger, attorneys' fees, and such other relief
as the court deems just and proper.  The complaint filed in the
second action also seeks rescissory damages.  On June 23, 2011,
the court consolidated the two Nevada actions and appointed lead
counsel.  On July 29, 2011, lead counsel filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal dismissing the claims of one of the two Nevada
plaintiffs against all the defendants without prejudice, because
the plaintiff no longer had standing to pursue claims on his own
behalf or on behalf of the putative class.  The claims of the
putative class have not yet been dismissed.

Cumulus Media Inc. is the second largest radio broadcasting
company in the United States based on the number of stations owned
or managed.  As of June 30, 2011, the Company owned or managed 312
radio stations in 60 mid-sized United States media markets and
operated 34 radio stations in eight markets, including San
Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta that are owned by Cumulus
Media Partners, LLC.  The Company also provided sales and
marketing services to 9 radio stations in the United States under
LMAs.


DIRECTV: To Seek Arbitration in Early Cancellation Fee Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV intends to move to compel arbitration in class action
lawsuits challenging its early cancellation fees, according to the
Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments.  Several of these
lawsuits are pending -- some in California state court purporting
to represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts
purporting to represent nationwide classes.  The lawsuits seek
both monetary and injunctive relief.  While the theories of
liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under
state consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately
disclosed to customers.  In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Company
intends to move to compel these cases to arbitration in accordance
with the Company's Customer Agreement.  The Company believes that
its early cancellation fees are adequately disclosed, and
represent reasonable estimates of the costs it incurs when
customers cancel service before fulfilling their programming
commitments.


GENERAL MOTORS: Continues to Defend Canadian Dealer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed by dealers of its Canadian affiliate,
according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited on
behalf of a purported class of over 200 former Canadian GMCL
dealers which had entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL.  In
May 2009, in the context of the global restructuring of the
business and the possibility that GMCL might be required to
initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the Plaintiff
Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from
the GMCL Canadian dealer network and to facilitate winding down
their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or
such other date as GMCL approved but no later than upon the
expiration of the Plaintiff Dealers' Dealer Sales and Service
Agreements on October 31, 2010.  The Plaintiff Dealers allege that
the DSSAs were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to
comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory
duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff
Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the
Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements.  The
Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down
agreements are rescindable.  The Plaintiff Dealers' initial
pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" C$750 million,
without explanation of any specific measure of damages.  On
March 1, 2011 the Court approved certification of a class for the
purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues,
including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good
faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association;
(3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement
and/or disclose more specific information regarding its
restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down
agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff
Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to
proving individual damages).  On June 22, 2011 the court granted
GMCL permission to appeal the class certification decision.  At
this juncture, the prospects for liability are uncertain, but
because liability is not deemed probable, the Company has no
accrual relating to this litigation.  In addition, the Company
cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in the event
of liability, as the case presents a variety of different legal
theories, none of which GMCL believes are valid, on behalf of a
large number of Plaintiff Dealers, each of which presents
substantial differences in underlying facts and circumstances
which GMCL believes should affect both potential liability and
recoverable damages, if any, on an individual basis.


GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Healthcare Suit Hearings Set this Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various hearings, including a class certification hearing, in the
purported class action lawsuits filed in relation to the
healthcare benefits of employees of General Motors Company's
Canadian subsidiary are set this month, according to the Company's
August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On December 22, 2009, in furtherance of implementing its
restructuring plan as approved by the Canadian Federal and Ontario
governments, General Motors of Canada Limited initiated a class
action proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against
a group of hourly retirees and surviving spouses residing in
provinces other than Quebec, seeking a declaration that GMCL has
the right to unilaterally amend and terminate the postretirement
healthcare benefits provided to those retirees and surviving
spouses.  On May 5, 2010 a group of Quebec hourly retiree and
surviving spouses initiated a class action proceeding in the
Quebec Superior Court of Justice against GMCL and the Canadian
Autoworkers Union, seeking a declaration regarding whether GMCL
has the right to unilaterally amend and terminate the
postretirement healthcare benefits provided to them.  Although the
Company believes that it may lawfully change retiree healthcare
benefits GMCL entered into negotiations with representatives of
the retirees seeking to consensually divest the responsibility for
the provision of such benefits to a healthcare trust to be
administered by a board of trustees independent from GMCL and
reached a tentative agreement to accomplish that result, which is
to be implemented through the applicable class action processes as
a settlement and is therefore subject to court approval.  On
July 4, 2011 an order was issued in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice to schedule hearings, in August 2011, on whether to
certify the class action and whether to approve the settlement.  A
similar order was entered in the Quebec proceeding on July 6,
2011.  The two courts ordered that notice of the certification and
settlement approval hearings be communicated to class members.
Notices were sent to class members in the Ontario action on
July 18, 2011 and to Quebec action class members on July 20, 2011.
Settlement agreement approval hearings are currently scheduled for
August 24-26, 2011 in the Ontario action and August 29-30, 2011 in
the Quebec action.  The procedural rules grant retirees the right
to opt out of the class.

In December 2009 and May 2010 in furtherance of implementing its
restructuring plan and pursuant to a June 2009 agreement between
GMCL and CAW to establish an independent Canadian Health Care
Trust to provide retiree healthcare benefits to certain active and
retired employees, litigation commenced regarding GMCL's right to
unilaterally amend and terminate postretirement healthcare
benefits.  The parties have reached a tentative agreement to
consensually resolve the litigation, which is subject to court
approval and was not yet implemented at June 30, 2011.  Subject to
preconditions being met, GMCL will be obligated to make a payment
of C$1.0 billion on the HCT implementation date which it will fund
out of its C$1.0 billion escrow funds, adjusted for the net
difference between the amount of retiree monthly contributions
received during the period January 1, 2010 through the HCT
implementation date less the cost of benefits paid for claims
incurred by covered employees during this period.  On the HCT
implementation date, GMCL will provide a C$800 million note
payable with interest accruing at an annual rate of 7.0% starting
January 1, 2010 with five equal annual installments of CAD $256
million due December 31 of 2014 through 2018.  In June 2011 GMCL
and the retiree representatives and their counsel agreed to a
settlement agreement which added two additional payments of
C$130 million each on December 31, 2014 and 2015.  Concurrent with
the implementation of the HCT, GMCL will be legally released from
all obligations associated with the cost of providing retiree
healthcare benefits to CAW active and retired employees bound by
the class action process.  The Company expects to account for the
related termination of CAW hourly retiree healthcare benefits as a
settlement, based upon the difference between the fair value of
the notes and cash contributed and the healthcare plan obligation
at the implementation date, which the Company anticipates in the
three months ending December 31, 2011.  As a result of conditions
precedent to this agreement not having yet been achieved, there
was no accounting recognition for the HCT at June 30, 2011.


GENTIVA HEALTH: "Rindfleisch" Suit Still in Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint entitled Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v.
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is still in the preliminary stage,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against the Company in which five former employees allege
wage and hour law violations. On October 8, 2010, the Court
granted the Company's motion to transfer the venue of the lawsuit
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. On April 13, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification of the action as a collective
action. The former employees claim they were paid pursuant to "an
unlawful hybrid" compensation plan that paid them on both a per
visit and an hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and
entitling them to overtime pay. The plaintiffs allege continuing
violations of federal and state law and seek damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as under the New York Labor Law
and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiffs seek class
certification of similar employees and seek attorneys' fees, back
wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the
FLSA, six years under the New York statute and two years under the
North Carolina statute.

Given the preliminary stage of the Rindfleisch lawsuit, the
Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential
liability, if any, arising from these proceedings on the business,
financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital
resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an
estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be
made for the lawsuit at this time. The Company intends to defend
itself vigorously in the lawsuit.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a provider of home health
services and hospice services serving patients through
approximately 450 locations located in 42 states.


GENTIVA HEALTH: "Wilkie" Suit Remains in Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed by Catherine Wilkie remains in the
preliminary stage, according to Gentiva Health Services, Inc.'s
August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California against the Company in which a former employee alleges
wage and hour violations under the FLSA and California law. The
complaint alleges that the Company paid some of its employees on
both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt
status and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint further
alleges that California employees were subject to violations of
state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, accurate wage
statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties, and damages
going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the
state wage and hour claims.

Given the preliminary stage of the Wilkie lawsuit, the Company is
unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if
any, arising from these proceedings on the business, financial
condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources
of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for the
lawsuit at this time. The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in the lawsuit.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a provider of home health
services and hospice services serving patients through
approximately 450 locations located in 42 states.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Awaits OK of Settlement in Odyssey Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is awaiting approval of a settlement
agreement in a consolidated putative class action arising from the
Company's acquisition of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., according to
the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Company's acquisition of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. The
first, entitled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al., was filed on May 27,
2010 in the County Court, Dallas County, Texas. The second,
entitled Eric Hemminger et al. v. Richard Burnham et al., was
filed on June 9, 2010 in the District Court, Dallas, Texas. The
third, entitled John O. Hansen v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al.,
was filed on July 2, 2010 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas. All three lawsuits name the
Company, GTO Acquisition Corp., Odyssey and the members of
Odyssey's board of directors as defendants. All three lawsuits are
brought by purported stockholders of Odyssey, both individually
and on behalf of a putative class of stockholders, alleging that
Odyssey's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger by failing to maximize shareholder
value and that the Company and Odyssey aided and abetted the
alleged breaches. On September 28, 2010, plaintiff in the
Hemminger action filed a motion for consolidation in the District
Court, seeking to consolidate the Hemminger action with the
Pompano Beach action. On October 8, 2010, the District Court
granted plaintiff's motion to consolidate and transferred the
Hemminger action to County Court No. 5 in Dallas County, Texas. On
October 12, 2010, Gentiva entered a general denial with respect to
the material allegations in both the Pompano Beach and Hemminger
complaints. On December 16, 2010, defendants in the actions
executed a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs Pompano
Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System, Eric Hemminger and
John O. Hansen reflecting an agreement in principle to settle each
of the actions for additional disclosures which were included in
Odyssey's Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, filed on
July 9, 2010. Defendants also agreed not to contest an application
for attorneys' fees to be made by plaintiffs, which application
shall not exceed $675,000. The settlement remains subject to
notice to the putative class and court approval.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a provider of home health
services and hospice services serving patients through
approximately 450 locations located in 42 states.


GENTIVA HEALTH: "Endress" Suit Still in Preliminary Stage in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Endress
v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. et al., is still in the
preliminary stage before a New York federal court, according to
the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On November 2, 2010, a putative shareholder class action
complaint, captioned Endress v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action,
which names the Company and certain current and former officers as
defendants, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment
System. The complaint alleges that the Company's public
disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company
improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to
patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates
under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the
price of the Company's common stock during the period between July
31, 2008 and July 20, 2010. On January 21, 2011, the Minneapolis
Police Relief Association moved to intervene as a named plaintiff
in the action and further requested that, to the extent its motion
was granted, the Court appoint it lead plaintiff. On February 7,
2011, the defendants filed a limited objection to the motion to
intervene and, on February 17, 2011, the MPRA responded. On July
19, 2011, the Court granted the MPRA's motion to intervene as a
named plaintiff, but denied, without prejudice, its request to be
appointed lead plaintiff. On July 25, 2011, plaintiff Endress
filed a motion seeking to withdraw as plaintiff, and the MPRA
renewed its motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint, and given the
preliminary stage of this action, the Company is unable to assess
the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from
this action on the business, financial condition, results of
operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The
Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss can be made for this action at this time.
The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in this
action.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a provider of home health
services and hospice services serving patients through
approximately 450 locations located in 42 states.


GNC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Hydroxycut-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself from putative class
action lawsuits relating to the recall of Hydroxycut-branded
products, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 1, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning
on several Hydroxycut-branded products manufactured by Iovate
Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc.  The FDA warning was based on 23
reports of liver injuries from consumers who claimed to have used
the products between 2002 and 2009.  As a result, Iovate
voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded products.  Following
the recall, the Company was named, among other defendants, in
approximately 85 lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded products
in 13 states.  Iovate previously accepted the Company's tender
request for defense and indemnification under its purchasing
agreement with the Company and, as such, Iovate has accepted the
Company's request for defense and indemnification in the
Hydroxycut matters.  The Company's ability to obtain full recovery
in respect of any claims against the Company in connection with
products manufactured by Iovate under the indemnity is dependent
on Iovate's insurance coverage, the creditworthiness of its
insurer, and the absence of significant defenses by such insurer.
To the extent the Company is not fully compensated by Iovate's
insurer, it can seek recovery directly from Iovate.  The Company's
ability to fully recover such amounts may be limited by the
creditworthiness of Iovate.

As of June 30, 2011, there were 76 pending lawsuits related to
Hydroxycut in which the Company had been named: 70 individual,
largely personal injury claims and six putative class action
cases, generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud,
misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of warranty.  As
any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable
or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been
accrued in the accompanying financial statements.

By court order dated October 6, 2009, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial
proceedings of many of the pending actions in the Southern
District of California (In re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087).


GOV'T OF GUAM: Three Officials Added in Tax Refund Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Salas Matanane, writing for Kuam News, reports that it
appears Department of Administration Director Benita Manglona
wasn't the only one summoned in the federal class action lawsuit
involving the payment of past due tax refunds; summons were also
issued to Governor Eddie Baza Calvo and Department of Revenue and
Taxation Director John Camacho.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint to
their initial lawsuit.  It was in April, Ria and Jeffrey Paeste
along with Sharon Zapanta filed the class action suit to compel
the government of Guam to pay close to $270 million in past due
tax refunds.  In the amended complaint, Glenn Zapanta has joined
in on the litigation as a plaintiff and added as defendants were
Governor Calvo, Ms. Manglona and Mr. Camacho.  The three are being
sued in their official capacities.

According to the amended complaint the plaintiffs are now asking
that the government be forced to budget and pay current and future
tax refunds on time.  They are also asking that the defendants be
required to implement a program wherein expedited payments of tax
refunds are based on verifiable and consistent criteria, and
oversight, "wherein one's prospects for having a request be
approved do not depend on one's political connections or on who
happens to review the request," court documents state.

Governor Calvo has said the class action lawsuit was another
reason why lawmakers should act on his bond borrowing plan to pay
out all past due tax refunds that are owed.


IMH FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint filed last month by plaintiffs in a
consolidated class action lawsuit against IMH Financial
Corporation is pending in Delaware, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

IMH Financial Corporation, IFC or the Company, was formed from the
conversion of IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC, or the Fund, on June 18,
2010.  The conversion was effected following a consent
solicitation process pursuant to which approval was obtained from
a majority of the members of the Fund to effect a series of
transactions referred to as the Conversion Transactions which
involved (i) the conversion of the Fund from a Delaware limited
liability company into a Delaware corporation named IMH Financial
Corporation, and (ii) the acquisition by IFC of all of the
outstanding shares of the manager of the Fund, Investors Mortgage
Holdings Inc., or the Manager, as well as all of the outstanding
membership interests of a related entity, IMH Holdings LLC, or
Holdings, on June 18, 2010.

Three proposed class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (May 26, 2010, June 15, 2010 and June 17, 2010)
against the Company and its affiliated named individuals and
entities.  The May 26 and June 15, 2010 lawsuits contain similar
allegations, claiming that fiduciary duties owed to Fund members
and to the Fund were breached because the Conversion Transactions
were unfair to Fund members, constitute self-dealing and because
the Form S-4 and/or information provided about the Form S-4 or
Conversion Transactions are false and misleading.  The June 17,
2010 lawsuit focuses on whether the Conversion Transactions
constitute a "roll up" transaction under the Fund's operating
agreement, and seeks damages for breach of the operating
agreement.  The Company and its affiliated named individuals and
entities dispute these claims and will defend vigorously against
these actions.

An action was filed on June 14, 2010, by Fund members Ronald Tucek
and Cliff Ratliff, as well as LGM Capital Partners, LLC (also
known as The Committee to Protect IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC) in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and affiliated
named individuals and entities.  The June 14, 2010 lawsuit claims
that fiduciary duties and the duty of disclosure owed to Fund
members and to the Fund were breached because the Conversion
Transactions were unfair to Fund members, constitute self-dealing
and because the Form S-4 and/or information provided about the
Form S-4 or Conversion Transactions were false and misleading.
Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought to enjoin the Conversion
Transactions, have an independent advisor appointed on behalf of
Fund members, remove the Manager and obtain access to contact
information for Fund members and certain broker-dealers. The
Company and its affiliated named individuals and entities dispute
these claims and will defend vigorously against this action.

In July 2010, the parties in the four actions filed various
motions and/or briefs seeking competing forms of consolidation
and/or coordination of the four actions.  During a hearing on
these motions on October 14, 2010, the parties in the respective
actions agreed to consolidate the four actions for all purposes,
subject to certain provisions with "respect to the unique
individual count brought" by the Tucek plaintiffs.  On
October 25, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
respective parties' proposed "Order of Consolidation and
Appointment of Co-lead Plaintiffs: Counsel and Co-Liaison
Counsel," which, among other things, consolidated the four
actions, ordered that a consolidated complaint shall be filed
within 45 days of October 25, 2010, followed by consolidated
discovery and designated the plaintiffs' counsel from the May 25,
2010 and June 17, 2010 lawsuits as co-lead counsel.  The
consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 17,
2010. Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss on January 31, 2011.
At a hearing on June 13, 2011 on the motion to dismiss, the
Chancery Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice.  Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a new verified
complaint entitled "Amended and Supplemental Consolidated Class
Action Complaint" on July 15, 2011.

The consolidated action is in its early stage and it is not
possible to estimate at this time the range of exposure, if any,
the consolidated action presents.  However, the Company and its
affiliated named individuals and entities dispute these claims and
will defend vigorously against these actions.


JBI INC: Sept. 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
September 26, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of JBI, Inc. stock during the
period from August 28, 2009 through July 20, 2011.  You can join
the class action and seek to recover your investment losses.

To join the JBI class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free,
at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail jhorne@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

The Complaint alleges that JBI materially overstated its income in
connection with its acquisition of JavaCo, Inc. in 2009.  On
May 21, 2010, JBI disclosed that its previously issued financial
statements for the 2009 fiscal year and third quarter should no
longer be relied upon.  On July 14, 2011, the Securities and
Exchange Commission advised the Company that it was recommending
enforcement action against it and possibly one or more of its
former officers as a result of the Company having issued
materially inaccurate financial statements.

News that JBI was required to restate its financial statements and
was subject to an SEC enforcement action for violation of the
federal securities laws has caused its stock price to drop
substantially, damaging investors.

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.

You may participate in the securities class action lawsuit to
recover your investment losses.  If you purchased JBI stock,
please visit the Web site at http://rosenlegal.comto participate
in the class action and to obtain more information.  You may also
contact Jonathan Horne of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting a ruling on its motions to
dismiss class action lawsuits relating to its sales of auction-
rate securities, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Firm faces a number of civil actions relating to the Firm's
sales of auction-rate securities, including a putative securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York that seeks unspecified damages, and
individual arbitrations and lawsuits in various forums brought by
institutional and individual investors that, together, seek
damages totaling more than $200 million relating to the Firm's
sales of auction-rate securities.  One action is brought by an
issuer of auction-rate securities.  The actions generally allege
that the Firm and other firms manipulated the market for auction-
rate securities by placing bids at auctions that affected these
securities' clearing rates or otherwise supported the auctions
without properly disclosing these activities.  Some actions also
allege that the Firm misrepresented that auction-rate securities
were short-term instruments.  The Firm has filed motions to
dismiss each of the actions pending in federal court, which are
being coordinated before the federal District Court in New York.
These motions are currently pending.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Antitrust Suits Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order dismissing two putative antitrust class
actions filed against JPMorgan Chase & Co. remains pending,
according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

The Firm was named in two putative antitrust class actions pending
in the federal District Court in New York.  The actions allege
that the Firm, along with numerous other financial institution
defendants, colluded to maintain and stabilize the auction-rate
securities market and then to withdraw their support for the
auction-rate securities market.  In January 2010, the District
Court dismissed both actions.  An appeal is pending in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Bear Stearns Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a joined securities class action lawsuit
filed by Bear Stearns shareholders, according to JPMorgan Chase &
Co.'s Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced purported
class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former
officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between
December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008.  During the Class Period,
Bear Stearns had between 115 million and 120 million common shares
outstanding, and the price per share of those securities declined
from a high of $172.61 to a low of $30 at the end of the period.
The actions, originally commenced in several federal courts,
allege that the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding Bear Stearns' business and financial results
and that, as a result of those false statements, Bear Stearns'
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.  Separately, several individual shareholders of Bear
Stearns have commenced or threatened to commence arbitration
proceedings and lawsuits asserting claims similar to those in the
putative class actions.  Certain of these matters have been
dismissed or settled.  In addition, Bear Stearns and certain of
its former officers and directors have also been named as
defendants in a number of purported class actions commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking to represent the interests of participants in the Bear
Stearns Employee Stock Ownership Plan during the time period of
December 2006 to March 2008.  These actions, brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, allege that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and to the other
participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP by (a) failing to
manage prudently the ESOP's investment in Bear Stearns securities;
(b) failing to communicate fully and accurately about the risks of
the ESOP's investment in Bear Stearns stock; (c) failing to avoid
or address alleged conflicts of interest; and (d) failing to
monitor those who managed and administered the ESOP.

Bear Stearns, former members of Bear Stearns' Board of Directors
and certain of Bear Stearns' former executive officers have also
been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative and class
action suit which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs assert claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of federal securities
laws, waste of corporate assets and gross mismanagement, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control and indemnification and contribution
in connection with the losses sustained by Bear Stearns as a
result of its purchases of subprime loans and certain repurchases
of its own common stock.  Certain individual defendants are also
alleged to have sold their holdings of Bear Stearns common stock
while in possession of material nonpublic information.  Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

All of the actions filed in federal courts were ordered
transferred and joined for pre-trial purposes before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Defendants moved to dismiss the purported securities class action,
the shareholders' derivative action and the ERISA action.  In
January 2011, the District Court granted the motions to dismiss
the derivative and ERISA actions, and denied the motion as to the
securities action.  Plaintiffs in the derivative action have filed
a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal as well as an
appeal.  Plaintiffs in the ESOP action have filed a motion to
alter the judgment and for leave to amend their amended
consolidated complaint.  Discovery is ongoing in the securities
action.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal on Enron-related Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a purported class action
lawsuit related to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s banking relationship
with Enron Corp. remains pending, according to the Company's
August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase and certain of its officers and directors are
involved in several lawsuits seeking damages arising out of the
Firm's banking relationships with Enron Corp. and its
subsidiaries.  A number of actions and other proceedings against
the Firm previously were resolved, including a class action
lawsuit captioned Newby v. Enron Corp. and adversary proceedings
brought by Enron's bankruptcy estate.  The remaining Enron-related
actions include individual actions by Enron investors, an action
by an Enron counterparty, and a purported class action filed on
behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who participated in the Firm's
401(k) plan asserting claims under the ERISA for alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named
officers.  That action has been dismissed, and is on appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Interchange Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action complaint relating to Visa and
Mastercard's credit and debit card interchange fees, according to
the Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

A group of merchants has filed a series of putative class action
complaints in several federal courts.  The complaints allege that
Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain other banks and their
respective bank holding companies, conspired to set the price of
credit and debit card interchange fees, enacted respective
association rules in violation of antitrust laws, and engaged in
tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on the theory that
interchange would be lower or eliminated but for the challenged
conduct.  Based on publicly available estimates, Visa and
MasterCard branded payment cards generated approximately $40
billion of interchange fees industry-wide in 2009.  All cases have
been consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings.  The Court
has dismissed all claims relating to periods prior to January
2004.  The Court has not yet ruled on motions relating to the
remainder of the case or plaintiffs' class certification motion.
Fact and expert discovery have closed.

In addition to the consolidated class action complaint, plaintiffs
filed supplemental complaints challenging the initial public
offerings of MasterCard and Visa.  With respect to the MasterCard
IPO, plaintiffs allege that the offering violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the offering
was a fraudulent conveyance.  With respect to the Visa IPO,
plaintiffs are challenging the Visa IPO on antitrust theories
parallel to those articulated in the MasterCard IPO pleading.

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the IPO Complaints.  The
Court has not yet ruled on those motions.  The parties also have
filed motions seeking summary judgment as to various claims in the
complaints.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Madoff-related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed in relation to its being a long-time bank of
Bernard L. Madoff, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan
Securities LLC, and JPMorgan Securities Ltd. have been named as
defendants in a lawsuit brought by the trustee for the liquidation
of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.  The Trustee
recently served an amended complaint in which he has asserted 28
causes of action against JPMorgan Chase, 20 of which seek to avoid
certain transfers (direct or indirect) made to JPMorgan Chase that
are alleged to have been preferential or fraudulent under the
federal Bankruptcy Code and the New York Debtor and Creditor Law.
The remaining causes of action are for, among other things, aiding
and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
conversion and unjust enrichment.  The complaint generally alleges
that JPMorgan Chase, as Madoff's long-time bank, facilitated the
maintenance of Madoff's Ponzi scheme and overlooked signs of
wrongdoing in order to obtain profits and fees.  The complaint
purports to seek approximately $19 billion in damages from
JPMorgan Chase, and to recover approximately $425 million in
transfers that JPMorgan Chase allegedly received directly or
indirectly from Bernard Madoff's brokerage firm.  JPMorgan Chase's
motion to return the case from the Bankruptcy Court to the
District Court was granted in May 2011 and JPMorgan Chase has
moved to dismiss most of the Trustee's claims.

Separately, J.P. Morgan Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, JPMorgan
(Suisse) SA, J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., and Bear Stearns
Alternative Assets International Ltd. have been named as
defendants in several suits in Bankruptcy Court and state and
federal courts in New York arising out of the liquidation
proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma
Limited, the so-called Madoff feeder funds.  These actions
advanced theories of mistake and restitution and sought to recover
payments previously made to defendants by the funds totaling
approximately $140 million.  Fairfield and the Madoff Trustee
reached an agreement pursuant to which the complaints against
Cayman, Suisse, and JP Morgan Securities Ltd. will be dismissed
and that agreement has been approved by the court.

In addition, a purported class action is pending against JPMorgan
Chase in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, as is a motion by separate potential class
plaintiffs to add claims against JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities
Ltd. to an already-pending purported class action in the same
court.  The allegations in these complaints largely track those
raised by the Trustee.  The JPMorgan Chase entities have moved to
dismiss these actions.

Finally, JPMorgan Chase is a defendant in five actions pending in
the New York state court and one individual action in federal
court in New York.  The allegations in all of these actions are
essentially identical, and involve claims against the Firm for
aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion and unjust enrichment.  In the federal action,
the Firm prevailed on its motion to dismiss before the District
Court, and that decision was recently affirmed on appeal.  In the
state court actions, the Firm's motion to dismiss has been fully
briefed and the parties are awaiting the court's decision.  The
Firm is also responding to various governmental inquiries
concerning the Madoff matter.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Still Ongoing MBS-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in lawsuits over JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s role as issuer
or underwriter in mortgage-backed securities offerings are
ongoing, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase and affiliates, Bear Stearns and affiliates and
Washington Mutual affiliates have been named as defendants in a
number of cases in their various roles as issuer or underwriter in
mortgage-backed securities offerings.  These cases include
purported class action suits, actions by individual purchasers of
securities, actions by insurance companies that guaranteed
payments of principal and interest for particular tranches and an
action by a trustee.  Although the allegations vary by lawsuit,
these cases generally allege that the offering documents for more
than $160 billion of securities issued by dozens of securitization
trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions,
including statements regarding the underwriting standards pursuant
to which the underlying mortgage loans were issued, or assert that
various representations or warranties relating to the loans were
breached at the time of origination.

In the actions against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some
cases, also as an underwriter of its own MBS offerings), three
purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase and
Bear Stearns, and/or certain of their affiliates and current and
former employees, in the United States District Courts for the
Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.  Defendants moved to
dismiss these actions.  One of those motions has been granted in
part to dismiss claims relating to all but one of the offerings.
The other two motions remain pending.  In addition, Washington
Mutual affiliates, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. and WaMu Capital
Corp., along with certain former officers or directors of WaMu
Asset Acceptance Corp., have been named as defendants in three
now-consolidated purported class action cases pending in the
Western District of Washington.  Defendants' motion to dismiss was
granted in part to dismiss all claims relating to MBS offerings in
which a named plaintiff was not a purchaser.  Defendants have
since moved for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims
relating to all MBS Certificates of which a named plaintiff was
not a purchaser.  Plaintiffs have sought leave to amend their
complaint to add JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as a defendant on the
theory that it is a successor to Washington Mutual Bank.  The Firm
has opposed this request.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for
class certification, which defendants have opposed. Discovery is
ongoing.

In other actions brought against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and,
in some cases, also as an underwriter) certain JPMorgan Chase
entities, several Bear Stearns entities, and certain Washington
Mutual affiliates are defendants in ten separate individual
actions commenced by the Federal Home Loan Banks of Pittsburgh,
Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, Indianapolis, Atlanta and Boston
in various state courts around the country; and certain JPMorgan
Chase, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual entities are also among
the defendants named in separate individual actions commenced by
various institutional investors in federal and state courts.

EMC Mortgage Corporation, a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
and certain other JPMorgan Chase entities are defendants in six
pending actions commenced by bond insurers that guaranteed
payments of principal and interest on approximately $3.6 billion
of certain classes of seven different MBS offerings sponsored by
EMC.  Two of those actions, commenced by Assured Guaranty Corp.
and Syncora Guarantee, Inc., respectively, are pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Syncora has also filed an action in New York state court
alleging tort claims against arising out of the same transaction
as its original federal complaint.  The fourth action, filed by
Ambac Assurance Corporation, was dismissed on jurisdictional
grounds by the United States District for the Southern District of
New York.  The dismissal is on appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Ambac has also filed a nearly
identical complaint in New York state court.  The sixth action,
commenced by CIFG Assurance North America, Inc., is pending in
state court in Texas, but Defendants have filed a motion arguing
that New York is the superior forum.  In most of the actions, the
plaintiff claims that the underlying mortgage loans had
origination defects that purportedly violate certain
representations and warranties given by EMC to plaintiffs, and
that EMC has breached the relevant agreements between the parties
by failing to repurchase allegedly defective mortgage loans.  In
addition, the Ambac, CIFG and Syncora complaints allege fraudulent
inducement and tortious interference, though tortious interference
was dismissed from the Ambac federal action immediately before the
jurisdictional dismissal.  Each action seeks unspecified damages
and, except in the Syncora state complaint, an order compelling
EMC to repurchase those loans.  The CIFG complaint also seeks
punitive damages.

In the actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other
issuers' MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to
indemnification from the issuers, but those indemnity rights may
prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now defunct,
such as affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp and Thornburg Mortgage.
With respect to the IndyMac Trusts, JPMorgan Securities, along
with numerous other underwriters and individuals, is named as a
defendant, both in its own capacity and as successor to Bear
Stearns in a purported class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on
behalf of purchasers of securities in various IndyMac Trust MBS
offerings.  The court in that action has dismissed claims as to
certain such securitizations, including all offerings in which no
named plaintiff purchased securities, and allowed claims as to
other offerings to proceed.  Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class
of investors in certain offerings is pending, and discovery is
ongoing.  In addition, JPMorgan Securities and JPMorgan Chase are
named as defendants in an individual action filed by the Federal
Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh in connection with a single offering
by an affiliate of IndyMac Bancorp.  Discovery in that action is
ongoing.  Separately, JPMorgan Securities, as successor to Bear,
Stearns & Co. Inc., along with other underwriters and certain
individuals, are defendants in an action pending in state court in
California brought by MBIA Insurance Corp.  The action relates to
certain securities issued by IndyMac trusts in offerings in which
Bear Stearns was an underwriter, and as to which MBIA provided
guaranty insurance policies.  MBIA purports to be subrogated to
the rights of the MBS holders, and seeks recovery of sums it has
paid and will pay pursuant to those policies.  Discovery is
ongoing.  With respect to Thornburg, a Bear Stearns subsidiary is
also a named defendant in a purported class action pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico along
with a number of other financial institutions that served as
depositors and/or underwriters for three Thornburg MBS offerings.
Defendants have moved to dismiss this action.

A shareholder complaint has been filed in New York state court
against the Firm and two affiliates, members of the boards of
directors thereof and certain employees asserting claims based on
alleged wrongful actions and inactions relating to residential
mortgage originations and securitizations.  The action seeks an
accounting and damages.

In addition, the Firm has also received, and responded to, a
number of subpoenas and informal requests for information from
federal and state authorities concerning mortgage-related matters,
including inquiries concerning a number of transactions involving
the Firm's origination and purchase of whole loans, underwriting
and issuance of MBS, treatment of early payment defaults and
potential breaches of securitization representations and
warranties, due diligence in connection with securitizations and
the Firm's participation in offerings of certain collateralized
debt obligations.  JPMorgan Securities has resolved the
investigation by the SEC's Division of Enforcement regarding
certain collateralized debt obligations.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Mortgage Foreclosure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits relating to servicing, foreclosure and loss mitigation
processes, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Multiple state and federal officials have announced investigations
into the procedures followed by mortgage servicing companies and
banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates, relating
to servicing, foreclosure and loss mitigation processes.  The Firm
is cooperating with these investigations, and these investigations
could result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies
(including requiring default servicing or other process changes),
or other enforcement actions, as well as significant legal costs
in responding to governmental investigations and additional
litigation.  The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the
Federal Reserve have issued Consent Orders as to JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., and JPMorgan Chase & Co., respectively.  In their
Orders, the regulators have mandated significant changes to the
Firm's servicing and default business and outlined requirements to
implement these changes.  Included in these requirements is the
retention of an independent consultant to conduct an independent
review of (and reimbursement of borrowers who sustained economic
harm from) residential foreclosure actions or proceedings for
loans serviced by the Firm that have been pending at any time from
January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010, as well as residential
foreclosure sales that occurred during this time period.  These
regulators have reserved the right to impose civil monetary
penalties at a later date.  Investigations by other state and
federal authorities remain pending.  Though the Firm has been in
discussions with state and federal authorities about a potential
global settlement of claims, there can be no assurance that any
resolution will be reached.

Four purported class action lawsuits have also been filed against
the Firm relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures.
Additionally, the Firm is defending a purported class action
brought against Bank of America involving an EMC Mortgage
Corporation loan.  One of the cases has been voluntarily dismissed
with prejudice by the plaintiff.  The Firm has moved to dismiss
two of the remaining cases.  In the fourth case, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, which the Firm will move to dismiss.

A shareholder derivative action has been filed in New York state
court against the Firm's board of directors alleging that the
board failed to exercise adequate oversight as to wrongful conduct
by the Firm regarding mortgage servicing.  The action seeks a
declaratory judgment and damages.

As of January 2011, the Firm had resumed initiation of new
foreclosure proceedings in nearly all states in which it had
previously suspended such proceedings, utilizing revised
procedures in connection with the execution of affidavits and
other documents used by Firm employees in the foreclosure process.
The Firm is also in the process of reviewing pending foreclosure
matters to determine whether remediation of specific documentation
is necessary, and is resuming pending foreclosures as the review,
and if necessary, remediation, of each pending matter is
completed.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Municipal Derivatives Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed
against JPMorgan Chase & Co. in connection with the bidding or
sale of guaranteed investment contracts and derivatives to
municipal issuers, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Department of Justice (in conjunction with the Internal
Revenue Service), the Securities and Exchange Commission, a group
of state attorneys general, the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York investigated the
Firm for possible antitrust, securities and tax-related violations
in connection with the bidding or sale of guaranteed investment
contracts and derivatives to municipal issuers.  In July 2011, the
Firm reached settlements with all of the government agencies to
resolve these investigations.  The settlements cover conduct in or
prior to 2006.  Under the terms of the settlements, the Firm
entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ, and will
pay a net amount of $211 million to the other government agencies.
The Firm also agreed to implement measures to strengthen board
oversight and compliance risk management programs relating to
certain types of transactions.

Purported class action lawsuits and individual actions have been
filed against JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, as well as numerous
other providers and brokers, alleging antitrust violations in the
reportedly $100 billion to $300 billion annual market for
financial instruments related to municipal bond offerings referred
to collectively as "municipal derivatives."  The Municipal
Derivatives Actions have been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The court
denied in part and granted in part defendants' motions to dismiss
the purported class and individual actions, permitting certain
claims to proceed against the Firm and others under federal and
California state antitrust laws and under the California false
claims act.  Subsequently, a number of additional individual
actions asserting substantially similar claims, including claims
under New York and West Virginia state antitrust statutes, were
filed against JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns and numerous other
defendants.  All of these cases have been coordinated for pretrial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Discovery is ongoing.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Mandamus Petition in Ala. Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A mandamus petition in a purported class action lawsuit filed by
Jefferson County, Alabama against JPMorgan Chase & Co. remains
pending, according to the Company's August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Following J.P. Morgan Securities' November 4, 2009, settlement
with the SEC in connection with certain Jefferson County, Alabama
warrant underwritings and swap transactions, various parties have
brought civil litigation against the Firm.  The County and a
putative class of sewer rate payers have filed complaints against
the Firm and several other defendants in Alabama state court.  The
suits allege that the Firm made payments to certain third parties
in exchange for being chosen to underwrite more than $3 billion in
warrants issued by the County and chosen as the counterparty for
certain swaps executed by the County.  The complaints also allege
that the Firm concealed these third-party payments and that, but
for this concealment, the County would not have entered into the
transactions.  The Court denied the Firm's motions to dismiss the
complaints in both proceedings.  The Firm filed a mandamus
petition with the Alabama Supreme Court, seeking immediate
appellate review of this decision.  The mandamus petition in the
County's lawsuit was denied in April 2011. The mandamus petition
in the lawsuit brought by sewer ratepayers remains pending.

Separately, two insurance companies that guaranteed the payment of
principal and interest on warrants issued by Jefferson County have
filed separate actions against the Firm in New York state court.
Their complaints assert that the Firm fraudulently misled them
into issuing insurance based upon substantially the same alleged
conduct and other alleged non-disclosures.  One insurer claims
that it insured an aggregate principal amount of nearly $1.2
billion and seeks unspecified damages in excess of $400 million,
as well as unspecified punitive damages.  The other insurer claims
that it insured an aggregate principal amount of more than $378
million and seeks recovery of $4 million allegedly paid under the
policies to date as well as any future payments and unspecified
punitive damages.  In December 2010, the court denied the Firm's
motions to dismiss each of the complaints.  Discovery is
proceeding.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Ongoing in Overdraft Fee Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action lawsuit
relating to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s practices in posting debit
card transactions to customers' deposit accounts, according to
JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in several
purported class actions relating to its practices in posting debit
card transactions to customers' deposit accounts.  Plaintiffs
allege that the Firm improperly re-ordered debit card transactions
from the highest amount to lowest amount before processing these
transactions in order to generate unwarranted overdraft fees.
Plaintiffs contend that the Firm should have processed such
transactions in the chronological order they were authorized.
Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of all overdraft fees paid to the
Firm by plaintiffs since approximately 2003 as a result of the re-
ordering of debit card transactions.  The claims against the Firm
have been consolidated with numerous complaints against other
national banks in Multi-District Litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
Firm's motion to compel arbitration of certain plaintiffs' claims
was denied by the District Court.  That ruling is currently on
appeal.  Discovery is proceeding in the District Court.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Securities Lending Suits Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Putative class action lawsuits filed against JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., relating to its securities lending business remains pending,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in four
putative class actions asserting Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and other claims pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York brought by
participants in the Firm's securities lending business.  A fifth
lawsuit was filed in New York state court by an individual
participant in the program.  Three of the purported class actions,
which have been consolidated, relate to investments of
approximately $500 million in medium-term notes of Sigma Finance
Inc.  In August 2010, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of all securities lending participants that held Sigma
medium-term notes on September 30, 2008, including those that held
the notes by virtue of participation in the investment of cash
collateral through a collective fund, as well as those that held
the notes by virtue of the investment of cash collateral through
individual accounts.  All discovery has been completed.  JPMorgan
Chase has moved for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs'
duty of loyalty claim, in which it is alleged that the Firm
created an impermissible conflict of interest by providing
repurchase financing to Sigma while also holding Sigma medium-term
notes in securities lending accounts.

The fourth putative class action concerns investments of
approximately $500 million in Lehman Brothers medium-term notes.
The Firm has moved to dismiss the amended complaint and is
awaiting a decision.  Discovery is proceeding while the motion is
pending.  The New York state court action, which is not a class
action, concerns the plaintiff's alleged loss of money in both
Sigma and Lehman Brothers medium-term notes.  The Firm has
answered the complaint.  Discovery is proceeding.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Final Approval of SCRA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting final approval of a settlement in
a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Service Members Civil Relief Act, according to the Company's
August 5, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Multiple government officials have announced inquiries into the
Firm's procedures related to the Service Members Civil Relief Act
and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.  These
inquiries have been prompted by the Firm's public statements about
its SCRA and HERA compliance and actions to remedy certain
instances in which the Firm mistakenly charged active or recently-
active military personnel mortgage interest and fees in excess of
that permitted by SCRA and HERA, and in a number of instances,
foreclosed on borrowers protected by SCRA and HERA.  The Firm has
implemented a number of procedural enhancements and controls to
strengthen its SCRA and HERA compliance.  In addition, an
individual borrower filed a nationwide class action in United
States District Court for South Carolina against the Firm alleging
violations of the SCRA related to home loans.  The Firm agreed to
pay $27 million plus attorneys' fees, in addition to
reimbursements previously paid by the Firm, to settle the class
action.  The settlement has received preliminary approval by the
court and is subject to final court approval.


LADUE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Teachers File Class Action Over New Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a new state
law, which requires school districts to report substantiated
allegations of teachers' sexual misconduct to districts that seek
a reference, contains an unconstitutional provision that prevent
teachers from communicating online with their own children, a
teacher claims in a federal class action.

The Amy Hestir Student Protection Act requires school districts to
report substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct by former
educators to another school district that seeks a reference for
the educator.

History shows that school districts across the nation, afraid of
scandal, have silently passed along sexually predatory teachers
for years.

Missouri is believed to be the first state to draw a line against
that.  The law is scheduled to take effect on Aug. 28.

But named plaintiff Christina Thomas claims that a section of
Missouri's new law, which limits online contact between teachers
and students on social networking Web sites, would prohibit her
from communicating online with her own child.

Ms. Thomas is a teacher with Ladue School District, and her
children attend school there.

"Ladue School District has notified its teachers that they cannot
have exclusive communications with their own children on Facebook,
if they meet the statutory definition of student or former
student," the complaint states.

"Specifically, plaintiff and other teachers at Ladue School
District were notified in writing that because of the statute they
will be prohibited from communicating exclusively through Facebook
or other social-networking sites with their own children or
members of their Sunday school classes, athletic teams, or scout
troops 'unless or until exceptions are enacted[,]' if the children
are students or former students as defined by the statute.

"Upon information and belief there are many students whose parents
want them to have the ability to communicate with plaintiff and
members of the plaintiff class in a manner prohibited by" the law.

The class, represented by Anthony Rothert of the American Civil
Liberties Union, claims the law violates the First and 14th
Amendments.

The complaint has a plaintiff class and two defendant classes.
The plaintiff class consists of all Missouri teachers.  The
defendant classes consist of all Missouri school districts and
their superintendents.  Seven individual members of the Missouri
State Board of Education are named as defendants as well.  Ladue
is an affluent suburb of St. Louis.  It has the highest median
income of any city in Missouri.

A copy of the Complaint in Thomas v. Ladue School District, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-01453 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/22/MoTeachCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony E. Rothert, Esq.
          Grant R. Doty, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF EASTERN MISSOURI
          454 Whittier Street
          St. Louis, MO 63108
          Telephone: (314) 652-3114
          E-mail: tony@aclu-em.org
                  grant@aclu-em.org


LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Settles Missouri Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs and LegalZoom.com, Inc. have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the class action lawsuit captioned Janson v.
LegalZoom.com, Inc., in the United States District Court in the
State of Missouri.  The Plaintiffs alleged claims related to
LegalZoom's offering of legal self-help products over the
Internet.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, LegalZoom can continue
to offer its services to Missouri residents with certain business
modifications.  The proposed settlement contains no admission or
finding of wrongdoing by LegalZoom.

The settlement of the lawsuit avoids a prolonged and costly trial
in a case where the plaintiffs never claimed that the documents
they purchased from LegalZoom were defective in any way, stated
attorneys for LegalZoom.  While LegalZoom continues to dispute the
basis of the allegations in this case, it believes it is in the
best interests of the Company and its customers to move forward
with a settlement.

Terms of the proposed settlement are currently being negotiated
and will be released after they have been fully approved by all
sides.

                       About LegalZoom.com

LegalZoom -- http://www.legalzoom.com-- is a provider of online
legal document services and legal plans to families and small
businesses.  The company is headquartered in Glendale, California,
with regional headquarters in Austin, Texas.


LIVEDEAL INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
LiveDeal, Inc., continues to defend itself against a consumer
fraud lawsuit in Washington, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On June 6, 2008, Plaintiff Global Education Services, Inc. ("GES")
filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the Company in
King County (Washington) Superior Court.  GES has alleged in its
complaint that the Company's use of activator checks violated the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.  GES sought injunctive relief
against the Company's use of the checks, as well as judgment in an
amount equal to three times the alleged damages sustained by GES
and the members of the class.  LiveDeal has denied the
allegations.  Early in 2010, the Court denied both parties'
dispositive motions after oral argument.  Active litigation is
temporarily suspended, but Plaintiff sought to restart the
litigation through arbitration.

On August 1, 2011, the parties participated in an arbitration
hearing regarding the status of a settlement agreement previously
considered in their attempts to resolve the matter.  GES argued
that the settlement agreement should be reformed to provide for a
higher settlement amount (or, in the alternative, rescinded), and
the Company argued that the agreement should be enforced as
written (or, in the alternative, rescinded).  The arbitrator
rescinded the settlement agreement and awarded fees and costs to
the plaintiffs.  It is estimated that the request for fees and
costs will be about $40,000.

LiveDeal, Inc. provides local customer acquisition services for
small businesses.  LiveDeal, through its two primary wholly owned
subsidiaries (Velocity Marketing Concepts, Inc. and Local
Marketing Experts, Inc.), offers an affordable way for businesses
to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant customers via
the Internet.


MAGNUM D'OR RESOURCES: Law Firms Dismiss Florida Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Sarraf Gentile LLP and Vianale & Vianale LLP on
Aug. 22 disclosed that they have voluntarily dismissed, without
prejudice, the class action lawsuit that they filed on July 18,
2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, case number 11-cv-61591, against Magnum d'Or
Resources Inc.

The action was brought on behalf of purchasers of Magnum stock
between July 2, 2008 and April 13, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint
asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.


MILLER ENERGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action
lawsuit against Miller Energy Resources, Inc. on August 22, 2011.

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on
behalf of purchasers of common stock from December 16, 2009,
through and including August 1, 2011.

Berman DeValerio brought the complaint against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The case is
filed as 3:11-cv-00397.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff are required to
file a motion for appointment with the court no later than
October 11, 2011.

The claims arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission for class period purchasers.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Miller, an
oil and gas exploration, production and drilling firm, and the
other Defendants made material false statements about Miller's
financial results and about the valuation of certain oil-and-gas-
producing assets it acquired in Alaska.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Defendants: (1) issued false and misleading
consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and cash
flows; (2) failed to properly classify royalty expenses; (3)
failed to properly record sufficient compensation expense on
equity awards; (4) did not properly calculate the liability for
derivative instruments; (5) did not properly consolidate entities
under its control; and (6) improperly reported the value of
certain oil and gas assets that it acquired in Alaska.  As a
result of these problems, the Company was required to restate its
financial results. Over a series of almost daily disclosures
occurring on July 28, 2011, July 29, 2011 and August 1, 2011,
Miller's stock price dropped from $7.04 per share on July 27,
2011, to a close of $3.37 per share on August 2, 2011, a total
drop of $3.67 or 52%.

To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio
at (800) 516-9926.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
October 11, 2011, request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff for the class.  In addition, you may contact the
attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interests
in the case.   Please note: you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermandevalerio.com-- is a
national law firm representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against
corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of securities and
antitrust laws.  The firm has 49 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco
and South Florida.


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Plea to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, continues to wait for a ruling
on its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit in
Maryland, according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

In the first half of 2008, the Company was named as a defendant in
11 (subsequently reduced to nine) purported class action lawsuits
and six (subsequently reduced to two) derivative suits.  In each
of these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs claim to represent
a class of investors in the Company's shares who allegedly were
injured by misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between
May 3, 2004, and January 28, 2008.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages for themselves and the shareholders of the
class they purport to represent.  The class action lawsuits have
been consolidated into a single legal proceeding pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland.  By
court order, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the class actions on December 5, 2008 and the cases will proceed
as one consolidated case.  Similarly, a single consolidated
amended complaint was filed in the derivative cases on December
12, 2008 and these cases will likewise proceed as a single case.
In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs claim, among other things,
that the Company was injured because its directors and certain
named officers did not fulfill duties regarding the accuracy of
its financial disclosures.  A derivative suit is a lawsuit brought
by a shareholder of a corporation, not on the shareholder's own
behalf, but on behalf of the corporation and against the parties
allegedly causing harm to the corporation.  Any proceeds of a
successful derivative action are awarded to the corporation,
except to the extent they are used to pay fees to the plaintiffs'
counsel and other costs.  The derivative cases and the class
action cases have all been consolidated before the same court.
The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the class action and the
motion is before the court for decision.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because these
specific actions are still in a preliminary stage, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these matters at this
time.

Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC's primary business is its
investments in tax-exempt and taxable bonds secured predominantly
by affordable multifamily housing properties.


NIGERIA: Faces Class Action Over April Election Violence
--------------------------------------------------------
The Will reports that the Federal Government has been slammed with
a N100 billion class action lawsuit by victims of the April
election violence, who have accused the government of failure and
negligence in its primary and constitutional duty in the areas of
securing lives and properties.

The victims are mostly those who lost relatives and properties in
the northern states following the violence that followed the
Presidential election.

The Plaintiffs (110 victims) are seeking damages and compensation
in a Federal High Court in Abuja and are being represented by
Legal Resources Consortium made up of a team of Senior Advocates
of Nigeria (SANs) led by President of the Nigerian Bar
Association, Joseph Daudu SAN and Abiodun Owonikoko SAN.

Those joined as Defendants in the suit are: the Federal
Government; the Attorney General of the Federation; the Inspector
General of Police and the Director General of the State Security
Service.

Speaking to journalists in Abuja, Mr. Daudu said the suit would be
the first in Nigeria, adding that it was the victims who initiated
the idea of the lawsuit to seek compensation from the government.

Mr. Daudu added that it is the federal government's responsibility
to protect the lives and properties of its citizens.

Meanwhile, Wale Fapohunda, the Managing Partner of Legal Resources
Consortium, added that additional suits would be filed as soon as
other victims are ready.


PARTNER COMMS: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Customers
------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. disclosed that it was served
with a lawsuit and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as
a class action, filed against Partner and two other cellular
operators on August 18, 2011, in the Central District Court.

The claim alleges that the defendants charge their customers for
calls executed abroad by rounding up the actual duration of the
call based on an interval that differs from that set out in their
licenses.

The claim alleges that the total amount overcharged by Partner
from the plaintiff is NIS89 (not including VAT).  Nevertheless,
the plaintiffs noted that they are unable to estimate the total
amount claimed, if the lawsuit is recognized as a class action.
However, they noted that the total amount is at least within the
jurisdiction of the District Court, so that the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs to be at least NIS2.5
million.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.

About Partner Communications Partner Communications Company Ltd.
is an Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony and internet services) under the orange(TM)
brand.  The Company provides mobile communications services to
over 3 million subscribers in Israel.


PEET'S COFFEE: California Wage Violation Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit alleging violations of the California Labor Code.

On February 23, 2010, a complaint was filed in Orange County
Superior Court by two former employees, on behalf of themselves
and all other non-exempt employees similarly situated in the state
of California naming the Company as a defendant. One of the
plaintiffs was removed by an amended complaint and the remaining
plaintiff alleges claims for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest
period premiums, unpaid business expenses, unpaid minimum wages,
untimely wages paid at time of termination, untimely payment of
wages, failure to pay vacation wages, violation of California
Business & Professions Code section 17200 and non-compliant wage
statements and seeks injunctive relief, restitution, monetary
damages, penalties under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act, costs and attorneys' fees, penalties, and
prejudgment interest.  At this time, it is not feasible to predict
the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this
proceeding.  The Company has previously settled two employment
related lawsuits certified as a class: (1) a $2.5 million
settlement in 2010 for a complaint filed by three former employees
on behalf of themselves and all other California store managers
alleging they were not paid overtime wages, were not provided meal
or rest periods, were not provided accurate wage statements and
were not reimbursed for business expenses, and (2) a $2.1 million
final settlement payment in 2004 of another class action lawsuit.

No updates were reported in 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.

Founded in Berkeley, California in 1966, Peet's Coffee & Tea,
Inc., is a specialty coffee roaster and marketer of fresh, high-
quality whole bean coffee and tea sold through multiple channels
of distribution for home and away-from-home enjoyment.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Awaits Court Approval of N.C. Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a settlement
entered in a consolidated class action before a North Carolina
state court, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

During January and February 2011, the Company and its directors
were named as defendants in eleven purported class action lawsuits
with ten lawsuits brought in the Superior Court, Wake County, N.C.
and one lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, each in connection with the
proposed merger of Duke Energy Corporation and the Company. The
complaints in the actions allege, among other things, that the
Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by
the individual defendants, in that it allegedly does not provide
for full and fair value for the Company's shareholders; that the
Merger Agreement contains coercive deal protection measures; and
that the Merger Agreement and the Merger were approved as a
result, allegedly, of improper self-dealing by certain defendants
who would receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits
and continued employment pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The
complaints in the actions also allege that the Company aided and
abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. As relief, the plaintiffs in the actions seek, among other
things, to enjoin completion of the Merger. The defendants believe
that the allegations of the complaints in the actions are without
merit and that they have substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims made in the actions.

In each of the actions, the parties have agreed that the
defendants need not move, plead, or otherwise respond to the
complaint until thirty days after the plaintiff has filed an
amended or consolidated amended complaint, or advised the
defendants that it will not be filing such pleadings. These
actions brought in the Superior Court, Wake County, N.C., have all
been designated as Complex Business Cases and assigned to the
North Carolina Business Court. The court scheduled an initial
hearing and status conference for March 31, 2011, which by order
dated March 30, 2011, the court continued until further notice.

Additionally, the complaint in the federal action was amended in
early April 2011 to include allegations that the defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with statements
contained in the Registration Statement. Given the new allegations
invoking federal securities laws, the defendants intend to move,
plead, or otherwise respond to the amended federal complaint
consistent with the provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, which now governs the federal action.

On March 31, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent a
derivative demand letter to Mr. William D. Johnson, Chairman,
President and CEO of the Company, demanding that the Progress
Energy board of directors desist from moving forward with the
Merger, make certain disclosures, and engage in an auction of the
company. Also on March 31, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr. Johnson
a substantially identical derivative demand letter on behalf of
two other purported Progress Energy shareholders.

On April 13, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent
another derivative demand letter to Mr. Johnson further demanding
that the Progress Energy board of directors desist from moving
forward with the Merger unless certain changes are made to the
Merger Agreement and additional disclosures are made. Also on
April 13, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr. Johnson a substantially
identical derivative demand letter on behalf of two other
purported Progress Energy shareholders.

On April 25, 2011, the Progress Energy board of directors
established a special committee of disinterested directors to
conduct a review and evaluation of the allegations and legal
claims set forth in the derivative demand letters.

By order dated June 17, 2011, the court consolidated the state
court cases. On June 21, 2011, the plaintiffs in the state court
actions filed a verified consolidated amended complaint in the
consolidated state court actions alleging breach of fiduciary duty
by the individual defendants, and that the Company aided and
abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. The verified consolidated amended complaint further alleges
that the Registration Statement and amendments filed on April 8,
April 25, and May 13, 2011 failed to disclose material facts,
giving rise to plaintiffs' claims.

On July 11, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow its shareholders
to vote on the proposals required in connection with the Merger at
its special meeting of its shareholders, the Company entered into
a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs in the consolidated
state court actions and other named defendants to settle the
consolidated action and all related claims that were or could have
been asserted in other actions, subject to court approval. If the
court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum of
understanding, the claims will be released and the consolidated
amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to
the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the Company agreed
to make available additional information to its shareholders in
advance of the special meeting of shareholders of Progress Energy
that was scheduled for August 23, 2011 in Raleigh, N.C. to vote
upon the proposal to approve the plan of merger contained in the
Merger Agreement. The additional information is contained in a
Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 11, 2011 and filed by the
company with the SEC on July 15, 2011. In addition, the Company
has agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs'
counsel not to exceed $550,000 and ultimately determined by the
court. At a hearing on July 29, 2011, the court indicated that it
would provide preliminary approval of the settlement so that the
special meeting of the shareholders to vote on the merger could
proceed as scheduled for August 23, 2011. The court will schedule
a final hearing on the settlement during the fourth quarter of
2011. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
The details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to be
sent to Progress Energy's shareholders prior to a hearing before
the court to consider both the settlement and plaintiffs'
application to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses. The
settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to
shareholders of Progress Energy in connection with the proposed
Merger or the timing of the special meeting of shareholders.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Units Continue to Defend Hurricane Katrina Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend themselves
in a class action lawsuit alleging that their greenhouse emissions
contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms like
Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In May 2011, Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy
Carolinas, Inc. and Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress
Energy Florida, Inc. were named in a complaint of a class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi. Plaintiffs claim that PEC and PEF, along with
numerous other utility, oil, coal and chemical companies, are
liable for damages relating to losses suffered by victims of
Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' greenhouse
gas emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms
such as Hurricane Katrina. The Company believes the plaintiffs'
claim is without merit; however, it cannot predict the outcome of
this matter.

Progress Energy, Inc. is a holding company headquartered in
Raleigh, N.C., subject to regulation by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.


RADIO ONE: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from an order relating to a global settlement in the
lawsuits against numerous companies, including Radio One Inc.,
over their initial public offerings, remain pending, according to
the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In November 2001, Radio One and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned, In re Radio One, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10160.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court against
hundreds of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted
initial public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s
("the IPO Cases").  In the complaint filed against Radio One, as
amended, the plaintiffs claimed that Radio One, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain of its
public offerings violated Section 11 of the Securities Act.  The
plaintiffs' claim was based on allegations that Radio One's
registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose material
facts regarding the compensation to be received by the
underwriters, and the stock allocation practices of the
underwriters.  The complaint also contains a claim for violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that these omissions constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

In July 2002, Radio One joined in a global motion, filed by the
Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits.  In October 2002, the court
entered an order dismissing the Company's named officers and
directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an
agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to Radio
One's officers and directors until September 30, 2003.  In
February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to
dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against Radio One
and most of the Issuers.

In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of Radio One's board
of directors approved in principle a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs.  The proposed settlement would have provided for the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the participating
Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Cases and the
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the
Issuers may have against their underwriters.  In September 2003,
in connection with the proposed settlement, Radio One's named
officers and directors extended the tolling agreement so that it
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized.  In June
2004, Radio One executed a final settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.  In 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.  On February 24, 2006, the court
dismissed litigation filed against certain underwriters in
connection with the claims to be assigned to the plaintiffs under
the settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the court held a Final
Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of
the settlement.  On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the district court's earlier decision certifying
as class actions the six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases."
Thereafter, the district court ordered a stay of all proceedings
in all of the IPO Cases 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' rehearing petition, but
clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited
class in the district court.  Accordingly, the settlement was
terminated pursuant to stipulation of the parties and did not
receive final approval.

Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six "focus cases" on or
about August 14, 2007.  Radio One is not a defendant in the focus
cases.  In September 2007, Radio One's named officers and
directors again extended the tolling agreement with plaintiffs. On
or about September 27, 2007, plaintiffs moved to certify the
classes alleged in the "focus cases" and to appoint class
representatives and class counsel in those cases.  The focus cases
issuers filed motions to dismiss the claims against them in
November 2007 and an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for the
class certification in December 2007.  On March 16, 2008, the
district court denied the motions to dismiss in the focus cases.
In August 2008, the parties to the IPO Cases began mediation
toward a global settlement of the IPO Cases.  In September 2008,
Radio One's board of directors approved in principle participation
in a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs.  On October 2,
2008, the plaintiffs withdrew their class certification motion.
In April 2009, a global settlement was reached in the IPO Cases
and submitted to the district court for approval.   On June 9,
2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be published
and mailed to class members.   On September 10, 2009, the court
held a Final Fairness Hearing.  On October 6, 2009, the court
certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted final
approval of the settlement.  On or about October 23, 2009, three
shareholders filed a Petition for Permission To Appeal Class
Certification Order, challenging the court's certification of the
settlement classes.  Beginning on October 29, 2009, a number of
shareholders also filed direct appeals, objecting to final
approval of the settlement.  If the settlement is affirmed on
appeal, the settlement will result in the dismissal of all claims
against Radio One and its officers and directors with prejudice,
and the Company's pro rata share of the settlement fund will be
fully funded by insurance.

Radio One, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an urban-
oriented, multi-media company that primarily targets African-
American consumers.  The Company's core business is its radio
broadcasting franchise that is the largest radio broadcasting
operation that primarily targets African-American and urban
listeners.  The Company currently owns and operates 52 broadcast
stations located in 15 urban markets in the United States.


SKY-MOBI LIMITED: "Vandevelde" Suit Vs. CFO Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit against Sky-Mobi Limited's chief
financial officer remains pending, according to the Company's
August 17, 2011, Form 20-f filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.

Mr. Carl Yeung, the Company's chief financial officer, served as
an independent director and the chairman of the audit committee of
China Natural Gas, Inc., or CNS, a Delaware corporation whose
shares of common stock are listed on the NASDAQ Global Market from
2008 to November 2010.

CNS and certain of its officers and directors, including Mr. Carl
Yeung, have been named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The
first action, captioned Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., et
al., No. 10-cv-00728, was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware on August 26, 2010.  The
plaintiffs in Vandevelde alleged that CNS failed to disclose and
properly account for a bank loan in the amount of US$17.7 million
in its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 and quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2010 and that the pledge to secure the bank loan violated an
indenture for senior notes and warrants of CNS, giving the holder
of those notes and warrants the right to declare a default under
that indenture.  The complaints further alleged that on August 20,
2010, CNS amended its annual report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2009 and quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010 to disclose the bank loan and restate
its financial statements in light of the note and warrant holder's
right to declare a default under the indenture.  According to the
plaintiffs, the price of CNS's shares declined by approximately
20% in response to this news.  Mr. Yeung could potentially be held
individually liable for civil damages in these actions.

Two putative class members in the Vandevelde action have moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff.  After the Court decides those
motions, the putative class member who is appointed lead plaintiff
will have an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The
defendants will not be required to answer or otherwise respond to
the complaint until after the lead plaintiff either decides to
proceed on the basis of the original complaint or files an amended
complaint.

A second action, captioned Baranowski v. China Natural Gas, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-6572, was filed on September 3, 2010 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The plaintiff in that action, which was based on the same
claims as those asserted by the plaintiff in Vandevelde and on
substantially similar allegations, voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice on November 23, 2010.

Sky-Mobi Limited operates a mobile application store in China.  On
its Maopao application store, users can browse, download and
purchase a wide range of applications and content such as single-
player games, mobile music and books.  In addition, the Company
has established a mobile social network community in China, the
Maopao Community, where it operates mobile social games and
provides applications and content with social network functions to
registered members.  Maopao enables mobile applications and
content to be downloaded and run on a variety of mobile handsets
with different hardware and operating system configurations.


SONY COMPUTER: Accused of Illegally Keeping Customer Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Sony Computer Entertainment
America, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 4:11-
cv-04084 (N.D. Calif., August 18, 2011) asserts unlawful retention
of Sony customers' personally identifiable information, including
movie and video game rental and purchase histories, in violation
of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

The lawsuit alleges that Sony maintains a veritable digital
dossier on thousands, if not millions, of consumers throughout the
country.

Mr. Rodriguez contends that Sony has knowingly retained the
"personally identifiable information" and sensitive video
programming viewing histories for an indefinite period of time.

Sony is a Delaware limited liability company and does business
throughout the state of California and the United States of
America.  Sony sells and rents movies and video games to
consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          William C. Gray, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  bgray@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com


TICKETMASTER: 9th Cir. Revives Portions of Two Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 22 revived portions
of two proposed class actions against Ticketmaster and its
partners for an alleged online scheme to enroll unwitting
consumers in a rewards program and charge monthly fees to their
credit cards.

Previously, a trial judge had refused to certify two class actions
that accused Ticketmaster of violating California's Unfair
Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Ticketmaster's "entertainment rewards program" has prompted three
separate proposed class actions in California's Central District.

Essentially identical, the lawsuits allege that the ticket seller,
working with Entertainment Publications LLC (EPI) and other
partners, induces customers into inadvertently buying reward
program services through its Web site.  The plaintiffs claim that
when a consumer clicks on a certain link on Ticketmaster.com, they
are automatically taken to Entertainment Publications' Web site.
Customers who enter their e-mail address twice on Entertainment
Publications' page and click a "yes" button are enrolled in the
rewards program.  If they have given their credit or debit card
information to Tickmaster, Entertainment Publications then charges
the customer a monthly membership fee after a 30-day trial period,
according to the ruling.

All three proposed class actions asserted claims for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and the Federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act.  The
actions proposed a class of all persons who, between Sept. 27,
2004, and the present, bought tickets through Ticketmaster.com,
were enrolled in Entertainment Rewards by Ticketmaster passing
their credit- or debit-card information to Entertainment
Publications, were charged for Entertainment Rewards, and did not
print any coupon or apply for any cash-back award from
Entertainment Rewards.

U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer denied class certification in one
of the lawsuits and dismissed the other two.  The federal appeals
panel in Pasadena reversed in part, resurrecting portions from two
of the three cases.

In the proposed class action filed by John Mancini, Duke Sanders
and Taylor Myers, the panel found possible merit with the
plaintiffs' unfair-competition claims but said the lower court
based its ruling on a misreading of state law.

The proposed class action is "plainly a case where appellants'
claim is that they came, saw, were conquered by stealth, and were
relieved of their money," Judge Ferdinand Fernandez wrote for the
panel.  "Basically, appellees' real objection is that state law
gives a right to 'monetary relief to a citizen suing under it'
(restitution) without a more particularized roof of injury and
causation.  That is not enough to preclude class standing here."

The judges also reversed the District Court's dismissal of a
Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim by Craig and Julie Johnson.
The lower court dismissed the Johnsons' claim because it was
"duplicative of [the] Mancini [claims] and suffered from the same
defects," according to the ruling.  This was an error, the panel
found.

"While it is true that the proposed class in the Johnsons'
original complaints was, in fact, subject to the same defects as
Mancini, the Johnsons then proposed a second amended complaint
which narrowed the class by adding a limitation to those who
'reported in the course of cancellation or seeking a refund that
they were unaware that they would be enrolled in or charged for
Entertainment Rewards," Judge Fernandez wrote.  "The District
Court based its denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend on its
determination that the limitation made no difference.  We do not
agree."

A copy of the Opinion in Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., et al.,
No. 08-56065 (9th Cir.); Johnson, et al. v. Ticketmaster Corp., et
al., No. 09-56126 (9th Cir.); and Mancini, et al. v. Ticketmaster
Corp., et al., No. 10-55341 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/dtre49

The Plaintiffs-Appellants were represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com

The Defendants-Appellees were represented by

          Donald R. Brown, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4318
          E-mail: dbrown@manatt.com


TREE.COM INC: Class Certification Denial of "Schnee" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification in
the lawsuit captioned "Schnee v. LendingTree, LLC and Home Loan
Center, Inc., No. 06CC00211 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.),"
according to Tree.com, Inc.'s August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On October 11, 2006, four individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action against LendingTree and Home Loan Center, in the
California Superior Court for Orange County.  Plaintiffs alleged
that they used the LendingTree.com Web site to find potential
lenders and without their knowledge were referred to LendingTree's
direct lender, HLC; that Lending Tree, LLC and HLC did not
adequately disclose the relationship between them; and that HLC
charged Plaintiffs higher rates and fees than they otherwise would
have been charged.  Based upon these allegations, Plaintiffs
asserted that LendingTree and HLC violated the California UCL,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, and the
CLRA.  Plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide class of
consumers who sought lender referrals from LendingTree and
obtained loans from HLC since December 1, 2004. Plaintiffs sought
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

On September 25, 2009, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was denied in its entirety; Plaintiffs appealed such action.  The
Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the matter in July 2011.
On July 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
denial of class certification.

Tree.com, Inc. is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which owns
several brands and businesses that provide information, tools,
advice, products and services for critical transactions in their
customers' lives.  The Company's family of brands includes:
LendingTree.com(R), GetSmart.com(R), RealEstate.com(R),
DegreeTree.com(SM), HealthTree.com(SM), LendingTreeAutos.com,
DoneRight.com(R), and InsuranceTree.com(SM).


WEB.COM GROUP: Appeals on IPO Settlement Pact Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from court approval of a settlement reached in about 300
coordinated cases, including a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit involving Web.com Group, Inc.'s affiliate, remain
pending, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In November 2001, the Company's affiliate, Register.com Inc., its
Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer and former Vice
President of Finance and Accounting Richard D. Forman and its
former President and Chief Executive Officer Alan G. Breitman were
named as defendants in class action complaints alleging violations
of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. A Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed in the
Southern District of New York on April 19, 2002.

The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Register.com and Individual Defendants. The essence of the
complaint is that defendants issued and sold Register.com's common
stock pursuant to the Registration Statement for the March 3, 2000
Initial Public Offering without disclosing to investors that
certain underwriters in the offering had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. The
complaint also alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO
failed to disclose that the underwriters allocated Register.com
shares in the IPO to customers in exchange for the customers'
promises to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices above the IPO price, thereby maintaining,
distorting or inflating the market price for the shares in the
aftermarket.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies. On
July 15, 2002, Register.com moved to dismiss all claims against it
and the Individual Defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court
dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without
prejudice. This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a)
control person claims without prejudice, since these claims were
asserted only against the Individual Defendants. On February 19,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against
Register.com.  On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit vacated a
decision by the district court granting class certification in six
of the approximately 300 nearly identical actions that are part of
the consolidated litigation, which are intended to serve as test,
or "focus" cases. The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which
do not include Register.com. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied the petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but
noted that the plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify
more narrow classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in Register.com's case, reached a settlement. It
provides for releases of existing claims and claims that could
have been asserted relating to the conduct alleged to be wrongful
from the class of investors participating in the settlement. The
insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will
make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including
Register.com. On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval
to the settlement. Two appeals are proceeding. Plaintiffs have
moved to dismiss both appeals. Four additional appeals that had
been filed have been withdrawn. The Company intends to continue to
defend the action vigorously if the settlement does not survive
the appeal. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the
Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. The
Company has notified its underwriters and insurance companies of
the existence of the claims. The Company presently believes, after
consultation with legal counsel, that the ultimate outcome of this
matter will not have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations, liquidity or financial position.

Web.com Group, Inc. is a provider of online marketing for small
businesses.


                            *********

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  * * *